CORVALLIS, Ore. – Forests on the west slope of Oregon’s Cascade Range experienced fire much more often between 1500 and 1895 than had been previously thought, according to new research by scientists at Oregon State University.
The findings provide important insight, the authors say, into how landscapes might adapt to climate change and future fire regimes.
James Johnston of the OSU College of Forestry led the study, which was published in Ecosphere.
“Wildland fire is a fundamental forest ecosystem process,” he said. “With temperatures rising and more and more area burning, we need to know as much as we can about the long-term variability in fire.”
Johnson and collaborators at Oregon State, the University of Oregon and the U.S. Forest Service gathered tree ring data at 16 sites in the southern part of the Willamette National Forest, in the general vicinity of Oakridge.
Trees form scars after cambial cells are killed by wildfire heat, he said. These scars are partially or completely covered by new tissue as a tree grows, and tree rings tell the story of when the fire exposure occurred.
Using chain saws, the scientists collected samples from 311 dead trees – logs, short snags and stumps. Seventy-three percent of the samples were coastal Douglas-fir, and 13% were ponderosa pine. The remainder were sugar pine, noble fir, red fir, incense cedar, western red cedar, mountain hemlock and western hemlock.
“We cross-dated a total of 147,588 tree rings and identified 672 cambial injuries, 479 of which were fire scars,” Johnston said. “The scars allowed us to reconstruct 130 different fire years that occurred at one or more of the 16 sites before a federal policy of fire suppression went into effect early in the 20th century.”
The main takeaways:
Fire was historically far more frequent in western Oregon Cascades landscapes than previously believed.
Indigenous peoples likely used fire to manage large areas for resources and probably altered landscapes and fire regimes in significant ways.
There are important present-day restoration opportunities for fire-adapted systems in western Oregon.
“Also, our study produced little evidence of the kind of large, wind-driven fires that in 2020 burned 50,000 to 75,000 hectares in the watersheds immediately to the north and south of our study area,” Johnston said. “Only 39% of fire years were recorded at more than one site, only 11% were recorded at more than two sites, and only 3% at more than three sites – in a study area of 37,000 acres, that strongly suggests that most historical fires were relatively small.”
Across all 16 sites, the average fire return interval – the length of time between fires – was as short as six years and as long as 165. In general the differences in those averages were strongly associated with vapor pressure deficit or VPD, basically the drying power of the atmosphere. The higher the VPD, the shorter the time between fires.
However, historical fire in stands seral to Douglas-fir – stands that, if left alone, would end up with Douglas-fir as the dominant tree species – was much less strongly linked with dry air.
“We interpret the extraordinary tempo of fire in those stands, and the climate pattern associated with fire there, to indicate Indigenous fire stewardship,” Johnston said. “We saw some of the most frequent fire return intervals ever documented in the Pacific Northwest, but the enormous volume of biomass that these moist forests accumulate over time is often partly attributed to long intervals between wildfire.”
The authors note that humans have occupied the southern part of what is now the Willamette National Forest for at least 10,000 years. A variety of Indigenous cultures, including the Molalla, Kalapuya, Tenino, Wasco, Klamath, Northern Paiute and Cayuse, probably used the area for trading, hunting and the collection of plants.
“Removals happened very quickly, with most Native people taken to the Grand Ronde, Warm Springs and Klamath reservations,” said co-author David Lewis, a member of the Grand Ronde Tribe and an assistant professor of anthropology and Indigenous studies in OSU’s College of Liberal Arts. “Removal of the tribes took their cultural stewardship practices, their use of annual cultural fires, from the land, radically altering how the forests were managed.”
By 1856, most remaining members of Willamette Valley and western Oregon Cascades tribes had been forcibly removed to reservations. Extensive clearcut logging on the Willamette National Forest started in the late 1940s and continued for four decades.
“Now, Forest Service managers want fine-grained information about forest vegetation and historical disturbance dynamics to manage lands in ways that promote resilience to climate change,” Johnston said.
He added that the Forest Service is working closely with the Southern Willamette Forest Collaborative, a group based in Oakridge, to plan a variety of restoration treatments.
Joining Johnston and Lewis on the paper were the College of Forestry’s Micah Schmidt, now working with the Umatilla Tribe in northeastern Oregon, and Andrew Merschel. Co-authors also included William Downing of the U.S. Forest Service and the University of Oregon’s Michael Coughlan.
The Oregon Department of Forestry funded the study
We usually have posts about trees on Christmas, but today I thought I’d post the above from the Utah DWR via the Cowboy State Daily. New Zealanders.. who knew?
Some gifts below.. links to stories about what we do here.
People often ask me why I spend my time on The Smokey Wire. Pretty much I can’t describe it in words. But I can detect it when other peoples’ writing gets at it. And what they talk about is the importance of having a place where people can hear diverse points of view. And the internet can bring light or darkness (Happy Solstice!), and we are, have been, and will be, working on bringing the light.
We are and have been in the middle of a news/media transition. In fact, as the Bennett story below illustrates, some have chose to go off the divisive deep end in the quest for more clicks and/or the tribal delights of self-righteous witch-hunting. But sometimes things have to die before something new and wonderful is reborn. I think I heard that on a Rob Bell podcast, something like “the system falls apart because the new thing is better, beyond, superior and more compelling.” And as Eliot said in (Merry Christmas!) The Journey of the Magi:
And I would do it again, but set down
This set down
This: were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
********************** TSW was before its time.. or after?
Our friends at the Atlantic published a piece about how Substack is full of Nazis, or to be fairer, that Substack should do more moderation. For those of you who don’t know about Substack, it’s kind of like a place that would host The Smokey Wire, except that it makes it easy for writers to monetize their writing. TSW readers benefit from my subscriptions to the likes of Roger Pielke, Jr., Doomberg, and others on Substack. And there are many others I would like to subscribe to as well in the general news category.
