Better intentions; fewer commitments :The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan Revision: TSW Exclusive by Sam Evans

by

I’ve been wanting to hear from stakeholders involved with 2012 planning processes.  Many thanks to Sam Evans for taking the time to share his experiences.  I’m sure this will lead to a great discussion!  In addition to the specifics of this plan, we can reflect on the overall context of the 2102 Rule, as Sam says  “This is also a make-or-break moment for the planning rule. Ten years in, there are no more excuses. The rule is not in transition any more. What the rule means here, now, is what it really means.”

**********************************************************************************************************************

Better intentions; fewer commitments
The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan Revision by Sam Evans

As the 2012 planning rule approaches its tenth birthday, another early-adopter is finally nearing the finish line. What does the Nantahala-Pisgah planning process tell us about whether we’re realizing the planning rule’s potential? Here’s a short history of a long process.

Black Mountains, Pisgah National Forest

Background

The contiguous Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests in western North Carolina are the heart of the Southern Appalachian mountains. Managed as a single administrative unit, these forests are the third most visited in the National Forest System, and the most visited without a ski resort. The forests here are marvelously diverse and bewilderingly complex. A short walk can take you, ecologically speaking, the entire length of the Appalachian Trail, which incidentally passes through the area on its way from Georgia to Maine.

Ecosystems repeat in small patches, with more variation and texture than stanzas in a Coltrane improvisation. A few acres here and there, riffing across the landscape. Dry, fire-adapted forests intermingle with moist Appalachian coves, which are among the most diverse ecosystems outside the tropics.

Those moist and productive cove forests also grow valuable sawtimber. And, like other productive forests with big trees, they have tempted mismanagement and abuse. The Forests have been through at least two periods of unsustainable logging, once before Forest Service acquisition, at the turn of the 20th century, and another after, in the 1980s. There is plenty of work needed to restore degraded forests’ composition, structure, and processes. Still, much of the landscape is recovering well: pockets of old growth, disturbance-sensitive species, and backcountry areas large enough to allow for natural disturbance processes to resume.

These remnant and recovering conservation values have been a source of conflict. Much more often than not, projects have created a zero-sum choice between harvest and environmental protection. The Forests’ first plan, adopted in 1987 at the height of the timber wars, was remanded by the Chief before the ink was dry in response to protests to end rampant clearcutting and protect old growth.

The 1994 amended plan fared little better. Without public support for timber production, the agency shifted its rationale, pitching rotational harvest as a way to balance age classes for the benefit of wildlife. But the timber program itself didn’t change. Old growth, rare habitats, and unroaded areas were still scheduled for rotational harvest, and the agency dutifully attempted to implement the plan at their expense.

Attempted, but without much success. While the 1994 plan amendment promised up to 3,200 acres of timber harvest annually, the agency has been able to produce just a fraction of this, with recent averages around 750 acres each year. Even at low levels of timber harvest, at least some conservation priority areas have been prescribed for even-aged harvest in most projects under the 1994 plan, and the ensuing conflicts have been a tremendous drag on efficiency, resulting in wasted time and dropped stands. In fact, the Nantahala & Pisgah NFs have the highest rates of project-level attrition of any forest in the ecoregion.

Changes between Project Proposal and Decision – Southern Appalachian NFs (2009–2019)

Fortunately, stakeholders have found better ways to work together. In some Districts, stakeholders built a shared, collaborative understanding of how timber harvest could be used to restore degraded systems. Capable agency leaders reflected their consensus at the project level and found new ways to fund important work that wasn’t always viable on its own. Although not uniformly, things got better.

This story, as unique as it felt to us locally, was happening in similar ways in different places across the country. Stakeholders were finding ways to transcend conflict. It was the right time to unveil the new planning rule, which sought to build on the insights earned in local laboratories: ecological restoration is a unifying goal, and consensus is the surest way to identify the highest priority restoration work.

The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan

Local stakeholders were so excited to put the planning rule into practice that they formed a planning collaborative in 2012, well before the agency kicked off its own process with a 2014 Assessment. While the process has not been without hiccups, the Nantahala Pisgah Forest Partnership has generated comments and recommendations with full consensus at each major step of the process including detailed recommendations on the Draft Plan in 2020. Full disclosure: I am proud to be a member of the Partnership, but I am speaking here only for myself.

The Partnership’s agreements cover every major issue from recreation to timber to recreation to wildlife habitat to wilderness. Without taking away from the importance of other issues, my focus here is on the ecological, social, and economic issues orbiting the Forests’ timber harvest program. The “where, how, and why” of logging were subjects of intense debate and compromise in the collaborative setting. The agency likewise spent most of its attention on goals that could be achieved through use of timber harvest.

The Partnership’s agreements were meant to be taken as a whole, and they recognized that management levels could increase considerably while also improving ecological outcomes if the Forest Service would commit to do the right kinds of things in the right places and provide safeguards for disturbance-sensitive ecological values.

The Final Plan, released in late January, purports to hit those targets:

Unlike the previous plan that framed activities in terms of outputs and traditional standards and guidelines, the revised plan developed desired conditions for each ecological community. By using ecological communities, projects will consider needs across a broader landscape, better enabling an increase in pace and scale of restoration.

Reader’s Guide at 5. The plan attributes these ostensible improvements to collaborative input, noting that collaborative stakeholders “created innovative approaches and processes” that “helped to create a more fully implementable plan.” FEIS App’x H at 12.

If only the plan content lived up to those intentions.

 Does the Plan prioritize ecological restoration?

First, and crucially, the Plan does provide detailed, well-supported desired conditions for each ecological community, or “ecozone.” Plan at 54–64. These reference conditions are grounded in the best available science and provide unifying direction for future management. Each set of “key ecosystem characteristics” describes characteristic species composition from the canopy to the forest floor, plus characteristic disturbance patterns and structure. They explain, for example, that within moist, productive ecozones, disturbance is dominated by gap-phase dynamics, which produce a pattern of small gaps and fine-scale diversity. Dry forests, on the other hand, should have larger patches and relatively more young and open forest conditions. These key ecosystem characteristics, moreover, are essential to maintain and restore wildlife diversity: some species need small gaps within mature forests, while others need larger patches. Plan at 64; FEIS App’x D at 12. The Forest Service got the reference conditions absolutely right.

After painstakingly describing the key ecosystem characteristics for each ecozone, however, the Plan disclaims any requirement to move toward these desired conditions. The mantra is repeated throughout the planning documents: Projects may “locally deviate from the [natural range of variation]” in order to balance age classes at the forest-wide scale. Record of Decision (ROD) at 66. That’s because the Plan’s default tool is scheduled, even-aged harvest. Plan at 91, TIM-DC-06 (describing scheduled timber program). This type of harvest will occur even in ecozones where large-patch early seral habitat is uncommon under ecological reference conditions. While the Plan sets a modest target for creation of open forest conditions in fire-suppressed, dry forests, it anticipates that the overwhelming bulk of harvest will be even-aged and located in mesic systems. FEIS App’x D at 46-49 (modeling the anticipated timber sale program).

This program of work would not restore characteristic, fine-scale structural diversity in ecozones where it is needed. Indeed, the agency acknowledges that fine-scale disturbance processes aren’t currently happening at natural rates because the forests are in an even-aged condition due to past logging. ROD at 66. A mostly-even-aged harvest program would keep the forest on a treadmill that precludes reaching ecozone desired conditions for structure. The Plan would also allow the continued degradation of species composition caused by even-aged harvest where it is ecologically inappropriate. See FEIS at 3-160 (acknowledging that “less is known about the silvics and reestablishment” of characteristic species in cove ecozones).

The planning team does express an intention to do better work than the Plan’s bare minima. The Plan lists a few “management approaches” to address conditions where there is general support that timber harvest will improve species composition and structural diversity at relevant scales. Plan at 71-72. As recent projects demonstrate, however, intentions aren’t binding at the project level. Neither are management approaches. Targeted, site-specific restoration is an explicit goal only in the “Ecological Interest Area,” which covers 2.1% of the landscape. ROD at 56. Meanwhile, even-aged harvest is scheduled on a whopping 58% of the landscape.

