Uncategorized

From the AZ Daily Sun: “U.S. Forest Service hopes new minimum rates can help clear forests” — thanks to Nick Smith of Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities for the link. In areas with no-value biomass, paying to have it hauled away may be an option to leaving it in place or burning it.

Title of a paper ($) in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, “Is fire “for the birds”? How two rare species influence fire management across the US,” by 17 authors including noted fire ecologist Scott L. Stephens (professor at UC Berkeley) and Thomas A. Spies (key owl researcher at the Pacific Northwest Research Station). UC Berkeley press release:

Spotted owl populations are in decline all along the West Coast, and as climate change increases the risk of large and destructive wildfires in the region, these iconic animals face the real threat of losing even more of their forest habitat.

Rather than attempting to preserve the owl’s remaining habitat exactly as is, wildfire management — through prescribed burning and restoration thinning — could help save the species, argues a new paper by fire ecologists and wildlife biologists and appearing today (July 2 ) in the journal, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

The paper compares the plight of the owl with that of another iconic threatened species, the red-cockaded woodpecker, which has made significant comebacks in recent years — thanks, in part, to active forest management in the southern pine forests that the woodpecker calls home. Though the habitat needs of the two birds are different, both occupy forests that once harbored frequent blazes before fire suppression became the norm.

“In the South, the Endangered Species Act has been used as a vehicle to empower forest restoration through prescribed burning and restoration thinning, and the outcome for the red-cockaded woodpecker has been positive and enduring,” said Scott Stephens, a professor of environmental science, policy and management at the University of California, Berkeley, and lead author on the study.

“In the West, it’s just totally the opposite,” Stephens added. “Even though both places physically have strong connections to frequent fire, the feeling here is that the best thing to do is to try to protect what we have and not allow the return of frequent fire — but that’s really difficult when you have unbridled fires just ripping through the landscape.”

…

However, suppressing all fires in order to encourage growth of these dense canopies also creates conditions that are ripe for large, severe wildfires that can take out not just the smaller trees, but entire forests, obliterating swaths of owl habitat in the process. The 2014 King Fire, for example, tore through regions of the Eldorado National Forest that were home to a long-term study of the California spotted owl and caused the bird’s largest population decline in the 23-year history of the study.

“A key question to be asking is: Where would owl habitats be with more characteristic fire regimes, and could we tailor landscape conditions where these habitats are less vulnerable and more supportive of today’s wildfires?” said co-author Paul Hessburg, a research landscape ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.

The solution would mean, “essentially creating less habitat in order to have more in the long run,” he said.

Greenwire’s article today, “Will more cell towers fuel a ‘nature deficit’?” reminds me of my recent visit to the Mount St. Helens National Monument in Washington (managed by the Gifford Pinchot NF). At the Windy Ridge viewpoint, I walked to the end of the viewing deck with fewer people — just two. Turned out that both of them were talking on their cell phones; one of them was sheltering from the wind and drizzle under the roof over an interpretive kiosk, and the roof acted like a megaphone. I soon departed for other, quieter viewpoints and the USFS campground outside the monument, which had no cell service.

The article reports that National Parks are adding cell infrastructure.

And at Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming, in perhaps the biggest digital expansion of all, park officials ignited a controversy with their plan to install new towers at nine sites, along with 62 miles of high-speed fiber-optic cable, near the park’s main roads.

With no nationwide policy to guide them, officials at the National Park Service’s 419 sites are finding all sorts of ways to increase their digital connections, hoping to lure more younger visitors. Supporters say it boosts safety and interest in visiting parks.

But critics say it’s a big mistake and actually ensures that children will feel more disconnected from nature in the long run.

“People should have a right to a no-Wi-Fi zone — there should be places where we’re not in contact and reachable,” said Richard Louv, a California author of “Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder.”

Louv acknowledged that he appears to be on the losing end of the argument with park officials, but he said people should be taught “that connecting to other life is more important than collecting your email.”

I was somewhat encouraged by the family camping a few sites from mine. They apparently weren’t using any electronic devices — they spent most of their time fishing and hanging out by the fire, and the 3 kids spent a lot of time running around with their dog and playing in the woods. If there had been cell service, those folks might have been disconnected from nature much of the time.

Found this message in my inbox…. mentions the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2019, introduced in May by Rep. Ruben Gallego, (D) Arizona. “To provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System.”

Last line of the bill is the heart of it: “The Secretary shall not allow road construction, road reconstruction, or logging in an inventoried roadless area where those activities are prohibited by the Roadless Rule.”

Sounds like this prohibits thinning and other types management.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Steven,

Grizzly bears, bald eagles and other wildlife have thrived for centuries amid the towering trees of Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. Now they need our help.