Sidenote: Atlantic is also one of those who writes that Musk has “swung Twitter to the right”. Which is kind of funny to me, as in my corner of Twit-X all I can see is that I get more likes from bots known as “Hot Girls”. This is one of the piece of “you should believe what we say over your own experiences” which is a losing argument whether it’s about Twit-X or theology.
Anyway, Substack is not backing down on the moderation question. But I thought this article was interesting.
And Substack—everyone’s favorite platform for pretending like it’s 2005 and we’re all bloggers again—has already come under fire multiple times for its moderation policies (or lack thereof).
Substack differs from blogging systems of yore in some key ways: It’s set up primarily for emailed content (largely newsletters but also podcasts and videos), it has paid some writers directly at times, and it provides an easy way for any creator to monetize content by soliciting fees directly from their audience rather than running ads. But it’s similar to predecessors like WordPress and Blogger in some key ways, also—and more similar to such platforms than to social media sites such as Instagram or X (formerly Twitter). For instance, unlike on algorithm-driven social media platforms, Substack readers opt into receiving posts from specific creators, are guaranteed to get emailed those posts, and will not receive random content to which they didn’t subscribe.
These are all good things..and we have them on TSW through the goodwill and donations of all of you (it’s the season of Peace to People of Good Will). Perhaps we have always been onto something valuable :)… well, not valuable in the monetary sense, of course, but valuable in the sense of exchanging news and increasing our mutual understanding and joint search for facts and truths. And no one seems to care that WordPress doesn’t moderate.. so perhaps it’s not about ideas so much as people making money? Who knows.
*********************************** James Bennet’s Story in the Economist
This link seemed to help me avoid the paywall so perhaps it will work for you. It’s called “When the New York Times lost its way America’s media should do more to equip readers to think for themselves.” It’s by a fellow named James Bennet, who was the op-ed page editor of the New York Times. It’s quite long (and worth reading, but fairly depressing) so I’ll excerpt the parts that reflect observations similar to mine here at TSW. Or the story might be cheerful, if you think “at least my workplace isn’t like that…talk about hostile work environment!”
As everyone knows, the internet knocked the industry off its foundations. Local newspapers were the proving ground between college campuses and national newsrooms. As they disintegrated, the national news media lost a source of seasoned reporters and many Americans lost a journalism whose truth they could verify with their own eyes. As the country became more polarised, the national media followed the money by serving partisan audiences the versions of reality they preferred. This relationship proved self-reinforcing. As Americans became freer to choose among alternative versions of reality, their polarisation intensified.
*****
It is hard to imagine a path back to saner American politics that does not traverse a common ground of shared fact. It is equally hard to imagine how America’s diversity can continue to be a source of strength, rather than become a fatal flaw, if Americans are afraid or unwilling to listen to each other. I suppose it is also pretty grandiose to think you might help fix all that. But that hope, to me, is what makes journalism worth doing.
*******
But there was a compensating moral and psychological privilege that came with aspiring to journalistic neutrality and open-mindedness, despised as they might understandably be by partisans. Unlike the duelling politicians and advocates of all kinds, unlike the corporate chieftains and their critics, unlike even the sainted non-profit workers, you did not have to pretend things were simpler than they actually were. You did not have to go along with everything that any tribe said. You did not have to pretend that the good guys, much as you might have respected them, were right about everything, or that the bad guys, much as you might have disdained them, never had a point. You did not, in other words, ever have to lie.
******
This fundamental honesty was vital for readers, because it equipped them to make better, more informed judgments about the world. Sometimes it might shock or upset them by failing to conform to their picture of reality. But it also granted them the respect of acknowledging that they were able to work things out for themselves.
******
A journalism that starts out assuming it knows the answers, it seemed to me then, and seems even more so to me now, can be far less valuable to the reader than a journalism that starts out with a humbling awareness that it knows nothing. “In truly effective thinking”, Walter Lippmann wrote 100 years ago in “Public Opinion”, “the prime necessity is to liquidate judgments, regain an innocent eye, disentangle feelings, be curious and open-hearted.” Alarmed by the shoddy journalism of his day, Lippmann was calling for journalists to struggle against their ignorance and assumptions in order to help Americans resist the increasingly sophisticated tools of propagandists.
******
On the right and left, America’s elites now talk within their tribes, and get angry or contemptuous on those occasions when they happen to overhear the other conclave. If they could be coaxed to agree what they were arguing about, and the rules by which they would argue about it, opinion journalism could serve a foundational need of the democracy by fostering diverse and inclusive debate. Who could be against that?
*******
The Opinion department is a relic of the era when the Times enforced a line between news and opinion journalism. Editors in the newsroom did not touch opinionated copy, lest they be contaminated by it, and opinion journalists and editors kept largely to their own, distant floor within the Times building. Such fastidiousness could seem excessive, but it enforced an ethos that Times reporters owed their readers an unceasing struggle against bias in the news. But by the time I returned as editorial-page editor, more opinion columnists and critics were writing for the newsroom than for Opinion. As at the cable news networks, the boundaries between commentary and news were disappearing, and readers had little reason to trust that Times journalists were resisting rather than indulging their biases.
******
That is also, by the way, an important means by which politicians, like Cotton, can learn, by speaking to audiences who are not inclined to nod along with them. That was our ambition for Times Opinion – or mine, I guess. Americans can shout about their lack of free speech all they want, but they will never be able to overcome their differences, and deal with any of their real problems, if they do not learn to listen to each other again.
***************
Is it journalism’s role to salt wounds or to salve them, to promote debates or settle them, to ask or to answer? Is its proper posture humble or righteous?
Happy Holidays, everyone! See you after New Years!
Clean Technica had an article about this. Apparently a Cybertruck got stuck and a video was making the rounds of a Ford truck pulling it out. Never folks to pass up an opportunity for public education, the Stanislaus NF weighed in.
