Why Pinyons and Junipers Are Where They Are or Were Where They Were: Many Possibilities

by
This study says that PJ coming into sagebrush is not good for sage grouse. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742416300811

Last week I ran across two studies (a paper and a presentation) that both illustrate what I think it an important point. When we look at what happened in the past (usually from photos, or history books, or what’s there today) and see changes, we don’t know for sure if that is due to (1) previous people doing things (Natives and settlers), or (2) what happened when previous people stopped doing things, (3) vagaries of weather/climate or (4) other causes.

Last week I attended a Colorado State University featuring Dr. Marina Redmond, talking about pinyon-juniper woodlands and their expansion and contraction. The first point that she made is that there is an enormous range, and each situation/place is different. In some areas, PJ is expanding, and in other areas contracting, due to drought-induced mortality. According to this paper the mortality in pinyon is due to Ips species, and in juniper due to “plain old” drought stress.

If you just look at PJ expansion, you might think it’s due to fire suppression, which has changed over time. But it might also be caused by wetter conditions that were good for tree seedling establishment. Or it might even be that there was overgrazing in the past, which established conditions (little grass cover) in which PJs got a chance to take hold. It could even be a combination of several of these factors. Or in more generic terms, climate change (that is change mostly before what we call anthropogenic cc based on GHGS), post-disturbance recovery (I guess these would be “natural” disturbances, but perhaps these may not be obvious 100 years later), and changes due to human interventions (say, removing bison, adding cattle) and recovery from human interventions. Humans have a long history in the Southwest. Then, when you get into interactions among these, it seems like it would be hard to know for sure, and perhaps even harder to find (1) an ideal target NRV that people agree on (2) the FS can afford to intervene to produce and that (3) will be resilient to climate change.

It seems to me that keeping endangered species around (as in the study shown in the image above), producing useful things for wildlife and people (and cows) like forage and pinyon nuts, and at least thinking about resilience to climate change are challenging (and expensive) enough for land managers without introducing ideas like NRV or HRV. Perhaps the above observations in PJ are an example of what Millar and Woolfenden point out as “conceptual and practical” problems with ideas such as NRV.

While there are many important lessons to learn from the past, we believe that we cannot rely on past forest conditions to provide us with blueprints for current and future management (Millar et al 2007). In particular, the nature and scale of past variability in climate and forest conditions, coupled with our imprecise ability to fully reconstruct those conditions, introduce a number of conceptual and practical problems (Millar and Woolfenden 1999a). Detailed reconstructions of historical forest conditions, often dendroecologically based,
are very useful but represent a relatively narrow window of time and tend to coincide with tree recruitment in the generally cooler period referred to as the little ice age (figure 1). As such, manipulation of current forests to resemble past conditions may not produce the desired result when considering future climates.

This quote is from this paper by Stephens, Millar and Collins (2010). I’d only add to that list “the nature and scale of past variability in human actions and our imprecise ability to fully construct” them.

The Forest Clerk: Poem

by

Sadly, I could find no photos of these women in the historical photos sites, if you have one, please send and I will post. Lots of photos of things, and people outside, and even buildings, but the clerk is invisible in the photos I could access from the internet.

Thanks to Les Joslin for this information: “The Forest Clerk” was written by Rita A. Castle and published in John D. Guthrie’s 1919 “The Forest Ranger and Other Verse.”

THE FOREST CLERK

Who could relate the kinds of work
That fall to the lot of the Forest Clerk?
Record the things that she must do
Before she counts her day’s work through?

She opens the letters and reads the mail
From a grazer’s complaint to a timber sale;
She takes dictation as a matter of course
From the janitor up to the head of the force;
She bears the brunt of the office ire
And wears a smile as she pokes the fire;
Till frowns disappear and hearts grow strong.

And not the least of her many trials
Is keeping in mind all things in the files,
Which files she arranges day after day
For those who take out but don’t put away.
Accounts and disbursements must be kept well in hand,
As for errors in that line no DF will stand;
And so the poor Clerk must worry her brains,
And get little thanks for her efforts and pains.

She makes out reports and orders supplies
For the force in the office and Ranger likewise.
She straightens out claims and helps on the maps,
Reconnaissance, grazing, or boundaries, perhaps.
She answers the telephone forty times daily,
Welcomes all visitors and talks to them gaily,
E’en though on her desk the work stands knee deep,
And all must be finished before she can sleep.