The Trump administration is poised to open the Tongass up to logging, mining, road-building and other destructive development, potentially clearcutting its pristine wilderness.1

But today, we have a chance to protect the Tongass — permanently.

Tell Congress: Keep the Tongass wild.

In 2001, our national network’s staff and 1.6 million supporters helped convince the Clinton administration to protect roadless areas in national forests from logging and other development.

The principle was simple: If it’s still wild, it should stay that way.

The resulting “Roadless Rule” protected 58.5 million acres of national forest in 39 states.2 But the Trump administration is poised to remove this protection for the Tongass, putting the ancient forest and the wildlife that call it home directly in the path of logging, mining and drilling interests.3

A new bill in Congress, the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2019, would give the Roadless Rule the full force of law. That means the Trump administration — or any future administration — would no longer have the authority to exempt the Tongass from Roadless Rule protections.4

Tell your U.S. House representative: Pass the Roadless Area Conservation Act.

The trees of the Tongass are older than America itself. The forest forms a sprawling ecosystem that is home to moose, deer, bears and more. Its rivers teem with salmon and more than 300 different species of birds perch in its branches.5,6

Our world is already running short on nature. To risk losing a place like the Tongass simply to extract just a few more resources from the earth would be a tragedy. Tell your representative to stand up for the Tongass.

Thank you for making it all possible.

Sincerely,

Celeste Meiffren-Swango
State Director

1. Elizabeth Jenkins, “Is there something for everyone in a new vision for Tongass roads?” KTOO Public Media, November 28, 2018.
2. “New Legislation Blocks New Roads On Nearly 60 Million Acres Of Public Forests,” KXRO News, May 3, 2019.
3. Elizabeth Jenkins, “New legislation introduced in Congress aims to strengthen Roadless Rule,” KTOO Public Media, May 2, 2019.
4. Elizabeth Jenkins, “New legislation introduced in Congress aims to strengthen Roadless Rule,” KTOO Public Media, May 2, 2019.
5. “Conservation: Tongass National Forest,” Audubon Alaska, accessed June 11, 2019.
6. “Tongass National Forest: Glaciers,” United States Department of Agriculture, accessed June 11, 2019.

According to WildEarth Guardians:

Thanks to Guardians and allies, what would have been perhaps the largest logging and road-building project in Wyoming’s history has been withdrawn.

The Medicine Bow Landscape Analysis Vegetation (LaVA) Project covered 850,000 acres and would have logged 360,000 of them, including 123,000 acres across 25 different Roadless Areas. It would also have included building 600 miles of temporary roads, which fragment habitat and destroy water quality.

The general public has stiffly opposed the project, which was proposed in 2017. Considering its unprecedented scale, lack of detail and environmental analysis, levels of road construction, loss of wildlife habitat, effects on Roadless Areas, and lack of analysis of climate change and economic impacts, it’s certainly a major victory that the Forest Service is taking a step back.

Read the press release.

Last Friday I happened to be driving around and heard a well done story on Chronic Wasting Disease on Science Friday. I know that many TSW readers are interested in wildlife, so here is the link.

I’ve decided to start a new feature, based on the links for a book I’m writing on the practice of science, and (of course) how it could be improved. This feature will be called “Practice of Science Friday” and highlight a variety of studies and opinions on the practice of science. The intention will be to talk about topics relevant to the forest and climate sciences but we’ll also talk about the broader contexts of the sciences.

This week’s post is a link to an excellent piece in Vox, by a science journalist, Brian Resnick, on the puzzling problem of why science journalists publish exaggerated stories about research (hint, they copy press releases!). But rather than engaging in protracted hand-wringing, he actually has practical suggestions for how scientists can get better stories about their work. I recommend reading the whole thing.. there are many interesting examples from the health field.

To be honest, the research on how scientific press releases translate to press coverage doesn’t make my profession look all that good. It suggests that we largely just repeat whatever we’re told from the press releases, for good or for bad. It’s concerning. If we can’t evaluate the claims of press releases, how can we evaluate the merits of studies (which aren’t immune to shoddy methods and overhyped findings themselves)?

The difference between what scientists report in the studies and what journalists report in their articles can look like a game of broken telephone. A study investigating the neural underpinnings of why shopping is joyful get garbled into a piece about how your brain thinks shopping is as good as sex. A study exploring how dogs intuit human emotions, becomes “Our dogs can read our minds.”

Resnick cites a study by a fellow named Chambers:

Still, it comes to a conclusion that ought to be obvious: When universities put forth good, unhyped information, unhyped news follows. And perhaps more importantly, the researchers didn’t find evidence that these more careful press releases get less news coverage. Which should send a message: Universities don’t need to hype findings to get coverage.