Of the “suitable” management areas, moreover, over 100,000 acres (about 20%) are existing old growth, rare habitats, and wilderness inventory areas that have already been mapped by NGOs, the state, and the Forest Service, respectively. On average, therefore, 20% of harvests proposed under the new Plan are guaranteed to generate conflict—a depressing reminder of the 20% attrition rate that has dogged the old plan. When projects are developed in these areas, there are no standards or guidelines protecting their unique values. Whether to harvest old growth is left entirely to the District Ranger. State-delineated rare habitats can be harvested after “coordination” with no strings attached. Unroaded areas may be roaded without limitation. As in the old plan, conflict is the only backstop to prevent harm to these values.

The Forests argue that even-aged harvest counts as “structural restoration” anywhere it occurs, including areas with high conservation value, because it will restore young forest conditions at the landscape scale. But the Forests did not define restoration at the landscape scale; they correctly recognized that restoration means different things in different ecozones, which is why the Plan sets desired conditions at the ecozone scale. Yes, young forest is an important component of structural diversity, but the characteristic patch size and distribution of young forest is different in each ecological system, and those differences matter to the wildlife associated with each system. Ecological restoration in the Southern Appalachians simply cannot be reduced to “balancing age classes” at the landscape scale.

Why would the Forests set desired conditions for its ecozones but then forecast that it will ignore them in project after project? According to the agency, targeted, site-specific restoration actions to restore key ecosystem characteristics for ecological communities would be too expensive. Without scheduled harvest, “there would not be enough financial resources” to execute a self-sustaining timber sale program. ROD at 56. Timber receipts. Economic efficiency. The philosophy of the 1982 Rule lives on.

To sum up, the Forests argue they cannot restore characteristic species composition and structure at the desired levels with current budgets, so they conclude they must take actions that individually will not contribute to NRV, and when added together will be inconsistent with NRV. That is not how the planning rule works. The planning rule requires each planning unit to maintain and restore NRV, 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.8(a)(1); 219.19, and to ensure that its objectives are within its fiscal capability, id. § 219.1(g).

Failing to identify types and levels of restoration work that can be achieved with expected budgets isn’t just bad planning; it also creates a self-defeating cycle. Without clear price signals, agency higher-ups (much less Congressional appropriators) will not know how much funding is needed to truly restore our forests. By conflating ecological restoration with scheduled timber harvest, a local Forest may preserve some future flexibility to continue with a timber sale program even when budgets are low, but it undermines its own ability to seek and justify the budgets it needs to do the most important work.

This is not to say that there is no room for timber production on the Nantahala-Pisgah, or that the Forests must set trivially small objectives that do not meet economic or social needs. The Partnership offered consensus recommendations that would have allowed the Forest Service to grow its timber program while also meeting its ecological restoration obligations. Did any of that work make it into the Plan?

 

Does the Plan reflect collaborative input?

The Partnership reached consensus and provided detailed input at every major checkpoint of plan development, covering the full range of issues from land allocation to wilderness recommendation to plan components. Boiled down, our recommendations for vegetation management included:

Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Partnership Recommendations

Increased levels of timber harvest at current budget levels

 

paired withProtections for steep slopes and streams, old growth, areas with high diversity, and rare habitats

 

“Tiered objectives” (Stretch goals) to allow the Forests to increase levels of timber harvest even further if additional resources are availablepaired withAdaptive management “triggers” to gauge whether the Forests have the capacity to mitigate negative impacts before moving to stretch goals

 

Scheduled timber production on a suitable base that excludes areas known to have high potential for conflict

 

paired withWilderness recommendations that would be supported for designation after meeting benchmarks for success in plan implementation

 

An unsuitable management area that allows for the use of all appropriate tools, including timber harvest and road construction, to accomplish ecological restoration based on site-specific needs

 

paired withBackcountry management in which restoration would occur primarily by use of natural disturbance and prescribed fire
A high degree of flexibility to develop stand-level prescriptions

 

paired withA “pacing” mechanism to ensure that high-consensus restoration occurs alongside scheduled harvest

 

In short, the Partnership asked the agency to increase harvest levels and improve ecological outcomes—to “do more, better work.” To succeed with current budgets, we knew that we needed to avoid unnecessary conflict. Each of the recommendations was therefore calibrated to proactively address tensions that would otherwise create project-level friction.

For example, all members supported levels of harvest that are beyond the Forest Service’s current capacity, provided that increasing harvest levels does not exacerbate the road maintenance backlog (a proxy for risk to water quality) and the spread of non-native invasive plants. So, we proposed “tiered objectives,” or stretch goals, which were accompanied by adaptive management triggers (e.g., reduction of the road maintenance backlog, treatments levels for invasive plants). When we can demonstrate that we can keep up with the work needed to mitigate negative impacts at Tier 1, then we know we are within our fiscal capability to stretch to Tier 2.

As another example, some members strongly felt that project-level flexibility was essential to meet restoration needs in viable timber sales, but other members were worried that commercial realities would lead to too much even-aged harvest in the wrong ecozones, like coves. These are inherently plan-level questions: how much is too much? Failing to answer those kinds of questions in the plan will create the conditions for sustained conflict at the project level. To avoid that, we proposed a pacing mechanism. We asked the Forest Service to track types of harvest and ensure that at least half of the total is in one of several priority treatment types—common conditions where timber harvest (including commercial harvest) can maintain or improve stand-level composition or function.

These were innovations we believed would not only solve local problems, but might also be useful for other forests with similar challenges. Indeed, some kind of pacing mechanism is essential to meet the goals of the 2012 rule. Ecological restoration does not have a cookie-cutter solution. It requires some measure of flexibility to do the right things at the project level, but it also requires some mechanism to ensure that we’re doing them in the right proportions in the right places in the longer term.

Unfortunately, the Forests rejected these carefully balanced recommendations. They agreed to increase timber harvest levels, but declined to include any pacing mechanism to ensure that the types and proportions of harvest would restore ecological integrity. They adopted tiered objectives, but they declined to adopt the triggers needed to determine when we are ready to move to the more ambitious targets. They emphasized scheduled timber harvest, but declined to limit it to areas without high potential for conflict. They created an ecological restoration management area but declined to put any substantial acreage in it, instead enlarging the suitable base.

Despite these choices, it’s hard to argue that the planning team has not been committed to public process. At stakeholders’ request, the DEIS alternatives were deliberately calibrated to keep stakeholders from retreating to their corners. During plan revision, planners attended dozens of meetings. Specialists were generous with their time and expertise. And the agency clearly expects the collaborative process to continue into implementation. Plan at 25.

Yet the Forest Service did not roll up its sleeves and actively engage in the process of developing collaborative solutions. Agency thinking happened in a black box, with progress revealed only during formal public comment periods. ID Team meetings were closed, and there was minimal dialogue or feedback. With a Plan that describes work far outside the zone of consent, it appears that consensus proposals were not understood or valued. As a result, it is hard to trust that the agency’s commitment to the collaborative process will result in implementation of collaborative outcomes. Indeed, if project-level discretion and collaboration were enough, we wouldn’t need a new plan.

Here’s how things look in hindsight: Dozens of professionals and volunteers spent eight years working to build consensus at the Forest Service’s request. We were asked to put aside past conflicts created by a parade of zero-sum projects and to imagine a different future. We were asked to be ambassadors to our respective communities. And we showed up. We stretched our comfort zones to the limit, and we handed the agency a roadmap for ecological and social sustainability. Meanwhile, the Forest Service was digging a moat around the plan it intended to finalize from the start—a plan that makes our work irrelevant.

 

The 2012 Rule after 10 Years

There you have it. Better intentions; fewer commitments.

I realize that some of you will read that as a good thing. Some will argue that increased agency discretion will result in bigger accomplishments. Others will note that a lack of protective standards will cause greater harm. Still others will hope that, despite a lack of clear plan direction to protect conservation values and restore key ecosystem characteristics, we will find a way forward anyhow. That the relationships, improved understanding, and good intentions formed during the past ten years will help us design successful projects in the next fifteen. (“The real plan is the friends we made along the way!”)