Last week, a video of the stuck truck was making the rounds on social media. The vehicle was a little ways off the nearest forest road and appeared to be in use to pick up a Christmas tree. But, it didn’t have the right tires for conditions, and was good and stuck. But, even with better tires, there are doubts out there about whether the vehicle has a decent all-wheel-drive system or has some other problem that’s keeping it from being able to tackle off-road challenges.
At the other end of the tow cable is a Ford pickup. This led to Ford CEO Jim Farley making it clear that this was not a planned photo-op of any kind. A Ford truck’s owner really just happened to be there to help.
But, instead of chewing Tesla out for having an employee go off established roads, managers took it for an educational opportunity. In a tongue-in-cheek manner, the agency asked Tesla to partner with the on educating the public about motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs), which specify where vehicles are allowed, as well as where vehicle-based “boondock” camping can be legally done.
“We are always thrilled when new opportunities to explore our public lands become available,” said Stanislaus National Forest Supervisor Jason Kuiken. “But feel there may be work to be done in educating users about our Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM). We feel confident that had the driver of the Cybertruck had a better understanding of the topographical feature indicated on our maps, practiced Leave No Trace principles, and generally been more prepared, this whole incident could have been not only avoided, but also provided much-needed education to many new off-road users.”
The supervisor also poked fun at the problem of software updates.
“You never have to worry about a software update at an incredibly awkward moment with one of our MVUM maps,” Kuiken said. “We would invite executives of Tesla Motors to sit down at the table with us and develop an educational experience for new Cybertruck owners. We expect we could see this excited new user base joining our well-established OHV community and want to ensure we’ve done everything to create a positive user experience.”
You don’t need 3 G 5 G nor any other G for MVUMs either which can be a plus.
Here’s the Forest’s Facebook post in its entirety for those of you avoiding FB.
Stanislaus National Forest Looks to Partner with Tesla Motors
Release Date: Dec 14, 2023
SONORA, Calif. (December 14, 2023) – For car enthusiasts, the recent sightings of Tesla’s Cybertruck vehicle across National Forest Lands in California is exciting. However, with the increasing number of incidents involving the immediately recognizable vehicle, Forest Managers are eager for the opportunity to partner with Tesla Motor Corporation on an education campaign regarding off-road vehicle use on public lands.
“We are always thrilled when new opportunities to explore our public lands become available,” said Stanislaus National Forest Supervisor Jason Kuiken. “But feel there may be work to be done in educating users about our Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM).”
Kuiken was responding to a recent incident on the Stanislaus National Forest involving a Tesla Cybertruck that apparently lost traction and slid down an embankment on a well-known Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) area on the Forest’s Calaveras Ranger District while harvesting a Christmas tree in a moment that has since gone viral on social media.
“We feel confident that had the driver of the Cybertruck had a better understanding of the topographical feature indicated on our maps, practiced Leave No Trace principles, and generally been more prepared, this whole incident could have been not only avoided, but also provided much-needed education to many new off-road users.”
Across the U.S. Forest Service’s Region 5 (encompassing all of California, Hawaii, and other Pacific Island Partners) there are more than 15,867.8 miles of trails of which more than 5,000 are motorized.
“This number does not include our vast road system,” noted Christina Henderson, Region 5 Acting Public Services Director.
To that end, Kuiken is proposing a new, educational partnership between the Stanislaus National Forest and Tesla Motors.
“You never have to worry about a software update at an incredibly awkward moment with one of our MVUM maps,” Kuiken said. “We would invite executives of Tesla Motors to sit down at the table with us and develop an educational experience for new Cybertruck owners. We expect we could see this excited new user base joining our well-established OHV community and want to ensure we’ve done everything to create a positive user experience.”
Intervention denied in Wilderness Watch v. Jackson (D. Idaho)
In this case involving the use of airstrips in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, described here, the court denied a motion to intervene filed by the Idaho Aviation Association, Idaho Recreation Council, and an individual on November 20. They had argued that, without intervention, the Forest Service would be free to settle its dispute with Plaintiffs, which may result in termination of access by their members to the airstrips. The court found that the interest claimed by intervenors was limited to use of the airstrips, which was adequately represented by the State of Idaho with stronger interests and the Forest Service, and that Intervenors would not be needed in any settlement discussions or be required to approve any settlement between the parties.
On November 30, there was a hearing in the Eastern District of Washington district court in this case (described here). It is a case that directly challenges the Okanogan-Wenatchee’s use of “condition-based” NEPA, which we have discussed in some depth, and is described further in this article. (A new twist to me was the plaintiff’s argument that the use of condition-based management makes the project a “de facto amendment” to the Okanogan-Wenatchee Forest Plan.)
Court decision in Earth Island Institute v. U. S. Forest Service (9th Cir.)
On December 7, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court and upheld the Three Creeks logging project on the Inyo National Forest against claims of NEPA violations. The opinion’s introduction includes a short summary of the court’s holdings on specific issues.
Amended complaint in Wilderness Watch v. National Park Service (E.D. California)
The John Muir Project has joined this lawsuit as a plaintiff, and the new complaint adds an alleged violation of the Wilderness Act by replanting of sequoia trees in burned areas within designated wilderness areas (including the use of helicopters and dynamite). Chad Hanson also argues that replanting after the fires is unnecessary. (The original lawsuit was reported here.)
Partial court decision in Western Watersheds Project v. Secretary of the Interior (D. Oregon)
On December 4, the district court adopted a magistrate’s recommendations to dismiss portions of this case involving grazing permits for the Hammond Ranch on four allotments in southeastern Oregon. The BLM had declined to renew them after two of the ranch owner and operators were convicted on criminal charges stemming from allegations that they intentionally set fire to public lands. On January 19, 2021, on his last day in office, then-Secretary of the Interior, David Bernhardt, issued a decision authorizing the grant of grazing permits. The lawsuit was filed on February 25, 2021, and the magistrate made his recommendations on November 8, 2022. With this dismissal of claims related to the protest period and the validity of the EA (since the BLM is now preparing an EIS), the case will continue to consider issues regarding awarding the permit to an unqualified applicant under FLPMA, whether the permit complied with applicable land use plans, and whether issuing the permit violates the Steens Act by not adequately protecting the Steens Management Area.