The first of the year she turns her attention
To Accountability too awful to mention!
Then follow the things which before I have quoted
Though dozens of things I haven’t yet noted,
Such as corrals and fences and bridges and trails,
Telephone lines and great timber sales;
Fire prevention for tree preservation
To help Uncle Sam promote Conservation.

She tends all these duties in a businesslike way;

So when all’s said and done no critic can say
She doesn’t deserve, from the hands of the Nation,
The small sum she gets as due compensation.

Salvage logging and re-seeding a forest after a wildfire helps reduce flooding and returns water levels to normal faster

by

A PR from Washington State University. The paper ($) is here.

Response to fire impacts water levels 40 years into future

Salvage logging and re-seeding a forest after a wildfire helps reduce flooding and returns water levels to normal faster, according to a new paper from a Washington State University researcher.

The paper, just published in the journal Hydrological Processes, shows that water levels are still increased up to 40 years after a fire.

“Trees work like straws, pulling water up out of the ground,” said Ryan Niemeyer, an adjunct faculty member in WSU’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources (CSANR). “When you remove them, the water has to go somewhere. Flooding is common after a wildfire, as is elevated stream flow in subsequent summers. But seeing that the effect lasts for up to 40 years is a little surprising and certainly a new finding.”

Niemeyer wrote the paper with Kevin Bladon at Oregon State University and Richard Woodsmith of Woodsmith Watershed Consulting.

Natural fire starts a long-term experiment

Their research looked at the U.S. Forest Service’s Entiat Experimental Forest in north-central Washington, which burned in 1970. The fire likely started from a lightning strike, Niemeyer said.

Three distinct areas of the forest were observed, with two of them having salvage logging done to remove what remained of the burned trees. Those areas were also fertilized and native seeds were dropped on the area. The third area was left untouched.

The fire interrupted a planned logging experiment in the forest, so researchers at the time switched to monitoring the effects of wildfire, said Niemeyer, who grew up hunting and fishing in the Entiat watershed.

The original studies in the early ’70s showed that water levels in the watershed increased significantly after the fire. But the measurement equipment was removed after a few years, said the native Washingtonian.

Past decisions impact today

Fast forward to 2004, when a new grant allowed for stream flow monitoring equipment to be re-installed to measure the long-term impact the fire had on water levels. The measurement period was from 2004-11, after which Niemeyer, a hydrologist who is also a post-doctoral researcher at UC-Santa Barbara, and his colleagues spent five years analyzing the data.

After roughly 40 years, only one of the three areas still had water levels above the pre-fire baseline: the section that was left alone to recover.

“If you visit today, you can easily see that area has less mature vegetation compared to the re-seeded sections,” Niemeyer said. “The trees in the re-seeded sections are much bigger, and water levels are back to normal.”

Increased water levels can be positive and negative, he said. If you want more water coming down a stream for increased access to water for irrigation, for example, then you wouldn’t want to salvage any of the logs or re-seed the area.

But that extra water can have other impacts on the land, he said. Trees help hold soil in place when it rains, so erosion is higher in areas that aren’t re-seeded. That increases sediment going into the watershed, which can impact fish and other wildlife.

“It’s really a complex set of interactions, and each wildfire situation effects water and water usage differently,” Niemeyer said. “But now we know how long a fire impacts nearby water, and that those impacts can be reduced faster.”

Since it’s now been eight years since the sensors were removed, and 15 since they were first re-installed, the researchers are hoping to start another round of monitoring in the area. They plan to write a grant proposal to fund re-installing the sensors to see if, and when, the untouched area returns to normal water levels.

###

Science Friday: Coronavirus and How Best to Yard Up and Use Scientific Info

by

Criteria for determining best available scientific information (BASI). Source: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12.07.12
We started with an introduction to PNS or post normal science a few weeks ago, here, when we were talking about climate science and different ways of developing and using scientific expertise. Coronavirus, though, has caused an upwelling of scientific activity by different disciplines, combined with a vast array across the world of real-time policy decisions at all spatial and temporal scales. So it’s interesting to compare and contrast these problems and solutions with how we use science in our own humble and much-less-urgent world (forests). The image above is on best available scientific information (BASI) as in the Handbook for the development of Forest Plans.

Here’s an article from the Guardian.

Experts have voiced growing frustration over the UK government’s claim that it is “following the science”, saying the refrain is being used to abdicate responsibility for political decisions. They also raised concerns that the views of public health experts were being overlooked, with disproportionate weight given to the views of modellers. “As a scientist, I hope I never again hear the phrase ‘based on the best science and evidence’ spoken by a politician,” Prof Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, told the Guardian. “This phrase has become basically meaningless and used to explain anything and everything.”