For my part, I cannot believe that the 2012 Rule was intended to fund years-long, expensive processes that don’t produce decisions to solve problems. If we’re simply hoping that we can reach the same compromises again later at the project level, why not reflect them in the Plan now? Why did we accumulate ten years’ worth of analysis and consensus-building only to defer the decisions to the project level, where we can analyze and contest them again and again? These questions, moreover, are bigger than any single plan revision: why should self-respecting stakeholders invest years in future collaborative processes if their collective input can be so dismissively rejected? In the interest of protecting both agency and stakeholder time investments in this planning process and encouraging similar investments in future planning processes, the Forest Service should make decisions now that will reflect consensus and improve efficiency during implementation.

If the Nantahala-Pisgah’s Revised Plan is any indication, we have a long way to go to realize the promise of the 2012 Rule. I continue to believe that the Rule’s innovations—ecological restoration and consensus-building—are the agency’s path to continued relevance, but the 2012 Rule will ultimately be judged by the projects (and, unfortunately, by the conflicts) that it produces. Based on our local experience, what is working for the Rule, and what are the challenges?

  • Identifying and ensuring progress toward restoration goals:It is possible to develop broadly supported reference conditions for ecological restoration in distinct ecological systems, even in highly altered eastern forests. There is good scientific information available, much of it developed by partners and agency professionals working together.It is harder to craft plan components that can make meaningful progress toward reference conditions with anticipated budgets. The problem is simple: under an ecological restoration paradigm, the highest-priority work is often the least economical. On the other hand, there is a real potential for increasing budgets in coming years. Although the planning rule’s fiscal capability requirement is important, it should not be a straitjacket forcing planners to choose between (a) trying to justify doing the wrong things because they can pay for themselves and (b) doing nothing at all.Surmounting this problem requires a willingness to innovate beyond the planning rule’s text. Tiered objectives and adaptive management triggers offer a platform to justify additional funding, incentivize partner contributions, and get more done. But doing more is not an end in itself. A pacing mechanism is essential to ensure that the easiest or most commercially viable work does not displace higher priority work or get ahead of mitigation needs. Both of these innovations can be incorporated into traditional plan components.

    Increasing the pace and scale of ecological restoration also requires more thoughtful and efficient land allocations. The Forest Service must ensure that known conservation assets are not mapped into suitable management areas, where plan-level acreage and volume goals take priority over local values by default. Such allocations inevitably will result in continued project-level conflict and attrition. Conflict as a sideboard for conservation values can only “work” at low levels of harvest; it will not allow us to scale up without damaging ecological values and the public trust.

  • Supporting, participating in, and reflecting collaborative work:The Forest Service has learned a great deal about how to create opportunities for collaboration and to provide support to its stakeholders with information and resources. This was an important goal of the planning rule, and the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs have taken it seriously.The agency “black box,” however, remains a major obstacle to effective collaboration. When planners believe they know the right solution already, they are likely to shield the messy parts of the process from scrutiny. Collaboration works best, however, when agency staff are willing to work toward solutions as participants. The agency should communicate better about its own institutional needs and limitations to support consensus-building around new approaches that will work for partners and the agency alike.But it is essential that planners understand they need the public’s help to find the right answer, and they must be willing to reflect consensus in the plan itself—to share decision space. While some forests and districts have taken the plunge, there remain pockets of institutional resistance. Collaborative stakeholders will often ask for guardrails to ensure future actions stay within the zone of consent, and those guardrails can be at odds with agency preferences for greater discretion. Agency leaders must learn that setting limits during the planning process isn’t at odds with agency discretion but is instead an efficient way to exercise agency discretion. Ultimately, collaborative planning must offer stakeholders more than a request to trust its intentions. Trust requires accountability.

The Nantahala-Pisgah Plan is caught in the middle between what the agency is getting right and the lessons it has yet to learn. It’s optimistic but unfinished. Fortunately, there is still time to get it right. This plan is too important to give up on yet—both for the Nantahala-Pisgah and as a model for other forests that are trying to overcome histories of conflict.

This is also a make-or-break moment for the planning rule. Ten years in, there are no more excuses. The rule is not in transition any more. What the rule means here, now, is what it really means. Can the agency commit to work for better outcomes, build trust, and demonstrate its relevance to a public that is increasingly worried about the climate and biodiversity crises? Or will it teach the public that restoration is just another euphemism for business as usual? The next few months will tell.

Conservation in Cow Country: Guest Post by Toner Mitchell

by

Here’s a post by Toner Mitchell. I always like to share stories of people working together to solve problems rather than enemizing and castigating.  But who is working with recreationists to reduce their impact?  And, when is tolerance a good thing (e.g. seeing cows)? Here’s a link to this story on the TU website.

In New Mexico’s Jemez Mountains, TU and ranchers are working together to keep streams healthy and improve range productivity.

On our way to inspect his grazing allotment, Manuel Lucero and I pull over next to a tree where some campers have left their trash in a neat and organized pile of boxes and tied up plastic sacks.

Lucero notes this as a common occurrence after most summer weekends, especially on this one dirt road, perhaps the busiest thoroughfare connecting Albuquerque to its playgrounds in the Jemez Mountains.

“They actually believe they’re being responsible,” he says. “Someone else is supposed to pick up after them, and they’re trying to make it easy. Tonight, the bears will drag all this down to the creek, and the trash will eventually float into our ditches and fields.”

Manuel Lucero working on well to provide off-stream watering.

In the years I’ve known Manuel, I’ve never seen him without his black cowboy hat on. He takes guilty pleasure in watching the TV series “Yellowstone” and in dropping the occasional irreverent joke. As president of the San Diego Grazing Association, however, this rancher in his thirties is dead serious.

Manuel runs cattle on about 96,000 acres of the Santa Fe National Forest, and he embraces the responsibility of stewarding so much land.

Some of the land he grazes provides habitat for native Rio Grande cutthroat trout and several listed wildlife species, as well as water for small farming communities downstream. With these realities in mind, Trout Unlimited reached out to Manuel’s grazing association in 2015 to explore the possibility of simultaneously improving riparian habitat and range productivity.

Healthy riparian habitat means happy trout streams. And in the Jemez mountains, a recreational haven serving three of New Mexico’s largest cities, healthy riparian habitat increasingly means happy ranchers, who try to avoid conflict with other public land users when possible.

Since their partnership began, TU and the San Diego Grazing Association have joined forces on fence repairs and renovations of water lines and drinkers. We’ve shared expenses on a mobile corral, a water storage tank, and battery-powered chainsaws to clear fallen timber from fences during fire season.

Through these and other actions, this partnership has succeeded in distributing grazing pressure more evenly across the San Diego and neighboring Cebolla-San Antonio allotments.

Drinker drained by weekend campers and filled with trash; empty drinkers push cows to the creeks.

In 2021, we teamed up with the Forest Service and The Nature Conservancy on an effort to increase grazing efficiency and to discourage cows from loitering in riparian areas. The project, which included approximately $87,000.00 in funding from TNC’s Rio Grande Water Fund, entailed the drilling of two canyon-rim wells on the Cebolla-San Antonio allotment.

The wells will gravity-feed a network of drinking lines and enable the utilization of certain upland pastures with lots of clumpy tall grass. The grass in these pastures is decadent, a result of being left almost completely unbitten by elk and cattle.

With drinking capacity provided by the new wells, these under-used pastures will absorb more pressure (and manure), while enabling heavily grazed meadows to receive some rest.

Ten miles up the road, Manuel and I are parked at the upper end of a long meadow next to a fenced enclosure surrounding a locked well house with a sheet metal roof.

The well supplies drinking troughs across the Virgin, Stable, and Holiday mesas that rise above us to the south—it is essentially the nerve center of much of the San Diego allotment.

Having grazed for their allotted days, the cows have left the meadow for the mesa tops. From Memorial Day until school starts is the season of the weekender, when residents of Albuquerque seek relief from the urban heat and bustle.

Manuel points out thicker stands of forest where RVs can’t penetrate. The grass there has grown about a foot since being eaten. Elsewhere across the camping footprint, the only grass that grows is smashed into dusty ground.

“But if one cow shows up here this weekend, I’ll hear about it on Monday,” Lucero says. “I get it, campers don’t want to see cows, but cows don’t like people either. Cows are smart, but they’re also dumb. They’d rather be up top, but with people all over the mountain they get confused. Let’s be honest, people are everywhere.”

He’s not exaggerating. Scanning the sloping meadow, we see occupied, often illegal, campsites almost any place one can park a car; in ranching parlance, it’s quite a few “head” of people.