Settlement of Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. Nev.)
On December 8, the parties submitted a joint stipulated dismissal reflecting an agreement by BLM to provide public notice for all new exploration or mining projects near the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in Nevada for the next 12 months. Two weeks after the lawsuit was filed in July, the BLM had rescinded their approval because they determined that a lithium exploration project less than a mile from the refuge would likely cause damage to the groundwater that feeds the meadows.
Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (S.D. Florida)
On December 11, the district court stated, “Federal Defendants do not dispute that they violated NEPA and ESA’s Section 7(a)(2) and agree that Eleventh Circuit jurisprudence warrants vacatur” of the National Park Service’s decision to release land-use restrictions it held on private property so that it could be developed. As a result, the court did not address an ESA Section 7(d) claim. (I assume this is viewed as similar to disposition of federal lands.)
Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (9th Cir.)
On December 4, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court decision involving groundwater pumping by the Fort Huachuca Army base in Arizona because the analysis of effects on the San Pedro River improperly assumed that a conservation easement it had obtained for mitigation purposes would reduce future water use. The court held that the conservation effects of the easement were not “reasonably certain to occur” because there was a lack of evidence that the property would ever have been used for agriculture that would require the water. Plaintiffs contend (in this article) that ongoing operation of the military base is depleting the groundwater. (This issue reminds me of evaluating carbon offsets.)
Settlement of Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. D.C.)
On December 13, the parties stipulated to a settlement agreement that establishes a 2-year deadline for completing a draft recovery plan, and an additional year for a final recovery plan, for gray wolves where they are still a listed species.
Preliminary injunction in Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizens Task Force v. Montana (D. Montana)
On November 21, the district court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the use of wolf traps and snares in areas of occupied grizzly bear habitat across Montana, “except during the time period when it is reasonably certain that almost all grizzly bear will be in dens: January 1, 2024, to February 15, 2024.” The season was scheduled to open in November. The court found plaintiffs “have established serious questions on the merits and a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to grizzly bears should Montana’s wolf trapping and snaring seasons proceed as planned,” which would violate the ESA’s prohibition against incidental take of listed species. The press release includes a link to the opinion.
New lawsuit: Friends of Alta v. Utah Department of Transportation (D. Utah)
On December 4, the Friends of Alta, the International Outdoor Recreation Asset Alliance and several individuals filed a complaint against the Department of Transportation’s gondola project planned to address traffic bottlenecks in Little Cottonwood Canyon, the location of popular ski resorts. Plaintiffs allege violations of NEPA, including that “UDOT received ‘a list of 16 Forest Service sensitive species that are known or suspected to occur in the Salt Lake Ranger District’ from [Forest Service] representatives […] but according to UDOT, ‘General field surveys conducted prior to the release of the Draft EIS did not identify any of the species listed.’” (The first link in this article will take you to another article that includes the complaint.)
New lawsuit: WildEarth Guardians v. BNSF Railway Company (D. Montana)
On December 14, WildEarth Guardians and Western Watersheds Project sued the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway over continuing grizzly bear deaths from trains running through the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem and Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery zones. In 2004, 2020 and again in 2023 following the most recent bear mortalities, BNSF applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for an Incidental Take Permit and formally submitted a Habitat Conservation Plan outlining measures it would take to reduce train-caused grizzly mortalities in the region. “None of these habitat conservation plans nor incidental take permits has been finalized,” the lawsuit states. (The Fish and Wildlife Service has not been sued.) (The article includes a link to the complaint.)
New lawsuit: Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection v. Federal Highway Administration (D. Arizona)
On December 14, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of Ironwood Forest, and Tucson Audubon Society sued over the proposed Interstate 11 208-mile corridor in Arizona (the news release includes a link to the complaint and the complaint includes a map). They accuse the FHA of violations of NEPA, and failing to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on threatened and endangered species. They also allege an inadequate evaluation required by the U. S. Department of Transportation Act, which FHWA must prepare before it authorizes the use of a public park, historic site, or wildlife refuge for a highway project. The National Park Service has expressed concerns.
A year ago, the federal government filed suit against the state of Idaho in federal district court, saying that the Forest Service and BLM should hold stockwater rights on federally administered grazing allotments rather than the permittees. The State of Idaho maintains that it is the permittees because they are the ones putting the water to beneficial use, as required by state water law. The federal government seeks to invalidate 2007 state laws that codified this arrangement.
The Colorado Cattlemen’s and Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ associations filed a lawsuit in federal court against Colorado Parks and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife to try to force a NEPA analysis of the planned reintroduction of gray wolves into Colorado. (Which we have discussed, such as here.) A hearing was held on December 14. As of noon today, “The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about a ruling in a lawsuit regarding the reintroduction of gray wolves in Colorado. A judge has not yet ruled on a request that would delay Colorado’s plan to begin the program this month.” (The actual heading of this webpage is “Judge denies cattle industry request…” A “9News” post reporting that the court had allowed the program to proceed has also been removed.)
Forest land area in the U.S. has increased slightly over the past century, but recent forest area decreases in the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain Regions have offset gains in other regions.
Natural disturbances like fire and insects help keep forests healthy. However, increasing disturbance extent, severity, and interactions threaten forest sustainability — most notably in the West.
Forests serve as the largest national carbon sink. However, forests in several Western states now emit more carbon than they take in due to natural and human-caused disturbances.
The U.S. forest products industry has rebounded over the past decade, particularly in portions of the South. However, production levels remain below their peak and employment levels have continued their long-term decline.