Hmm. Different disciplines disagree on what is “best” (most relevant).. but in addition, there are even disagreements within disciplines (in their case, different modeling centers). Sounds like us, although those are seldom covered in the press.

However, Sridhar and others argued that scientific views on these topics could be wide-ranging and dependent on a scientist’s field of expertise. The diversity of scientific views was apparent in March when case numbers were rising rapidly but the government chose not to ban mass gatherings or introduce wide-reaching physical distancing. World Health Organization advice, and what we’ve learned from lots of previous outbreaks in low- and middle-income countries, is that the faster you move at the start, the better, because it’s exponential growth,” Sridhar said. “In public health, a test, trace and isolate campaign would’ve been where your mind first went.” Instead, she said, the government appeared to be basing policy on the presumption of a binary choice between two scenarios, played out in computer models, of either eradicating the virus or it becoming endemic.

“What we’re not talking about in the same formal, quantitative way are the economic costs, the social costs, the psychological costs of being under lockdown,” he said. “I understand that the government is being advised by economists, psychiatrists and others, but we’re not seeing what that science is telling them. I find that very puzzling.” Woolhouse said that while it was understandable that saving lives was the top priority, the idea of doing this at any cost was naive. “With any disease there is a trade-off. Public health is largely about that trade-off. What’s happening here is that both sides of the equation are so enormous and so damaging that the routine public health challenge of balancing costs and benefits is thrown into incredibly stark relief. Yet that balance has to be found.”

Balancing trade-offs..sounds like us, in fact it sounds a bit like NEPA Section 2. “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.” But also at this level, which discipline and tool you pick or leave out has ramifications. Is this an entirely scientific judgment? Or is there a different meta-science discussion of “what scientific tools should we use”? Otherwise, policy-makers get what’s on offer, which seems kind of random for important decisions.

Others expressed concern about the lack of transparency around the evidence affecting decision-making. “We don’t know who sits on Sage [the government’s scientific advisory group for emergencies], we see very little of the papers that go to Sage,” said Prof Sheila Bird, the former programme leader of the Medical Research Council’s biostatistics unit at the University of Cambridge. “That scientific underpinning is not evident.”

Sridhar said the failure to fully consider the perspectives of experts beyond epidemiology may have contributed to misguided decisions. Models appear not to have factored in the role of hospital staff shortages, which may have diverted attention from the urgent need for adequate personal protective equipment, she said.
The concept of shielding the most vulnerable “looks beautiful” in models, she said, but in reality care homes are facing major outbreaks and multigenerational households are struggling to isolate the vulnerable. “You can’t take these people out of the system and isolate them as if they were a data point on a graph,” she said.
“There’s a real problem if you have a collection of people from the same background, the same field, the same institutions; that can lead to blindspots and groupthink,” Sridhar added. “Diversity is clearly important for better decision-making.”

Our business is generally not urgent, nor life and death. So we have time to “do it right”. And there are things that practitioners know (hospital staff shortages?) that may not be obvious to scientists doing research at universities. So here we have it. How best to put it all together for decisionmakers?

What is your favorite example of a decision in which you felt that all the relevant scientific disciplines and practitioners were brought to bear on a policy or management issue in an open and transparent way? It doesn’t matter for these purposes if the decision at the end was made with a political or even partisan political lens, I’m interested in the actual process of developing shared information and open dialogue, between disciplines and between scientists, natural resource professional/practitioners, knowledgeable local folks, and other stakeholders.

Also, FYI Stephanie Lepp of Infinite Lunchbox sent a link to this video, which is an introduction to PNS and Coronavirus.

Here are a few quotes from an article in Issues in Science and Technology, called “How not to lose the COVID-19 Communications War”:

Accurate scientific information is key for meaningful public debate and decision-making. And correctives to misinformation provide instant gratification during an otherwise unpredictable and potentially long-term crisis that so far has not provided scientists and policy-makers with a lot of success stories. Organizations such as the US Federal Emergency Management Agency and the World Health Organization can quickly implement myth-busting and rumor-control websites with the reasonable hope of staving off a more widespread problem down the road.
However, as the COVID-19 “infodemic,” as WHO calls it, escalates, those communicating scientific information are at risk not only of oversimplifying the misinformation problem itself but also of failing to recognize and address other factors that complicate efforts to communicate effectively about COVID-19. In particular, the seductively simple directive to be “accurate,” which lies at the heart of science communication, obscures the reality that accuracy is a tenuous notion during a crisis such as this, in which uncertainty reigns. Science that was considered correct at the outset will likely turn out to be incorrect or incomplete, making it difficult to draw a bright line between misinformation and science that is legitimately contested. Further, just as the public health questions that arise during a pandemic go far beyond numbers such as death rates to include matters of social inequity and ailing health care infrastructure, the communication issues that complicate an infodemic are much broader than the mere existence of falsehood.