Manuel notes the irony in how, come evening, the whole canyon will smell like grilling beef and hot dogs and how the same people bashing his cows will leave their fire rings full of beer cans.

Already this summer, an RV owner broke the lock off the wellhouse and plugged into its power source; campers drained one of his troughs and used it as a trash bin; and on any given year, hikers will invariably bathe in the troughs, oblivious to the repellant effect soap and lotion have on thirsty cows and wildlife.

People cut fences to make way for ATVs. They do donuts in the pastures.

One fine individual used a Sawzall to cut a door in a water tank critical to minimizing cattle presence in riparian areas of the Rio Cebolla. Purchased jointly by TU and the San Diego Grazing Association, this tank was rendered into a suitable dwelling for the vandal and his small herd of goats, and useless for the purpose of watering cattle and wildlife.

Vandalized water tank paid for by TU and rancher partners. Functional watering systems help keep cows out of important riparian ecosystems.

As Manuel talks, I’m impressed by a patience seeping through his frustration, a seeming acceptance of adversity as a part of the ranching life that can drive one toward improvement.

Manuel, his father Mariano, brother Michael, and the members of the association all share common ancestors who settled in the Jemez country in the late 1700s. Back then, everyone was a rancher, a farmer, a hunter, a gatherer and, most important, a neighbor or friend to native Pueblo people already occupying the valley.

Back then the land was definitely public, but in an existential sense. Multiple use was not only a matter of cooperation, but of life and death.

As part of our commitment to protecting and restoring the Rio Grande cutthroat, itself a cultural icon, TU will continue building partnerships with ranchers and other stakeholders in the Rio Grande watershed. Honoring deep-rooted practices will be key to sustaining adaptive stewardship. As Manuel Lucero says, “Our people wouldn’t have lasted this long if we couldn’t find ways of understanding different ways of living.”

Science to Support the Wildfire Crisis Strategy

by

The USFS recently sent out an R&D Special Issue, “Science to Support the Wildfire Crisis Strategy.” Lots of science on topics of our recent discussions. I hope this format will work….

 

Researchers and Fire Managers Strengthen Ties
An issue titled Developments in Wildland Fire Research in Fire Management Today compiles the latest advances in managing fire, measuring fuels and smoke, co-producing science on prescribed fire and understanding how fire interacts with other disturbances.
New Comprehensive Resource on Past, Present and Future Fire Ecology
Over 70 experts, including Forest Service scientists, managers and external partners wrote a broad synthesis on fire ecology for every major forest type in the U.S. The book outlines management options for reducing wildfire risk while maintaining biological diversity and ecosystem integrity.
A Critical Analysis of Plans to
Restore Forest Resilience
As we ramp up forest management to historic levels, many may wonder if these efforts can effectively reduce wildfire risk to communities. And will these efforts also create landscapes that are resilient to disturbance? A research team including Forest Service scientists asked these difficult questions in a recent in-depth synthesis. The authors conclude that a range of proactive, science-based management activities will be needed to keep up with changing trends in climate and wildfire.
Using Forest History as a Guide for Future Resilience
Ideally, future forests will be tolerant of climate change and other disturbances. Figuring out what these forests should look like is tricky. A recent study by Forest Service scientists and partners found that between 1911 and 2011, dry forests in the western U.S. became six to seven times more crowded and average tree size shrank by 50%. Based on historical conditions, the authors suggest that the key to future resilience is promoting low density forests. This will reduce competition for resources among trees, allow them to grow larger and provide them with greater capacity to withstand disturbance.
Do Communities Trust Land Management Agencies?
To find out, Forest Service scientists surveyed five wildfire-prone communities in the western U.S. They learned that communities tended to trust more when they perceived competence and coordination among agencies. The authors suggest that managers focus on active communication, demonstrating competence and showing intent to act in the best interest of communities.
Delivering Smoke Science
Directly to People
The AirFire Research Team is part of a collaborative interagency program that studies wildland fire emissions, smoke and air quality. Their mission is to help public agencies and communities prepare for smoke impacts before wildfire occurs. They developed a real-time Smoke Map that is also available as a mobile app.
Wildfires are Becoming
More Active at Night
Forest Service scientists and partners used satellite imagery to monitor wildfire activity at night across the conterminous U.S. Between 2003 and 2020, they estimated a 20-50% increase in fire activity at night, which outpaced daytime increases. More intense and expansive night fire activity will likely accompany more large wildfires, posing additional danger to firefighters and communities.
When to Let Wildfires Burn?
One way to help restore fire-adapted ecosystems is to let wildfires do some of the work of prescribed fires. Deciding when not to fully suppress a wildfire is extremely complex, finds a recent review that includes a Forest Service co-author. Operational concerns and risk aversion were two important obstacles to managing wildfire in this way.

Old Growth and Clearcutting Fact-Finding: Orion Article on the Black Ram Project

by
Old-growth forest proposed for regeneration harvest logging in the Black Ram project, unit 45.
Kootenai National Forest in the Purcell Mountains, northwest Montana.

A tSW community member suggested a joint fact-finding discussion around the question of how much logging old-growth and clearcutting still goes on in the FS (and perhaps BLM).  One of the difficulties with this discussion is that the definitions are unclear, as we have seen, and different communities use different definitions.  So, of course, it makes sense to look at specific projects that have been proposed or carried out. What I hope to be an enlightening journey for all of us from the generic to the specific.

When I worked on Capitol Hill, one of the perks was to attend free food and drink events put on by different groups (OK, and learn about their views as well).  I remember attending a session of a nature writers’ group which was fascinating, as they talked about the same things we dealt with at work (trees, forests), but from a completely different perspective with different language.

This Orion article by a writer named Rick Bass, is a peek into that world.

When I sleep, I am not aware of the threat of doom. The thousand-year-old forest that well may not live to be 1,001. All of it, obliterated, shattered, bombed.

The fuse has been lit. The fuse is burning. The government, under the previous administration, but abetted yet by the current one, says it’s time for this thousand-year-old forest to become “resilient.” Says that logging it down to dust—effectively, a thousand-acre clearcut—is the way to teach it resilience. They’ve named this proposed project, this fever dream, a remnant zombie from the previous reign, “Black Ram.”

When a forest gets to be this old and untouched, it becomes something more than a forest. It becomes what we would think of as a mind, with history, knowledge, memory, and foresight. It has a pulse, and a spirit incomprehensible to us—but we can feel it when we’re in its presence. There aren’t many like this one left. Maybe none in Montana. Regional minor timber barons and public servants in the Forest Service’s timber shop will scoff at such an idea, but when you step into this ancient garden, you feel not just all that is above, but also so much of what lies below. It’s humbling, recognizing that, though we may be in the middle, we are not the center. Through the phenomenon of gap creation, the forest is in perfect balance, growing and rotting. Never burning. Though rot, of course, is but a slow gentle fire of its own. The circular amid the linear rot, the ancient geometry of the disassembly building a nest that is, before our eyes and all the other senses, a miracle of reassembly. Life, lived slowly; life, lived so large.

I will not tell you that the old and mature forests store 70 percent more carbon than do the monoculture plantations planned for these public lands. I will tell you instead that I can no longer go into this old forest without falling asleep. Maybe in that fashion the universe is, even now, seeking to balance itself, as it used to do once upon a time, before we broke so very many things. Maybe my sleeping creates a space for someone else to wake up. Please, God, let that person be the current president, himself but a grain of sand and gnat-blink to this forest, and to time.  

The first think I notice is the writing is absolutely beautiful.. not like a forest plan, an EIS or even most posts on TSW. The beauty of the words might make us less inclined to poke at the basis for the knowledge claims. For example, “When a forest gets to be this old and untouched, it becomes something more than a forest.” It’s OK to be a mystic. I’m a mystic in the line of Hildegard of Bingen. But mystical knowledge claims are usually hard to make in our post-Enlightenment materialist society. Or, perhaps, sometimes they are OK and sometimes not (talking to angels). Something to watch.

It’s also interesting how science fits into this in the author’s view.

If science were still revered in this country, it would possess what scientists call baseline data. But we are not going to talk about science here. Science went away in the previous administration, and we are waiting to see to what extent the current one will bring it back. We’re still waiting.

This seems a bit of an overstatement to me (think Fauci and Collins) but OK that’s what polemicists do.