Nationally, forests grow significantly more wood than they lose to harvest or tree death.
Nearly one-third of U.S. native forest-associated species were listed as at-risk of extinction in 2020 — and 1 percent were already presumed or possibly extinct.
Wildfire, smoke, and other disturbances may increasingly hamper forest recreation, especially when coupled with maintenance backlogs on roads, trails, and facilities.
‘Since I mentioned this in yesterday’s post, I thought I would post here. Here’s a direct way to pay people for ecosystem services.. which seems efficient. Plus there’s AI.. and local firms and people.
Paradise Valley, MT — The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) today announced an innovative payment-for-presence program to compensate a rancher for providing elk habitat in Montana’s Paradise Valley.
Using advanced camera traps powered by artificial intelligence (AI) together with landowners’ innate knowledge of the land, this innovative program is the first of its kind in the region. Rather than paying ranchers for predator losses as traditional livestock compensation programs do, PERC’s payments are based on the presence of elk to specifically mitigate elk-livestock conflict.
Paradise Valley serves as an important wintering ground for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s migrating elk herds. As rapid development threatens wildlife habitat in the valley, ranchers and their large, open land holdings play a valuable role in maintaining ecosystem connectivity. Providing habitat, however, comes at a cost.
As the national leader in market solutions for conservation, Montana-based PERC works to develop incentive-based solutions that conserve wildlife habitat by helping mitigate those costs to landowners.
“Elk are often viewed as uninvited guests on a rancher’s property,” says PERC CEO Brian Yablonski. “Ranchers are essentially feeding the elk at great personal expense. Ultimately, we need these private open lands to remain intact if we want to conserve this unique migratory ecosystem, and paying ranchers ‘elk rent’ for providing this public good is a critical step toward accomplishing that.”
A minimum of 20 elk captured on camera across the ranch in a single day constitutes an “elk day” and triggers a financial payout to the rancher. A bonus payment is offered when 200 or more elk are captured in a single day, with a $12,000 cap on total annual payments.
Druska Kinkie, who along with her husband and son run Emigrant Peak Ranch, regularly sees 400-500 elk on her property during peak migration season. The heavy wildlife presence imposes costs through lost forage, fence damage, and the threat of disease transfer, namely brucellosis, a reproductive disease that is spread from elk and bison to cattle.
“This program has offered us a ray of hope,” said Druska Kinkie of Emigrant Peak Ranch. “We want to do right by the elk, but not at the expense of our livelihoods. Compensating their presence offsets the costs they impose, making the elk less of a liability for us.”
Jeff Reed of Grizzly Systems (left), Druska Kinikie of Emigrant Peak Ranch (center), and PERC’s Brian Yablonski (right)
Harnessing smart cameras to calculate elk rent
The new program brings together Emigrant Peak Ranch and Grizzly Systems, a local technology firm that uses advanced AI camera traps with an integrated software platform. The advanced technology helps differentiate between random movement such as grass blowing in the wind and actual wildlife detection.
Harnessing smart cameras to calculate elk rent
The new program brings together Emigrant Peak Ranch and Grizzly Systems, a local technology firm that uses advanced AI camera traps with an integrated software platform. The advanced technology helps differentiate between random movement such as grass blowing in the wind and actual wildlife detection.
To try capturing the number of elk on the ranch at any given time, the program relies on game cameras installed in key locations throughout the property. Over time, the AI technology will learn how to better identify elk, reducing the amount of data to analyze. The rancher can also take photos with her smartphone to augment the game cameras.
The pilot program is designed to test the payment-for-presence system as well as the efficiency of artificial intelligence game cameras with continuous refinement.
“We’re excited to test the potential of our technology in such an important region for wildlife,” said Jeff Reed of Grizzly Systems. “We appreciate PERC’s spirit of creativity and flexibility to explore what makes the most sense for ranchers and wildlife. As our technology evolves, so too can the model of this program, delivering more tailored results.”
PERC’s Paradise Valley payment-for-presence program is the fourth project out of PERC’s Conservation Innovation Lab, including Montana’s first elk occupancy agreement, the Paradise Valley brucellosis compensation fund, and the grizzly grazing conflict reduction project in the Gravelly Range. When conservationists help ranchers offset the costs wildlife impose, they’re ultimately helping sustain the wildlife themselves.
The Locally Led Restoration Act would improve relationships between intergovernmental partners and outside organizations, including the private sector, helping to reestablish healthy and resilient federal forests.
The bill would improve the implementation of stewardship contracts to better support landscape restoration projects and create well-paying jobs in our communities.
The bill would allow third-party contractors to propose their own stewardship contracts to the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management if at least 10 percent of the vegetation to be removed is salvage. The bill classifies salvage as beetle kill, dead or dying trees and wildfire kill.
Crucially, this legislation does not change the established process for timber harvests on federal lands – it only makes necessary improvements to stewardship contracting.
The following interview by Jim Petersen with Frank Carroll is nearly 2800 words long — which is kind of excessive for this forum but well worth the read for anyone who hasn’t done so already and is concerned with USFS wildfire history, politics, and economics over the past 35 years.
The interview is nearly four years old, but has just been republished in the current issue of Smokejumper magazine by editor Chuck Sheley and is a slightly abbreviated version of Petersen’s April 2020 publication in Evergreen Magazine: https://www.evergreenmagazine.com/blowtorch-forestry/
Despite the interview’s age, it remains directly relevant to current discussions regarding the great cost, visual and air pollution, wildlife mortality, and damaged rural economies resulting from continuing practices of the modern US Forest Service — what Carroll refers to as the “New Wildfire Economy.”