and

In the midst of this accelerated crisis, it is virtually impossible to determine which sets of “facts” are most relevant for making trade-offs required for effective action. Focusing narrowly on “accuracy” in COVID-19 communications can thus obscure the reality that many of the possible choices are rightfully guided not by utilitarian calculus but by values and relationships whose importance is independent of science altogether. In the scope of COVID-19, policy choices require myriad decisions likely to create both harms and benefits that are themselves unevenly distributed. For example, as society increasingly allows automated and intrusive surveillance measures to enforce social distancing protocol, how will it be determined whether such efforts have been “worth it”? Prevention by surveillance will cost a great deal in terms of civil liberties, but by acting in haste, society may overestimate its value or fail to ensure clear exit strategies after the pandemic

Forest planning for mechanized use in recommended wilderness

by

We’ve talked about whether mountain bikes should be allowed in areas recommended for wilderness designation by the Forest Service in a forest plan, for example, here.  Most of the angst has been related to a policy adopted by Region 1 that many interpret as excluding this use because allowing it would reduce the likelihood that an area would actually be designated.  Here’s an example from another region of how a forest plan would address this question.  This language is from the draft EIS for the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest revised plan (North Carolina). While this is written about the effects of wilderness designation, the DEIS also makes it clear what activities the Forest thinks would create a risk to future wilderness designation options.

Wilderness recommendation and designation would remove the potential to generate revenue from timber production, forest product sales, and other land uses which support surrounding development such as utility or transportation corridors. No new mineral claims would be filed, but valid existing claims would be allowed to operate.

Existing roads within recommended areas would either continue to be maintained as linear wildlife fields or decommissioned and allowed to return to a natural state. No new wildlife fields would be created nor any timber harvest activities allowed. Restoration activities where the outcomes protect wilderness characteristics would be allowed to continue, including monitoring, relocation of animals, habitat improvements such as removal of nonnative fish species and nonnative invasive plant species, stream improvements, and rehabilitation of recreation impacts.

Existing trails would continue to be maintained to allow for hiking and equestrian use per current trail-use designations, but mechanized transport such as bicycles or carts would be prohibited in all recommended areas (with exception of approved mobility devices for the impaired). Commercial collection of non-timber forest products such as galax or ginseng, would not be permitted; however, collection for non-commercial or tribal purposes would be allowed. Other commercial activities such as recreation special-use events would also be prohibited in areas recommended for wilderness designation.

The mountain bike decision by the Forest was the followed discussions with a public working group, which also included consideration of whether future wilderness recommendations could be conditioned on providing adequate mountain bike trails.  The location of the trails was potentially less important than the amount, but it is unknown at this time where additional trails might be and how that might affect wilderness boundaries.  Consequently, trails in a potential wilderness area could be managed to phase out the existing but unauthorized mechanized use gradually after providing other comparable opportunities, and when certain conditions were met, appropriate areas would be formally recommended, with the full support of both mountain bike and wilderness groups.  But the Forest ended up recommending the area for wilderness, which would exclude the use.
In effect, the Forest appears to have considered an alternative that would have not recommended an area, but committed to a process that would recommend some or all of it as wilderness in the future (presumably with a plan amendment) when certain objectives are achieved.  You don’t find this alternative mentioned in the DEIS, though, as one considered but eliminated from detailed study.
Back in R1, the Nez Perce-Clearwater draft revised plan includes a suitability designation regarding mechanized use in all areas recommended for wilderness designation in a particular alternative.  Of the four action alternatives, one has no recommended wilderness and one would allow mechanized use in the areas recommended.  (The DEIS does not say what the current direction for recommended wilderness is.)  There is no preferred alternative.

 

Happy Earth Day, Everyone!

by

Many folks are celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, and many of us remember it. Based on my own experiences (watching a Louisiana Pacific logging show in the Roaring River drainage on the Mt. Hood) it seems that we (in our neck of the proverbial woods, that is National Forests) have come a long way in the last 50 years.