Through the phenomenon of gap creation, the forest is in perfect balance, growing and rotting. Never burning.

The idea of “balance” is one of many ideas about Nature. For other ideas check out our discussion of Dan Botkin’s book “The Moon in the Nautilus Shell.” Dan was also frustrated that “the science” wasn’t coming through in policy, in terms of acknowledging that ecosystems are dynamic, and nature is not in “balance.”

On the other hand, these specific claims should be able to be investigated by reviewing the decision documents “monoculture plantations planned for these public lands” “”thousand acre clearcuts” and “thousand year old forest.”

But this post has gotten too long, and so I’ll take that up in the next post. Plenty of philosophy and science claims to discuss here, and beautiful writing to read.

Science Friday: Reducing Tree Density in Dry Forests Can Help Drought and Insect Resistance- Bradford et al. Paper

by


If you click on this figure twice you can see it more clearly.

I have often observed that in Oregon, dry forest management tends to be seen through a wet forest filter due to the location of most scientists, interest groups, and politicians on the West Side. So I am in no way, shape or form, suggesting that this study is applicable to wetter forests than those studied (all east of Cascades and SW Or and NW Cal). The idea is that basically in a dry forest in drought, reducing BA and competition for water will keep trees healthier. Many of us have observed this effect in the field after thinning projects and some might say that this is old news, but the authors use large datasets to come to some interesting conclusions.

This seems to be  the opposite of the Williamette project in the previous post; lots of ecological reasons but no industry. In fact if you look at figure 3d, it appears that the areas that could use thinning the most (yellow) are least likely to have forest industry of any size.  Do the maps make sense in the areas you know?

Here are the conclusions of this study.

Interactions between competition and drought provide information for near-term forest management. In particular, the response of mortality to drought-density interactions reinforces the climate adaptation benefits of ongoing forest landscape restoration (Stoddard et al., 2021) that is increasingly widespread in ponderosa pine forests (Figure 1a). Increasing BA in the late 20th century over many forests in the western U.S. (Rautiainen et al., 2011), particularly in ponderosa pine forests (Covington & Moore, 1994; Reynolds et al., 2013), prompted restoration projects designed to reduce forest density, promote structural conditions consistent with the historical range of variability, and mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfires that lead to rapid loss of forest cover and ecosystem carbon (McCauley et al., 2019). The interactions demonstrated here between competition and hot drought provide quantitative information about how density reduction enabled by these restoration projects, initially designed for other purposes, will also help buffer forests against heat- and drought-driven tree mortality that is increasing in forests around the world (Allen et al., 2010). In addition, these results identify areas where BA reduction may be most useful for enhancing dry forest sustainability. Geographical patterns in estimated benefits of reducing current BA (Figure 3c,d) and in overall climate-driven sensitivity of mortality to basal area (Figure 3e) may be useful for prioritizing future restoration projects. Our results suggest that substantial reduction in BA may be necessary to moderate drought-induced mortality (Figure S4c). These treatments would alter forest structure, and the impact of those changes need to be weighed against the benefits of imposing treatments. Although severe mortality events driven by hot droughts and insects would also reduce BA, restoration treatments may include benefits like selecting the trees to removed or retain, and avoiding rapid increases in fuel loads after mortality.

Although our focus was assessing how BA and drought combine to influence tree mortality, our data include the effects of insect activity. Tree mortality is often elevated by the combination of both drought and insects (Anderegg et al., 2015). Mortality events driven by these drought–insect combinations have been demonstrated in many areas, including in ponderosa pine forests within our study area and sampling period (Fettig et al., 2019; Stephenson et al., 2019). Including these recent insect outbreaks in the data we examined ensures that our results about how mortality responds to drought type and basal area are relevant even in the context of substantial insect activity. Specifically, the potential for reducing BA to decrease tree mortality encompasses the influence of both drought (whose effects may be exacerbated by high BA due to competition) and insect dynamics (whose effects may be exacerbated by BA due to insect population dynamics not directly related to tree competition). Unlike insects, we attempted to avoid including other mortality agents by excluding plots with wildfire or harvesting. As a result, our overall average mortality rate of ~0.8% per year (5th–95th percentile = 0.14% and 1.8% per year) is an estimate of background mortality and may be less than other studies of ponderosa pine mortality (Ganey & Vojta, 2011). Drought contributes to wildfire activity (Hicke et al., 2016), underscoring the need to untangle the interacting influences of these multiple mortality agents. In addition, our results may not fully account for the consequences of actual temporal changes in climate and/or forest because we utilized a space-for-time substitution, which has recognized limitations in modelling climate-induced changes in tree mortality with a single remeasurement of FIA plots (Dietze & Moorcroft, 2011).

Forest managers have relatively few proven strategies to enhance near-term drought resistance of intact dry forests to rising temperatures and more extreme droughts. Long-term forest management strategies for climate adaptation include harvesting and/or planting to shift composition towards tree species with higher drought tolerance (Paz-Kagan et al., 2017) or to promote forests with higher diversity in species composition or functional traits (Anderegg et al., 2016). Reducing BA in existing forests is a complementary and feasible strategy that our results suggest will have long-term benefits. The interactions identified here provide insight into the types of drought that most influence tree mortality, and how those drought conditions can be minimized by moderating competitive intensity. Specifically, BA reduction can enhance resistance to hot conditions and to multiyear drought events, whose frequency and severity are also expected to be increased as a result of elevated hydro-climatic variability (Swain et al., 2018). This elevated hydro-climate variability may create more multiyear wet periods that could enhance mortality in subsequent droughts by promoting structural overshoot (Jump et al., 2017), further highlighting the benefits of density reduction. Predictions of multiyear wet periods (Liu & Di Lorenzo, 2018) may represent important opportunities for intensive management (e.g. thinning) to promote forest structural conditions with high resilience to hot droughts (Bradford et al., 2018). Our findings that basal area interacts strongly with multiyear drought, and that 3-year wet periods partially mitigate ponderosa pine mortality, provide evidence that both the interactions and the occurrence of wet periods may be useful focal points for additional synthesis and analysis.

Science Friday: “There may never be a single, widely accepted definition of old growth”—Tom Spies

by
Old growth longleaf pine forest

Some of us feel like we are revisiting the past.  Like I said, the mid-90’s there was a whole lot of defining going on.

I picked out this Science Finding  from the Pacific Northwest Station ( nice work PNW!) because I think the authors did a good job of summarizing the definition quandary . It’s from 2003, twenty years ago, now. I thought “uh-oh” when I read the first sentence.

Not all forests with old trees are scientifically defined as old growth. Among those that are, the variations are so striking that multiple definitions of old-growth forests are needed, even when the discussion is restricted to Pacific coast old-growth forests from southwestern Oregon to southwestern British Columbia.

What is an old-growth forest?
The question is not as simple as it may seem. The term “old growth” came from foresters in the early days of logging. In the 1970s research ecologists began using the term to describe forests at least 150 years old that developed a complex structure characterized by large, live and dead trees; distinctive habitats; and a diverse group of plants, fungi, and animals.

Environmental groups use the term “old growth” to describe forests with large, old trees and no clearly visible human influences. Many forest scientists do not see the absence of human activity as a necessary criterion for old-growth, but there is no consensus on this in the scientific community. This publication focuses on a scientific perspective of old-growth forests; however, this viewpoint is not the only possible one.

Recently, researchers and managers from Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia held a workshop on the development of old-growth forests in the region from southwestern Oregon to southwestern British Columbia. The group looked at what scientists have learned since the first major publication on ecological characteristics of old-growth forests in 1981. They focused on coastal Douglas-fir forests, but also included closely associated types such as western hemlock and Sitka spruce forests. “Coastal” included the area from the Pacific Ocean to the crest of the Cascade Range.

By using new technologies such as canopy cranes and laser scanning, scientists are learning much about canopy complexity and development in old-growth forests.
Of many challenging topics on the 3-day agenda, the question of definitions was the first one the group discussed. Many forestry textbooks lump all old-growth forests into one stage of forest development. Most scientists now agree, though, that the term “old-growth forests” actually includes forests in many stages of development, and forests that differ widely in character with age, geographic location, and disturbance history. Even within the specified geographic area, no one definition represents the full diversity of old-growth ecosystems.