In 2020, then-USFS Chief Vicki Christiansen’s directive was: “Using unplanned fire in the right place at the right time.” Today, current-USFS Chief Randy Moore says he is “pleased to report that we have made significant progress in implementing this daring and critical strategy,” and talks about “using” fire on a “record 1.9 million acres as a method of reducing hazardous fuels.” If that is the objective, then much safer and cheaper methods of reducing such fuels — and even showing a taxable income while doing so — were demonstrated over hundreds of millions of acres in the 20th century and continue to be effectively used on private, state, and Indian lands to this time.
According to Carroll, the “New Wildfire Economy” has become “big business” for the USFS, “effectively replacing traditional forestry practices with unfettered wildfire tending.” This is presented as the difference between producing tax revenues for the government while creating needed local jobs, safe and beautiful environments, and maintaining abundant and diverse wildlife populations vs. using taxpayer dollars to economically bankrupt our rural forest economies, killing our wildlife, and replacing the once beautiful landscapes with a sea of ugly and dangerous snags. Not in those words exactly, but documented factual outcomes.
Sheley, Petersen, and Carroll are all experts regarding the responsible treatment of “unplanned fires” and the consequences for mismanaging them. Petersen’s book on the topic and Carroll’s qualifications are described in the interview and Sheley’s introduction: ********************************* Chuck Sheley: I found Jim’s interview of Frank Carroll, a Colorado forester and wildfire expert, to be educational and informative and something the readers of “Smokejumper” magazine would find interesting. Jim’s book, “First Put Out the Fire,” leads off the discussion. This interview is from several years ago, and during COVID, but very relative to what is going on today. I’ve shortened the word count to make it fit in this issue. Reprinted with permission.
Jim Peterson: I’ve yet to hear from anyone who thought my book wasn’t “a good read,” but Frank Carroll, a colleague of 20 years, thought I stopped the wildfire discussion 20 years too soon.
Frank was Public Affairs Director for Potlatch Corporation’s Eastern Region when we met in 2000. Today, he is the Managing Partner in Professional Forest Management (PFM), a Pueblo, Colorado, firm that does trial work with clients whose private forests have been overrun by “managed fires” that began on adjacent Forest Service land.
Frank wrote: “I just finished your book and have to say I have high hopes for your book. I thought you would step above the old swamp and take on the biggest gorilla in the room, ‘using unplanned fire in the right time and the right place’ to ‘reintroduce fire to fire depleted ecosystems’ as Chief Christiansen put it in her directive to the troops last year.”
“Using unplanned fire in the right place at the right time” appears in a note Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen sent to her line officers last year. It is a thinly veiled reference to “managed fire,” or applying wildfire like prescribed fire, in a directive agency fire crews are expected to follow whenever the opportunity to let a wildfire run presents itself. There are few places outside of designated Wilderness areas where this can be done safely, but the practice is used widely across the Western National Forests as a matter of policy. Certainly, nowhere near communities, municipal watersheds, or fish or wildlife habitat critical to threatened or endangered species, and, yet, it is precisely these locations that are increasingly overrun by managed fire.
Some people rejected forestry long ago. State foresters, Interior agencies, and local governments have stayed the course where wildfires are concerned. Put them out as quickly as possible. Hence, the title of my book: First, Put Out the Fire. I write that if we don’t put these fires out, we won’t have anything else to talk about after the smoke clears. So, by all means, let’s talk about a proper role for wildfire in a post-industrial society that depends on its national forests for far more than timber.
Appropriately, timber production has become a by-product of federal policies that favor wildlife habitat conservation. In my opinion, “managed fire” is on a collision course with every forest value our society holds dear, which brings me to what’s bothering Frank Carroll. I’ll let Frank speak for himself in the question-and-answer interview below, but his main complaint is one with which I am familiar— “managed fires” have a nasty habit of becoming unmanageable wildfires that overrun adjacent and well-managed private forest lands. Petersen: Frank, tell us about your new business venture.
Carroll: Professional Forest Management, LLC, does wildfire impact analysis for law firms and private clients in federal tort claims and legal actions. From a forest perspective, this rather simple aspirational objective—using unplanned fire in the right place at the right time—is the absolute worst development in the history of forests and forest conservation.
Petersen: How so?
Carroll: We are burning our forests to ruin, and we’re doing it on purpose. We got out of the thinning and prescribed fire business on federal land, and now we are in the Age of Fire for Fire’s Sake. I call it “Fire-first” forestry. Federally-funded wildfire crews are burning big boxes around the West and are now responsible for 40 to 60 percent of the acreage burned by any given large fire.
Petersen: And this is managed fire?
Carroll: This is managed fire. National forest supervisors are expected to maximize the management role of wildfire, and they are doing it with a vengeance.
Petersen: This doesn’t sound like good forestry.
Carroll: It isn’t, but it is what’s happening. The 2018 Pole Creek and Bald Mountain Fires in Utah and the earlier Lolo Pass Fire are great examples of the madness of managed fire. We are working on $40 million in claims on Bald Mountain and Pole Creek alone, and there are many more that will go unchallenged because there is no internal or congressional oversight.
Petersen: What does that mean?
Carroll: It means the USFS is violating the National Environmental Policy Act. These fires are major federal actions with environmental consequences. Where are the Environmental Assessments or the Environmental Impact Statements? They don’t exist. There is no Record of Decision, no public process, no paper trail, no recourse for the public. The agency can operate in complete secrecy without disclosing specific or cumulative consequences. It’s all illegal. You cannot use Congressionally-appropriated fire suppression funds to do resource management except wildfire suppression. If you or I did this, we’d be in jail.
Petersen: Yet from what I’m hearing, “using unplanned fire in the right fire in the right place at the right time” is currently giving way to more timely and direct attack.
Carroll: Congressional delegations from the West forced Chief Christiansen’s hand because of concerns about the impact COVID-19 will have on firefighting this year. She is suddenly in full suppression mode because of the risks the virus poses to crews that work, eat, and sleep in close proximity.
Petersen: I understand that, but how does it undermine managed fire?