“I think what we need is to establish that the responsibility [to be accurate] lies with everyone,” Chambers says. “The responsibility lies with the scientists to ensure that the press release is as accurate as possible. The responsibility lies with the press officer to ensure that they listen to the scientist. And then the science journalists need to be responsible for making sure they read the original article to the best of their ability and deflate exaggeration as much as possible that might persist despite all of our best efforts.”

As a science journalist, I’ve really appreciated it when academics have gone above and beyond to try to communicate tricky findings to the public. One of the best examples of this: Last year, when a huge, easy-to-misunderstand paper linked genetics to educational success, the researchers wrote an enormous FAQ, written in plain language, getting ahead of misconceptions. The FAQ was possibly longer than the scientific paper itself. In my interviews with researchers, I try to ask a version of the question: “What are the wrong conclusions to draw from this study?” Press releases, and other science communications from universities, could do better to include similar disclaimers in plain language.

I like the idea of FAQ’s published by the scientists.

New research from scientists at the University of Montana found that slow-growing ponderosa pines may have a better chance of surviving longer than fast-growing ones, especially as climate change increases the frequency and intensity of drought,

This new research is important because the timber industry and U.S. Forest Service often justify “thinning” in ponderosa pine forests on public lands to increase the growth rate and “restore” resilience. But what if in their zeal to “restore” the forest and increase the growth rate of the remaining ponderosa pines, the timber industry and Forest Service might actually be destroying the very forest they are trying to create?

As George Wuerthner (who has degrees in wildlife biology and botany, and has worked as a biologist for the federal government) wrote in an email when he shared this new research, “Here’s another example of how foresters are ignorant and damaging our forests when they suggest that they are thinning to ‘restore’ resilience. When they thin the forest they have no idea of the genetic make up of the trees. But some trees naturally grow slowly and are more resistant to drought. This has been documented in other species like lodgepole pine as well. Foresters with a paint gun have no idea which trees are genetically resistant to bark beetles, drought, cold, etc. but they often take out 50% of the trees in thinning projects. In their efforts to ‘restore’ the forest they may destroy it.”

According to the press release from the University of Montana:

The study, led by UM alumna Beth Roskilly and Professor Anna Sala, was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week. The researchers sampled growth rates of ponderosa pine trees of varying ages at two remote sites in Idaho. They also studied structural traits of the trees’ xylem — vascular tissue that transports water and minerals through the wood and provides structural support.

Their findings reveal that some young trees grow quickly while others grow slowly. But old ponderosa pine trees — those older than 350 years — are slow growers compared to younger trees, and these individual trees have always been slow growing, even when they were young.

In contrast to predictions, slow-growing trees, whether old or young, did not produce denser, tougher wood, which might have made the trees more resistant to disease or decay. Instead, a key difference between fast and slow growers resides in a microscopic valve-like structure between the cells that transport water in the wood, called the pit membrane. The unique shape of this valve in slow-growing trees provides greater safety against drought, but it slows down water transport, limiting growth rate.

“Ponderosa pines, like people, cannot have it all,” said Roskilly, the paper’s lead author. “Drought resistance contributes to longevity but also to slow growth. In other words, there is a fundamental tradeoff based on xylem structure. Our study suggests that trees with fast growth become large quickly, which can be beneficial for young trees competing for resources, but they are more vulnerable to drought and can die at earlier ages. On the other hand, trees that grow slowly are more drought resistant, which enhances longevity.”

Roskilly earned her UM master’s degree in organismal biology, ecology and evolution in 2018, and the study is a result of her degree work in UM’s College of Humanities and Sciences.

“Ancient trees are special for many reasons,” said Sala, a professor in UM’s Division of Biological Sciences and an adjunct professor in the W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation. “They are beautiful, they make the highest quality musical instruments, they help maintain diversity, and they store atmospheric carbon in wood for a long time. But the results of this research also suggest they are special because forest managers cannot make just any ponderosa pine tree live for centuries no matter how hard they try. For ponderosa pines to become centennials, their wood must possess this unique structure.”

On June 13, 2019, the Forest Service released a proposed rule amending its National Environmental Policy Act procedures.

This very detailed analysis of the proposed rule is making its way around various forest protection and public lands protection email listserves. It was written by people with decades of experience on these public lands issues.

According to the Forest Service, the proposed rule is designed to “increas[e] the pace and scale of work accomplished on the ground” – with a focus on removing hazardous fuels – by “complet[ing] project decision making in a timelier manner.”

As the analysis documents, the proposal, however, is much broader than its stated goals, exempting unqualified commercial timber harvest and a breathtaking range of other forest management activities from environmental analysis or public review via a suite of new and expanded categorical exclusions and other mechanisms that fundamentally undermine NEPA’s bedrock principles of government transparency, accountability, public involvement, and science-based decision-making.