Probably no single definition of old-growth forests and their values will ever exist.
“There may never be a single, widely accepted definition of old growth—there are just too many strong opinions from different perspectives including forest ecology, wildlife ecology, recreation, spirituality, economics, sociology,” says Tom Spies, research forest ecologist for PNW Research Station.

Spies and Jerry Franklin, University of Washington professor, developed a generic definition of old-growth forests in 1989 for the Forest Service. The definition reads, in part: “Old growth forests are ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes…that may include tree size, accumulations of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species composition, and ecosystem function.” Most scientists would now include vertical and horizontal diversity in tree canopy as an important attribute.

This definition of old growth is widely accepted but too general for forest inventory or planning. Most scientists at the workshop thought that multiple definitions of old growth are needed for the diversity of forest types within the region.  Also, they thought, old-growth definitions should be finetuned to the inherent patterns and dynamics of the forest landscape mosaic of an area. “At best, we thought it may be possible to converge on a small set of definitions for inventory or mapping purposes,” Spies says.

Even so, when these definitions are applied, some old forests might be just one large tree per acre below the required minimum or have too few large, down logs, and thus might not meet a rigid definition. “The boundaries of what defines old-growth forests are a lot fuzzier than we’d like,” Spies explains. “Some young forests have elements of old growth, and old growth often has patches of young forest. Where fire was common in the past, the dominant trees have a wide range of ages.” In the end, he comments, “Because we deal with complex ecosystems, we have to be comfortable with flexible terms and some ambiguity.”

My bold.

With regard to “accumulations of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species composition, and ecosystem function. Most scientists would now include vertical and horizontal diversity in tree canopy as an important attribute.” But fire-adapted forests often don’t have accumulations of dead woody material, number of canopy layers, horizontal diversity, as in the longleaf photo above.
Seems like a national definition would be a heavy, and perhaps unnecessary and unhelpful lift.

I’ll going to write the Sierra Club folks and ask (1) if they have a definition and (2) what projects they know of with this problem.  I’ll report back. Meanwhile thanks to Susan Jane for listing a project where old growth has been called out as an issue.  I’ve got another one to discuss next week, and please put any others in the comments.

Additional note: reading the Campaign it actually says “We are calling on the Biden Administration to enact a strong, lasting rule that protects mature trees and forest stands from logging across federal lands as a cornerstone of US climate policy. ” That would seem to place them at odds with the “cutting big to protect bigger” we’ve been discussing.

Protect “Old Growth Trees” in National Forests Groups Tell Biden: Washington Post Story

by

 

 

Old Growth Stand on Fremont Winema National Forest-  Ponderosa Pine

Here are some excerpts from the story.

While many policymakers look to shiny new technologies to solve the climate crisis, advocates say that safeguarding trees has long been a simple way to store carbon dioxide, preventing the potent greenhouse gas from entering the atmosphere and warming the planet.

“We often call it the climate solution you don’t have to invent,” Ellen Montgomery, public lands campaign director for Environment America, told The Climate 202. “Trees are literally standing right there in front of us.”

If “safeguarding” trees seems easy, perhaps they haven’t been talking about wildfire management/suppression (think WFDSS) nor APHIS import regulations. While it can’t hurt to not log them., there are difficulties with considering them a climate solution on the same level as technological fixes.  That’s the argument people make about offsets, anyway.

Their specific demand is for the U.S. Forest Service to begin crafting a rule to protect all old-growth trees on federal lands from logging.

But what is “old growth”? Maybe some of you remember in the 90’s there was an effort to define old growth with TNC and R&D folks.  There’s quite a bit of literature from that time including this one that looked at different definitions for different types. This might be a good time for those of you who were involved to give a historical perspective.

In addition to Environment America, the groups launching the campaign include the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Wild Heritage. Their specific demand is for the U.S. Forest Service to begin crafting a rule to protect all old-growth trees on federal lands from logging.

  • In 2001, under President Bill Clinton, the Forest Service enacted a “roadless rule,” which prohibited road construction and timber harvesting on nearly 50 million acres in national forests.
  • However, most trees on federal lands are located elsewhere, according to the groups.

“Right now, there isn’t anything that protects older parts of our nation’s forests,” Kirin Kennedy, director of people and nature policy at the Sierra Club, told The Climate 202. “So we’re looking to put those protections in place.” (my bold)

I guess I thought old growth was discussed in forest plans.  It should certainly be considered as part of NRV.  But maybe old trees are “old growth” and there’s another definitional gap. Or maybe forest plans aren’t “permanent” enough?

Since the Admin signaled from the beginning that it would go back to the 2001 Rule in Alaska (in gesture that seemed what we would call “pre-decisional” if a district ranger were to do it), is this a recognition that Roadless is won and it’s already time to push for more?

“We’re really in favor of protecting the Tongass because of what it holds as a natural resource — and because of the benefits it provides not only to Alaska, but to the United States as a whole,” Kennedy said.

I wonder how much “old-growth logging” takes place on the Tongass and in the rest of the country.

Here’s a link..to the press release.

So gather your favorite old growth papers, memories or stories and we’ll explore this topic further.

What You Can Do About Invasive Species Affecting Forests: Guest Post by Faith Campbell

by
These folks and USDA hold the keys to successful protection of US forests from introduced pests

 

You’ll note that many of these involve contacting state and federal governments and legislators. I’ve noticed that many ENGOs and other organizations make that easy to do by clicking on links and filling out forms.  If someone wanted  to make a serious impact on this problem, (if you were a foundation) you could set up such a thing for what Faith is asking.  It’s a bit puzzling to me why this used to be an issue of interest to ENGOs but not so much anymore.  “Dead trees sequester no carbon” and all that. And if we’re depending on forests as “natural climate solutions” seems like potential tree-killers would be a big piece of the puzzle.  After all, the biggest forest/wildlife/human culture disruption in US history was the Chestnut blight.

*************************************************************************************************

My two previous blogs outlined the risk to U.S. forests from introduced insects and pathogens and the principal pathways of introduction: crates, pallets & other forms of packaging made of wood; and woody plants – imported usually for the ornamental horticulture market. I also addressed the need to reduce the damage caused by the hundreds of pests already established in the country.

I believe effective programs to manage introduced insects and pathogens must be guided by three principles:

1) Robust federal leadership is crucial:

  1. The Constitution gives primacy to federal agencies in managing imports and interstate trade.
  2. Only a consistent approach can protect trees (and other plants) from non-native pests that spread across state lines.
  3. Even after decades of budget and staff cuts, Federal agencies still have more resources than state agencies individually or in any probable collective efforts.

2) Success depends on a continuing, long-term effort founded on institutional and financial commitments commensurate with the scale of the threat. This requires stable funding; guidance by research findings and expert staff; and engagement by non-governmental players and stakeholders. However, funding has been neither adequate nor stable.

3) Programs’ effectiveness needs to be measured – outcomes, not just effort.

What you can do to support actions consistent with these principles

Make the case

  • Expand your efforts to educate decision-makers and conservation organizations about the threat to conservation values arising from invasive species, particularly introduced forest insects and pathogens. Sources of information include Barrett, Fei, Poland, and Quirion (cited in the earlier blogs) and Lovett et al. (2006) Forest Ecosystem Responses to Exotic Pests and Pathogens in Eastern North America. BioScience Vol. 56 No. 5 May 2006). Engage with current loose coalitions working to improve policy – such as mine!
  • Encourage scientific societies of which you are a member to engage on policy issues related to the introduction and management of introduced forest pests and pathogens and restoration of decimated tree species to the forest.
  • Familiarize yourself with the literature demonstrating that international phytosanitary agreements (World Trade Organization Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards; International Plant Protection Convention) preclude actions to prevent introduction of “unknown unknowns” (surprise pests). Consider adding your voice to advocating change.

Funding

  • Every year, review proposed funding levels of APHIS and USFS programs and urge your Member of Congress and Senators to ensure they are adequate. APHIS’ Tree and wood pest program has been appropriated $60 million for several years despite increasing number of introduced wood-borers. Only $5 million of the $300 million USFS Research and Development account has been allocated to invasive species.