Carroll: The virus prevents the Forest Service from operating in complex strategic environments that feature big, intricate burnouts covering hundreds of thousands of acres because they can’t coalesce in one giant fire camp and coordinate all the moving parts. But you can be sure they’ll be back to “using unplanned fire” as soon as possible.
Petersen: Why?
Carroll: First, because they can. It’s a management prerogative they control completely and requires no public oversight or interference from cooperating agencies. Even when cooperators protest, as the State of Utah did in 2018, the Agency moves ahead anyway without consequences. Second, they are strongly pressed by environmental groups like FUSEE and the DiCaprio Foundation to let fires burn. And, finally, fighting forest fires has become big business for the USFS and their firefighting contractors—a hog’s paradise allowing them to spend money like drunken sailors. So, no one realizes what they are doing except the special interests who want them to do it, and an ignorant Congress is giving them limitless money to burn. So, they burn.
Petersen: How do you know all this?
Carroll: It’s our business nowadays. We do the intensive and comprehensive analysis of entire records from large fires. We spend years in deposition and preparing for court and trial. Our sources keep us abreast of new developments in policy and practice in real-time. In its reports to Congress, the USFS is counting wildfire acres burned as acres treated.
Petersen: We’ve heard that before and it has always seemed like a misappropriation of taxpayer dollars.
Carroll: It is. The USFS is using federally appropriated wildland fire management dollars to practice a new kind of wildfire-based resource management that holds that, since we can’t do real natural resource management projects on an ecologically significant scale, we’ll just use wildfire on everything everywhere and call it good enough. Managed fire is the only form of management no one questions. Environmentalists can’t stop them and don’t want to, they don’t need anyone’s permission, and there is no oversight.
Petersen: Real resource management being the thinning and prescribed fire regime that states, private landowners and Indian tribes use perennially?
Carroll: Correct
Petersen: This goes back to my belief that the fault here rests with Congress and its failure to allow the USFS to undertake forest restoration projects on physical scales that are environmentally significant.
Carroll: It’s worse than that. What we have here is a federal forest management agency that can spend whatever it wants in any way it wants with no public input or oversight.
Petersen: Aren’t there auditors who go through the firefighting bills?
Carroll: There are, but no fiscal officer in the USFS has firefighting experience. They won’t challenge or second guess fire commanders or forest supervisors because if things go to hell, they’ll be blamed. This is the new Wild West and Wildfire is the name of the game.
Petersen: Keep your head down and don’t mess up.
Carroll: Climate change, fuels equilibrium, growth, harvest and mortality, and reforestation are all yesterday’s news. What we have today is a rogue federal agency burning its way into a new bureaucratic empire that is publicly unaccountable.
Petersen: Reminds me of Eisenhower’s warning about the dangers posed by what he called the military-industrial complex.
Carroll: That’s a good analogy. What we have here is an Industrial Wildfire Complex that is answerable to no one. The Forest Service today is a much different agency than the one that all of us knew for decades. The transition from forestry to fire has rendered every forest plan objective effectively moot.
Petersen: That’s a big statement, especially when we consider that this transition occurred in plain view of anyone who was watching. And you worked for the Forest Service, didn’t you?
Carroll: In the National Park Service and the Forest Service from 1972 through 2012. I held primary fire, forest staff, and leadership roles in the USFS in Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho, South Dakota and spent time in Washington, D.C. My time since my Forest Service years has been spent in wildland fire mitigation planning and implementation, remote sensing, wildfire impact, and suppression analysis.
Petersen: Based on all your experience, how do we reverse course?
Carroll: Not easily. The Forest Service today is a black box. It is immune to public scrutiny and led by fire officers who are not well-grounded in natural resource management. They have no interest in further fights with smoke regulators or anti-management environmentalists. Why would they when they can burn far and wide, accumulate political power, maintain their Smokey vibe, and enjoy vastly increased budgets in the New Wildfire Economy.
Petersen: New Wildfire Economy. I don’t even like the sound of those words.
Carroll: No one should, but it’s real and it’s here.
Petersen: Some of these big fires burn so hot that they cook the soil. It can take a century or more to rebuild the organic layer in which seeds germinate, so 200 to 300 years to grow a new forest where the old one stood.
Carroll: That’s true and the burners don’t care. They see big wildfires as a natural agent.
Petersen: Better than the thinning and prescribed fire combination I describe in my book.
Carroll: Yes, because the New Wildfire Economy makes it easy. No appeals or litigation. No nasty wild-eyed environmentalists. Just lumbermen who don’t seem to understand the problem or are under too much economic pressure to have any stomach for the fight.
Petersen: So, where is the good news?
Carroll: The good news is that the Forest Service will not go to public trial on these issues for fear of upending their new wildfire hegemony. They are doing their own version of stop, drop and roll so they can stay hidden in plain sight. They will settle every claim out of court, no matter how weak, rather than go to trial and have these issues openly reviewed. This is good for people harmed by these fires.
Petersen: The big issue is the transition from an agency that manages forests to one that favors applied wildfire to every natural resource management objective?
Carroll: That is precisely the biggest issue. It is the issue that has the USFS hiding behind things like 747s that dump fire retardant on fires. It makes great video on the evening news but does nothing to address the underlying causes of these enormous fires or the agency’s decision to favor fire over forestry.
Petersen: We’re told the public is very suspicious of thinning projects that are large enough to actually reduce the risk and size of these big wildfires.
Carroll: Some people don’t like logging of any kind. Others see its value. In our New Wildfire Economy, it doesn’t matter. Welcome to the world of blowtorch forestry.
Petersen: More than half the Forest Service’s annual budget is spent on wildfires. Most people think that’s what it takes to put these fires out. You’re saying the big expense occurs when the decision is made to “manage” the fire, meaning let the fire run rather than put it out quickly.