Somewhere along the line, in the last 50 years, “The Environment” became a thing. In some organizations, it found a separate home from those engaged in otherwise doing stuff, that is, stuff that might hurt the environment. In the 90’s there was an effort to yard up all research on “environmental problems” from different agencies and create a new National Institute of the Environment. But does it make sense to divorce “environmental” concerns from research on the human activities that produce environmental problems? Could that lead to talking past each other, “othering”, and so on?

The human activities include producing food, buildings, energy, products and so on. Certainly there are people in each group who work on and are concerned about the environment. For example, when I worked at USDA in research, there were the “Sustainable Agriculture” folks (which is not to say that the other research areas were “unsustainable agriculture.”) In our own humble world, we can look within departments and see people who have different views and perspectives on environmental choices.

It’s hard to imagine a human activity that doesn’t impact the environment. It seems to me that the effort is to work together to minimize the impacts by considering the social, economic and ecological consequences of alternatives, not just “no, don’t do that.” And environmental issues are complex and reasonable people and groups can disagree. For example, EDF is working on reducing methane from oil and gas, while other environmental groups think we should just get rid of oil and gas. It seems to me that somehow concern for the environment has gotten spliced into partisan rancor and hate. People are always explaining to me that that’s the fault of the Republicans, but it might be the fault of the internet (needs to provoke people to click for ad revenue, anger promotes clicking), or the demise of classified ads making the media more partisan and less interested in seeing both sides. I honestly don’t care who started it. I just don’t think we need it, and it’s not helping.

Anyway, this Earth Day, I’d like to give a shout out to our some folks that seem mostly unsung and unseen, and invisible in many forums this Earth Day. Natural resource professionals – fisheries, wildlife, forestry, watershed, and all the rest. Folks who work for the feds, the states, other governments and the private sector. We depend on your professionalism and care for much of what happens on our land, at the earthiest of the Earth level. Thank you all!

Extreme wildfires are changing Western forests

by

Extreme wildfires are changing Western forests

Here are three recent studies that examine the ways in which the connections within ecosystems are altered by more powerful wildfires – The titles pretty much tell it all:

1) “High-severity wildfire limits available floral pollen quality and bumble bee nutrition compared to mixed-severity burns,” Oecologia, December 2019
“In areas with more severe burns, pollen had almost 28% less nitrogen than in areas with mixed-severity burns. That pattern was mirrored in the bumblebees themselves: Those from more severely burned areas had less nitrogen in their system. Nitrogen is an indicator of the amount of protein in pollen — a crucial piece of the insects’ nutrition — and bees that consume more protein are larger and more resistant to parasites and disease.”

2) “High-severity wildfire leads to multi-decadal impacts on soil biogeochemistry in mixed-conifer forests,” Ecological Applications, January 2020
“They found that, even four decades after the blaze, the amount of organic carbon was lower in soils affected by wildfire. Organic carbon promotes plant growth and is critical for soil health: It allows the soil to act like a sponge and hold more water and nutrients, and it binds fragments of the soil together, thereby reducing erosion.”

3) “Fuel treatment effectiveness in the context of landform, vegetation, and large, wind-driving wildfires,” Ecological Applications, February 2020
“In areas that received treatment, more mature ponderosa pines survived the fire. That may not seem surprising, but the researchers hadn’t expected the strategy to be so effective during such an extreme and long-lasting fire, said Susan Prichard, a fire ecologist at the University of Washington and lead author on the study.
As huge wildfires like the Carlton Complex become more common, preparatory land management will be even more crucial. Actions like tree thinning and prescribed burns help preserve fire-resistant trees that can spread seeds for future vegetation growth after a blaze. “I really hope that our study comes off as an optimistic view of what we can expect in the future if we are proactive,” Prichard said. “

NFS Litigation Weekly April 17, 2020

by

Forest Service summaries:  Litigation Weekly April 17_2020_email

COURT DECISIONS

In Native Ecosystem Council v. Martin, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court and upheld the Johnny Crow wildlife habitat improvement project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest based on a wildlife habitat improvement categorical exclusion.

In another Native Ecosystem Council v. Martin, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court and upheld the Moose Creek Vegetation Project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest based on a HFRA categorical exclusion.

In BARK v. U. S. Forest Service, the District Court of Oregon held that Crystal Clear Restoration Project on the Mt. Hood National Forest required an EIS.  (This was also included last week.)