Creating a coordination comprehensive program

  • Urge your Member of Congress to co-sponsor H.R. 1389. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1389?s=1&r=78 Ask your Senators to introduce a companion bill. Peter Welch (D-VT) is the lead sponsor; so far there are eight cosponsors — Thompson (CA), Pingree (ME), Kuster and Pappas (NH), Stefanik and Delgado (NY), Ross (NC), Fitzpatrick (PA). This bill would fund research into enhancing host species’ resistance to pests and planting of resulting progeny. It would also ease APHIS’ access to emergency funds. Ask them to ensure that this measure is included in the 2023 Farm Bill.
  • Read Bonello, et al., (2020) Invasive Tree Pests Devastate Ecosystems—A Proposed New Response Framework. Front. For. Glob. Change 3:2. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2020.00002

If you think this proposal makes sense, lobby your Member of Congress and Senators to 1) support H.R. 1389 or 2) press USDA to take administrative actions to implement such a comprehensive approach.

Improve Control over Introduction Pathways

  • Urge your Member of Congress and Senators to press USDA to open APHIS data on pest detections in imported wood packaging, living plants, and other commodities and conveyances to analysis by independent scientists.
  • Urge your Member of Congress and Senators to press APHIS to apply financial penalties to importers when wood packaging accompanying their imports does not comply with regulations in effect since 2006.
  • Urge your Member of Congress and Senators to press APHIS to utilize its authority under the “Not Authorized for Importation Pending Pest Risk Assessment” (NAPPRA) program to prohibit importation of most plant species in the 150 genera of “woody” plants that North America shares with Europe or Asia.
  • Support creation and surveillance of “sentinel plant” gardens near high-risk sites in the U.S. and in our trade partners.

Strengthen Programs to Reduce the Impact of Pests Already Here

Richard Sniezko and Jennifer Koch have documented the success of resistance breeding programs when they are supported by expert staff and reliable funding, and have access to appropriate facilities. One such facility is the USFS Dorena Genetic Resource Center in Oregon.

  • Urge your Member of Congress and Senators to press USFS to expand resistance breeding programs. A starting point would be meeting with the full range of stakeholders to set priorities – probably based in part on the CAPTURE Program developed by Kevin Potter and others.
  • Support H.R. 1389 and its inclusion in the 2023 Farm Bill (see above).
  • Ask your state government to support regional consortia, g., Great Lakes Basin Forest Health Collaborative and Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation.
  • Urge your Member of Congress and Senators to ask the Government Accountability Office or Congressional Research Service to analyze strategies for curtailing spread of pests within the country (the current patchwork of APHIS and state regulations and voluntary programs is not effective).

From Where Wildfires Start to the Forest Service 10-Year Strategy: Tracking the Logic Path of the Downing et. al Paper

by

Many thanks to Matthew for posting the Downing et al. paper from Nature. There are so many fascinating things about this paper, I thought it was worthy of looking at carefully. 1) what the paper says (results) 2) how those relate to the methods (logic paths) and 3) how the conclusions made their way from the paper to the OSU public affairs and other media reports.  It’s a terrific example, because you don’t have to understand the methodologies to understand the knowledge claims and logic.  I’m hoping this analysis will be helpful to students and the paper is open source so anyone can view. This is a longer post than usual.

The first step is always to look at results and discussion.

Conclusion
Our empirical assessment of CB fire activity can support the development of strategies designed to foster fire-adapted communities, successful wildfire response, and ecologically resilient landscapes.

Then try to translate this from academic talk.  First, they talk about “cross boundary” wildfire, in fact, the whole paper is about “cross boundary” wildfire, so that is fires that move from private to public land or vice versa.  Why is this important?  They discuss this in a few paragraphs.

The tension between ecological processes (e.g., fire) and social processes (e.g., WUI development) in mixed ownership landscapes is brought into stark relief when fire ignites on one land tenure and spreads to other ownerships, especially when it results in severe damages to communities on private lands and/or highly valued natural resources on publicly managed wildlands. These cross-boundary (CB) wildfires present particularly acute management challenges because the responsibilities for preventing ignitions, stopping fire spread, and reducing the vulnerability of at-risk, high-value assets are often dispersed among disparate public and private actors with different objectives, values, capacity, and risk tolerances23–25
. Some CB risk mitigation strategies exist, such as fire protection exchanges, which transfer suppression responsibility from one agency (e.g., state) to another (e.g., U.S. Forest Service), and CB fuel treatment agreements, which allow managers to influence components of wildfire risk beyond their jurisdictional boundaries 2,26 . Improving CB wildfire risk management has been identified as a top national priority 27 , but effective, landscape-scale solutions are not readily apparent.
A common narrative used to describe CB fire is as follows: a wildfire ignites on remote public lands (e.g., US Forest Service), spreads to a community, showers homes with embers, and results in structure loss and fatalities 23,25,28 . In this framing, public land management agencies bear the primary responsibility for managing and mitigating CB fire risk, with effort focused on prevention, hazardous fuel reduction, and suppression—largely reinforcing the dominant management paradigm of fire exclusion 29,30 . An alternative risk management framing of this challenge has emerged, starting with the axiom that CB fire transmission is inevitable in fire-prone mixed ownership landscapes and that private landowners and homeowners are the actors best positioned to reduce fire risk to homes and other high-value assets regardless of where the fire starts 31 . In the absence of a broad-scale empirical assessment of CB fire transmission, it is difficult to determine which of these narratives more accurately reflects the nature of the problem, and whether CB fire risk management is best framed in terms of reducing fire transmission from public lands or decreasing the exposure and vulnerability of high-value developed assets on private lands.

So there’s a framing question here.  Where I live, people don’t much care where a fire starts, just if it’s burning close to them.  So the importance of addressing wildfire with the CB framing is based on a “common narrative” with cites 23, 25, and 28.  28 is an interesting paper by Ager et al., definitely worth taking a look at, about Central Oregon, where they found:

Among the land tenures examined, the area burned by incoming fires averaged 57% of the total burned area. Community exposure from incoming fires ignited on surrounding land tenures accounted for 67% of the total area burned.

I would call that an observation, rather than a narrative, but perhaps I’m being pedantic.  For those who don’t track this stuff,  Ager’s groups’ transmission and scenario analysis forms the basis for the prioritization scheme in the Forest Service 10 year action plan.

As to “Improving CB wildfire risk management has been identified as a top national priority 27 , but effective, landscape-scale solutions are not readily apparent.”  I think this is important as in a brief review of their cite to the Fire Plan Implementation Strategy, I didn’t actually see a reference to “cross boundary”-  maybe others can find it.  The other thing I’d point out is that PODS look like they might be an effective landscape-scale solution and they seem apparent to me.  So outside of a scientific paper, that would be an interesting conversation to have.

I found the conclusions interesting as I have just spent several days working on the logic of “fires are increasingly difficult and unpredictable due to fuel accumulation, climate change and increasing amounts of human infrastructure, therefore we need to keep all the tools in the toolkit, including prescribed fire and the Thing Formerly Known as WFU.”  This was rather well-stated IMHO in Wildfire Resolution Letter on  TFKWFU:

As we have seen over the past few years, especially in California and Colorado, we are now experiencing conditions that are causing extreme fire behavior, which is in part due to past full  suppression policy. The best management approach we have to combat this phenomenon is reducing the amount of fuel available to burn. Similar to how important thinning and prescribed burning are around our communities, the ability to manage wildland fires at appropriate times is equally important for reducing fuels in the wildland environment. We will never be able to reduce fire risk to communities with thinning or prescribed fire alone—we need all hands on deck, and all the tools in the toolbox.

So it looks like the authors of the Downing et al. paper ended up in a different place from many other practitioners and the usual fire science suspects.  To me this is a Science Situation That Shouts “Watch Out.”

So that’s why we need to dig deeper.. let’s go to conclusions again in their paper.

Conclusion
Our empirical assessment of CB fire activity can support the development of strategies designed to foster fire-adapted communities, successful wildfire response, and ecologically resilient landscapes. Adapting to increasing CB wildfire in the western US will require viewing socio-ecological risk linkages between CB fire sources and recipients as management assets rather than liabilities. We believe that a shared understanding of CB fire dynamics, based on empirical data, can strengthen the social component of these linkages and promote effective governance. The current wildfire management system is highly fragmented 74 , and increased social and ecological alignment between actors at multiple scales is necessary for effective wildfire risk governance 14,30 .
Cross-boundary fire activity can contribute to multijurisdictional alignment when fire transmission incentivizes actors to collaboratively manage components of risk that manifest outside their respective ownerships 15 . A broader acknowledgement that CB is inevitable in some fire-prone landscapes will ideally shift the focus away from excluding fire in multijurisdictional settings towards improved cross-jurisdictional pre-fire planning and reducing the vulnerability of high-value assets in and around wildlands 30,31 . Federal agencies like the USFS can provide capacity, analytics, and funding, but given that private lands are where most high-value assets are located and where most CB fires originate, communities and private landowners may be best positioned to reduce losses from CB wildfire.