Rather than focusing on and addressing the actual causes of agency inefficiency in environmental decision-making (e.g., funding, staffing, training, and turnover), the Forest Service has targeted America’s “magna carta” of environmental laws with its radical proposal. Ironically, the result is likely to be increased litigation and poorer management of our shared national forests, as corners are cut, laws are broken, and the public is cut out of decision-making.

Among other things the Trump administration’s Forest Service proposed rule would:

• Adopt seven new categorical exclusions (CEs) and expand two existing CEs to shield from any environmental review or public process a wide array of projects. The Forest Service estimates that up to 75% of decisions that currently receive public input could proceed under CEs in the future, including: commercial logging of up to 4,200 acres, converting illegal off-road vehicle (ORV) routes to official Forest Service System roads or trails, construction of up to 5 miles of Forest Service System roads.

• Eliminate the requirement to conduct public scoping for 98% of all proposed actions, including those covered by CEs.7 The agency would be required to provide notice of CE projects only in its Schedule of Proposed Actions or SOPA, which may not be published until after the decision has been made and the project completed. Without an opportunity to weigh in on proposed CE projects, the only option for the public to have its voice heard would be to resort to the federal courts.

• Weaken the “extraordinary circumstances” backstop for CE proposals.

• Permit the use of multiple CEs to carry out land management decisions.

• Remove Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) and potential wilderness areas from the classes of actions that normally require preparation of an EIS.

• Embraces “condition-based management,” which allows the Forest Service to authorize land management activities – usually including timber harvest – without first gathering information about the resources that would be affected on the ground.

Again, you can read the entire analysis here.

Here are the first few paragraphs of an entry on Judith Curry’s blog. Curry is a respected scientist who is criticized by some for her work and views when they don’t conform to climate-change orthodoxy. Her bio: “I am President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). Previously, I was Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.”

This blog post isn’t about forestry or climate change specifically, but about science/research in general. She discusses an article whose authors write that “Scientists are not immune to confirmation biases and motivated reasoning.” Neither are foresters, environmentalists, and others who post on this blog, myself included, at times. Interesting insights! The entire post is worth reading and discussing.

Climate scientists’ motivated reasoning

Posted on June 19, 2019 by curryja | 99 Comments

by Judith Curry

Insights into the motivated reasoning of climate scientists, including my own efforts to sort out my own biases and motivated reasoning following publication of the Webster et al. (2005) paper

A recent twitter thread by Moshe Hoffman (h/t Larry Kummer) reminded me of a very insightful paper by Lee Jussim, Joe Duarte and others entitled Interpretations and methods: Towards a more self-correcting social psychology

Apart from the rather innocuous title, the paper provides massively important insights into scientific research in general, with substantial implications for climate science.

The Jussim et al. paper is the motivation for this blog post that addresses the motivated reasoning of individual climate scientists. And also for my next post that will address the broader ‘masking’ biases in climate science.

<begin quote>

“Getting it right” is the sine qua non of science. Science can tolerate individual mistakes and flawed theories, but only if it has reliable mechanisms for efficient self-correction. Unfortunately, science is not always self-correcting. Indeed, a series of threats to the integrity of scientific research has recently come to the fore across the sciences, including questionable research practices, failures to replicate, publication biases, and political biases.

Motivated reasoning refers to biased information processing that is driven by goals unrelated to accurate belief formation. A specific type of motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, occurs when people seek out and evaluate information in ways that confirm their pre-existing views while downplaying, ignoring, or discrediting information of equal or greater quality that opposes their views. People intensely scrutinize counter-attitudinal evidence while easily accepting information supporting their views. People generate convincing arguments to justify their automatic evaluations, producing an illusion of objectivity.

Scientists are not immune to confirmation biases and motivated reasoning. Values influence each phase of the research process, including how people interpret research findings. Reviewers’ theoretical and ideological views can influence their evaluation of research reports, leading them to judge studies that oppose their beliefs more critically than studies supporting their views. Consequently, they are then less likely to recommend publication of studies with undesired findings or funding for studies based on undesirable theories or hypotheses.

There are powerful incentives to present a strong, compelling story when describing their research. Most of us are motivated to get the science right, but we are also motivated to get the studies published and our grants funded. We want our colleagues to find our research sufficiently interesting and important to support publishing it, and then to cite it, preferably a lot. We want jobs, promotions, and tenure. We want popular media to publicize our research and to disseminate our findings beyond the confines of our lab. We might even hope to tell a story so compelling we can produce a bestselling popular book and receive lucrative consulting and speaking engagements, or have our findings influence policy decisions.

In brief, powerful incentives exist that motivate us to achieve — or, at least, appear to achieve — a “Wow Effect”. A “Wow Effect” is some novel result that comes to be seen as having far-reaching theoretical, methodological, or practical implications. It is the type of work likely to be emulated, massively cited, and highly funded.

….