NEW CASES

In Mountain Pursuit v. U.S. Forest Service, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (after their previous complaint was dismissed without prejudice) regarding ongoing motorized and mechanized use in wilderness study areas on the Bridger-Teton and Caribou-Targhee National Forests and its effects on ESA-listed species.  (D. Wyo.)

In Western Watershed Project v. Bernhardt, a second plaintiff is challenging the Upper Green River Area Rangeland Project on the Bridger-Teton National Forest regarding impacts on the grizzly bear and the Kendall Warm Springs dace.  The first case, filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, was summarized here.  (D. D.C.)

NOTICES OF INTENT

WildEarth Guardians and the Western Watersheds Project claim the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service are violating ESA by authorizing livestock grazing on three allotments on the Colville National Forest without proper consultation on several listed and candidate species.

The Center for Biodiversity intends to sue the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the impacts of region-wide restoration projects on the Mexican spotted owl in New Mexico and Arizona.  (The link actually goes to the Colville notice.)

BLOGGER’S BONUS

(New case, BLM)  Advocates for the West and other plaintiffs say the Bureau of Land Management’s 2019 plan for the conservation area sanctioned destructive levels of livestock grazing on lands that were supposed to be protected.  (An NOI under ESA is pending.)  (D. Ariz.)

(Administrative objection)  Yellowstone to Uintas Connection and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies filed a formal Objection and a call for a full Environmental Impact Statement with the Manti La Sal National Forest, objecting to the Cottonwood Range Improvements Project, for the grazing allotment managed by The Nature Conservancy’s Dugout Ranch.

(Court decision involving FWS)  The Arizona federal district court has overturned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s approval of a permit for the proposed Rosemont copper mine in the Coronado National Forest because FWS improperly estimated the potential groundwater drawdown from the mine’s operations and how that might impact several endangered species in the Santa Rita Mountains.  An earlier court decision also reversed the decision based on terrestrial species.

(FWS action required by injunction) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a 60-day public comment period to help determine the scope of its analysis for rewriting the rule for Mexican gray wolf management in Arizona and New Mexico.

(NOI, FWS)  Four conservation groups intend to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service over its decision in November 2019 that the California spotted owl did not warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act.

(NOI, FWS)  Three conservation groups intend to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service over its decision in December 2019 that the red tree vole, found in northwest Oregon, did not warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act.

(New case against the state forestry agency) The Wendell State Forest Alliance has filed a lawsuit in county court against the state Department of Conservation and Recreation’s selective harvesting of an 80-acre old oak stand.  The main issue is that older trees that would be cut sequester more carbon, but the DCR is putting a higher priority on the forest’s long-term health.

Crude Oil trading way below zero

by

If you haven’t noticed, today crude oil prices have totally collapsed on Wall Street, at one point trading at nearly negative $40.00 a barrel. That’s 40 dollars below zero.

In the meantime, over the past several months, as the impending oil collapse became crystal clear to most everyone, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service continued to auction off public lands for fracking and oil and gas development for fire-sale prices.

On April 9, the Trump administration even released a final plan to expand drilling and fracking and other fossil fuel extraction across southwestern Colorado for the next two decades as part of the Bureau of Land Management’s final Uncompahgre land-management plan and record of decision. The plan would allow fracking on more than half of the 675,000 acres of public land and almost a million acres of federal minerals that it covers, and coal extraction on another 371,000 acres. The BLM’s environmental impact analysis fails to tally direct and indirect climate pollution that would result from fossil fuel production. The BLM’s oil and gas production forecast shows the plan would increase climate pollution in the region by more than 2,300% over the next decade. Colorado’s new law calls for cutting greenhouse gas pollution in half by 2030.

Look for Republicans in Congress, and GOP leaders around the country, to yet again become true believers in socialism…for the oil and gas industry and corporate America, anyway. When it comes to socialism for people, such as supporting a living wage or universal health care for the American people, the GOP still opposes these basic rights.

P.S. Today is also the 10-year anniversary of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploding, which killed 11 people and spilled more than 200,000,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days.

Forest Service Stories: The Celebrated Spotted Owl of Stonyford Ranger District

by
Photography by Michael Nichols found at National Geographic

This story is by Steve Gaddini of the Mendocino National Forest (when he wrote it), and occurred in 1990. I won’t excerpt it because, after all, it’s a story. I like Steve’s writing style and the way he describes the details of this particular field work (calling owls), and the feel for the location, trees and topography. Today it seems after 30 years people may well be doing the same type of work, or maybe it has changed, or maybe they aren’t doing it at all. Enjoy! Here’s a link.