 

Now, first of all, it’s kind of hard to parse some of the academic-ese here “will require viewing socio-ecological risk linkages between CB fire sources and recipients as management assets rather than liabilities.”  I hope it’s clear to others, they lost me. 

“We believe that a shared understanding of CB fire dynamics, based on empirical data, can strengthen the social component of these linkages and promote effective governance.”  That’s nice that they believe that, but I’d be curious about the mechanics of how that works.  Communities have their own lived knowledge of fires and it’s hard to tell them “some scientists ran some simulations and came up with …. “.  And effective governance of HOAs, fire departments, counties, states and feds.. there are many problems at coordination at all scales, but not clear that modeling fire transmissions with their model will be more helpful than all the other fire transmission models that have existed for some time.

“shift the focus away from excluding fire in multijurisdictional settings towards improved cross-jurisdictional pre-fire planning and reducing the vulnerability of high-value assets in and around wildland”  Hmm. We have a system that includes both- a very complicated process and alignment of CWPPs, federal lands and and suppression that takes into account all of the above.  Perhaps the authors have developed a straw person? or are they saying “leave the federal lands alone and focus on communities?”  Which wouldn’t be “all hands all tools”? Or perhaps a change in focus? But then you’d have to articulate what the current focus is and what needs to change.

An alternative risk management framing of this challenge has emerged, starting with the axiom that CB fire transmission is inevitable in fire-prone mixed ownership landscapes and that private landowners and homeowners are the actors best positioned to reduce fire risk to homes and other high-value assets regardless of where the fire starts

I agree that private landowners and homeowners , utilities, ski areas, water providers are best positioned to reduce direct risks.  But there are also people (fire suppression folks) working assiduously to keep fires away from infrastructure- and it actually works most of the time (I don’t have a cite, but I can see information on InciWeb).  This is a both/and thing.  Not sure how the simulations in this paper support changes to the current system.  If I’d reviewed it, I would have asked them to draw a logical line between “the system as we see it” “what our data show” and “how we think this information should inform changes.”

And here’s a quote from the OSU piece:

“The Forest Service’s new strategy for the wildfire crisis leads with a focus on thinning public lands to prevent wildfire intrusion into communities, which is not fully supported by our work, or the work of many other scientists, as the best way to mitigate community risk,” Dunn said.

I think this doesn’t take into consideration that that the strategy is the FS chunk of the overall work, of which there are many other bucks going to states and ultimately into communities.  They did not say it’s the best way, only what they can contribute.  Plus thinning and PB have other desirable attributes in making forests more climate-resilient, so not so much destruction occurs within them in the case of a wildfire.  Suppression folks work with a great variety of values at risk that include but are not restricted to communities.

What I would have said based on the data?  More fires go into the NFs than come from the NFs based on the data.  So working on reducing ignitions and spread before fires get to the FS boundary would be a good idea.  But everyone gets to conclude what you want from the data.. what do you conclude?

 

 

 

OSU research suggests Forest Service lands not the main source of wildfires affecting communities

by

More research—this time by Oregon State, Colorado State, and the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station—suggesting that the U.S. Forest Service and timber industry continues to bark up the wrong tree with a focus of logging on public lands as a means to protect communities from wildfire. This quote from Dr. Chris Dunn of Oregon State’s College of Forestry (who’s researcher areas are silviculture, fire, and forest health) was particularly interesting: “The Forest Service’s new strategy for the wildfire crisis leads with a focus on thinning public lands to prevent wildfire intrusion into communities, which is not fully supported by our work, or the work of many other scientists, as the best way to mitigate community risk.”

The following article was published by Oregon State University.

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Research led by Oregon State University shows that fires are more likely to burn their way into national forests than out of them.

The findings contradict the common narrative of a destructive wildfire igniting on remote public land before spreading to threaten communities, said Chris Dunn of the OSU College of Forestry.

The study, which looked at more than 22,000 fires, found that those crossing jurisdictional boundaries are primarily caused by people on private property.

It also showed that ignitions on Forest Service lands accounted for fewer than 25% of the most destructive wildfires – ones that resulted in the loss of more than 50 structures.

“In the old framing, public agencies bear the primary responsibility for managing and mitigating cross-boundary fire risk and protecting our communities, with their efforts focused on prevention, fuel reduction and suppression,” Dunn said. “This has been the dominant management approach of years past, which is failing us.”

The findings, published today in Nature Scientific Reports, follow by a few weeks the Forest Service’s release of a new 10-year fire strategy, Confronting the Wildfire Crisis. The strategy aims for a change in paradigm within the agency, Dunn said.

“We are long overdue for policies and actions that support a paradigm shift,” he said.

Scientists including Dunn and OSU’s Will Downing investigated 27 years of fires that crossed jurisdictional boundaries. The collaboration also included scientists from Colorado State University and the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Cross-boundary fires consumed just over 17 million acres during the study period of 1992 to 2019, and about half of the burned area was Forest Service land. The study area covered almost 141 million acres across 11 states and included 74 national forests.

Of all ignitions that crossed jurisdictional boundaries, a little more than 60% originated on private property, and 28% ignited on national forests. Most of the fires started due to human activity.

“The Forest Service’s new strategy for the wildfire crisis leads with a focus on thinning public lands to prevent wildfire intrusion into communities, which is not fully supported by our work, or the work of many other scientists, as the best way to mitigate community risk,” Dunn said.

“A substantial portion of the wildfire problem is a community destruction problem,” added Michael Caggiano of Colorado State. “The Forest Service can contribute to an advisory or facilitation role to address the home ignition zone, including fire resistant design and zoning, and fuels management on private lands, but states, local government and homeowners are better positioned than the USFS to manage those components of wildfire risk.”

A paradigm shift that could mitigate wildfire risk would begin with the recognition that the significant wildfires occurring in western states is a fire management challenge with a fire management solution, not a forest management problem with a forest management solution, Dunn said.

“The only way we are going to address the wildfire problem on large public lands at the scale of the challenge is through the effective and efficient management of wildfires over the long run,” he said.

Dunn said that means allowing some fires or portions of fires to burn to provide risk reduction and ecological benefits, identifying and preparing locations where suppression is likely to be effective, and developing strategies to rapidly distribute resources to where they are most needed and can do the most good.

“Our research has significant potential to inform and guide development of effective cross-boundary risk mitigation strategies, including identifying where and how work on the ground can be most effective,” he said. “The main source of our communities’ exposure to wildfire risk is clearly not our national forests.”

The study showed that in many cases, national forests were a net receiver of cross-boundary wildfire rather than a source, and that those fires tend to happen in areas with higher densities of roads and people.

Dunn credits the Forest Service for accepting the modern realities of wildfire and for embracing collaborative governance and cross-boundary partnerships. He added that managing fire in multijurisdictional landscapes has become a centerpiece of wildfire strategic planning and that evidence suggests fire transmission across boundaries will continue to increase.

“As the Forest Service’s strategy moves forward, we think there could be opportunities to learn from what their state partners are doing, such as the more comprehensive policies passed in Oregon in 2021,” he said. “Oregon’s omnibus wildfire bill is a science-driven approach that recognizes the shared responsibility we all have in adapting to the fire environment.”

The legislation requires those homes at greatest risk to mitigate at the home ignition zone and also addresses landscape resilience and improved wildfire response.

Dunn calls it “the type of comprehensive policy we need to address the multitude of impacts wildfires have on communities, ecosystems, industry, etc. It recognizes that the Forest Service is neither the sole source of the problem nor the sole solution to the problem, but rather one of many pieces to a paradigm shift society needs to make.”

Matthew Thompson and Karen Short of the Rocky Mountain Research Station also took part in the cross-boundary fire study, which was partially funded by the Forest Service.