Carroll: That’s correct. I can show you one 1,600-acre managed fire that cost taxpayers $12.6 million. The whole idea of firefighting has been turned on its head. The USFS is using crews to light fires on an epic scale, not put fires out. They have no idea what they’re doing or what the implications of using unplanned fire are for the future. Petersen: Maybe Congress needs to tell the USFS that for every blowtorched acre there will be an acre that is mechanically thinned in combination with prescribed fire. The way it was done for decades.
Carroll: Nice idea but it won’t happen.
Petersen: Why not?
Carroll: Two different worlds. In the blowtorch world, the USFS burns to its heart’s content with no oversight, no need to ask anyone for permission and no lawsuits. In the world of forest and range management, there are laws and regulations, there is oversight and there is litigation. Moreover, the Forest Service no longer has the skill sets needed to plan and execute large scale thinning projects.
Petersen: So, we’re stuck with blowtorch forestry?
Carroll: The Forest Service—and Congress by association—are rolling big dice. They are betting that blowtorch forestry will reset the biological clock in our forests and that they will be able to meaningfully manage the resulting brush fields for the greater good. That’s just a fantasy.
Petersen: Brush fields have overtaken much of the 500,000-acre Biscuit Fire that burned in 2002 on southern Oregon’s Siskiyou National Forest.
Carroll: You haven’t seen anything yet. Blowtorch forestry is creating millions of acres of sorrel monocultures that will burn and reburn and revert to the lowest common denominator, cheat grass and wild oats, like we’re seeing in California. The only way they can manage these newly created brush ecosystems is to keep burning them and the only time they can burn them is in high fire season. So, the blowtorch will be applied relentlessly until the world changes.
Petersen: There are still some dedicated professionals working for the Forest Service. I’m surprised no one has blown the whistle on this racket.
Carroll: I know, but you must realize that the USFS has no intention of returning to its roots. It has embraced wildfire because it’s easier. My partner and I are doing very well in this environment, but it’s so sad to watch.
Petersen: So, if I have followed the bouncing ball to its destination, what you are telling me is that the Forest Service will work harder on initial attack this year because the virus and the western congressional delegation have forced their hand.
Carroll: That’s correct. And because of much better initial attack—and no managed fires—you will see smaller fires this year unless they just let them burn, which is likely because moving armies around will be harder in most cases. But as soon as the virus passes, the Forest Service will go right back to blowtorch forestry.
Petersen: Unless we can find a way to stop them from burning the nation’s federal forest legacy to the ground.
Carroll: I am not optimistic. The forces that gave us a five-fold increase in fire suppression spending will not abate. The current Forest Service Chief is deeply and personally invested in the ascendance of fire management in her agency. The Deputy Secretary of Agriculture over the Forest Service is likewise a fire-first leader and the current Chief’s mentor. There is a fire dragon walking the halls of the Forest Service in Washington, D.C. and it will not be easily dislodged.
From the Seattle Times via this site…. Excerpts below. Draft EIS here. The 60-day public comment period will close January 16, 2024.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to enlist shooters to kill more than 500,000 barred owls over the next 30 years in the Pacific Northwest to preserve habitat for northern spotted owls, a protected species.
…
The goal of a draft environmental impact statement for the agency’s barred owl reduction program is to take out the owls in the northern spotted owl’s range in Washington and Oregon and to focus on heading off expansion of the barred owl into the range of the California spotted owl.
Assuming complete implementation of the proposal, an initial cull of about 20,000 barred owls would occur in the first year. Then, an annual reduction of 13,397 birds a year in the first decade of the program; 16,303 a year in the second decade and 17,390 birds each year in the third decade, in parts of Washington, Oregon and California — 11 to 14 million acres in all.
Many of us have an emotional or even spiritual connection to old growth forests. This is not just because we like to see big old trees, but because of the multitude of ecosystem services and diverse values they provide. The Forest Stewards Guild lists those services as including wildlife habitat, carbon storage, stabilization of watersheds, nutrient recycling, and biodiversity, amongst others. Old growth forests have also historically had economic and social value by providing timber products and supporting forest based businesses and communities. These forests have cultural and social value to Indigenous peoples, First Nations, and Tribes.
In this report, we explore the different definitions of “old growth” applied globally and in regions of North America and Europe, including their scientific basis. From these definitions, we examine where old growth forests exist in the world, with a focus on the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). The report considers why we need old growth forests, and conversely, why we do not, and includes a discussion of old growth forest protection and management. We conclude with a discussion of how much old growth is ‘enough’, how we can create more, and how our understanding of the relationship between people and forests is evolving.
Cut to the conclusion:
The Bottom line
The question of “What is old growth?” holds many definitions depending upon the scientific, cultural, and policy lenses that are applied. The variety in these definitions is a recognition that tree species, climate, soil productivity, human interaction, and disturbance history all influence the development of forests. The question of “How much old growth forest is enough?” can seem almost unanswerable because it is contextual and there are many possible and often competing answers. There are forests that previous generations chose to protect, which current generations will also say deserve protection, and that future generations will wrestle with in their own debates.
Old growth forests have historically had economic and social value by providing timber products and supporting forest based businesses and communities. These forests have cultural and social value to Indigenous peoples, First Nations, and Tribes. Intact old growth forests provide multiple benefits, but the type of wood provided from these forests is no longer essential to meeting our raw material needs. Today’s engineered wood products can produce dimensionally stable beams that are structurally superior to equally large beams from large-diameter trees. Consequently, the value of old growth timber has fundamentally changed, and new approaches for management need to be considered. A new relationship with old growth forests that respects and honors the role of people as part of nature and elevates our capacity to care for forests and engage in these practices is needed. With proper management, creation of secondary old growth forests is possible, and can eventually provide the attributes and benefits of old growth forests. The emerging practice of managing maturing forests to provide old growth characteristics is a strategy deserving of increased attention.
