The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

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

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

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

According to the press release from the University of Montana:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, you can read the entire analysis here.

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

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

Climate scientists’ motivated reasoning

Posted on June 19, 2019 by curryja | 99 Comments

by Judith Curry

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

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

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

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

<begin quote>

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

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

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

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

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

….

June 12 press release:

USDA Proposes Bold Moves to Improve Forest, Grassland Management

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service (USFS) released proposed changes to modernize how the agency complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed updates would not only give the Forest Service the tools and flexibility to manage the land and tackle critical challenges like wildfire, insects, and disease but also improve service to the American people. Revising the rules will improve forest conditions and make it simpler for people to use and enjoy their national forests and grasslands at lower cost to the taxpayer. The revised rules will also make it easier to maintain and repair the infrastructure people need to use and enjoy their public lands—the roads, trails, campgrounds, and other facilities.

While these proposed changes will save time and resources, they are ultimately intended to better protect people, communities and forests from catastrophic wildfire and ensure a high level of engagement with people and communities when doing related work and associated environmental analyses.

From the FAQ:

The CEs covered in the proposed rule fall into three general categories: (1) those covering restoration activities, (2) those covering infrastructure activities, and (3) those covering special uses. Some examples of the types of work that could be approved, based on hundreds of analyzed environmental assessments, are listed below.

Restoration projects— Removing trees affected by insects or disease through commercial timber harvest in combination with stream restoration in a 4,200-acre area to improve forest health and watershed conditions is one example of a restoration project. Restoration projects could also include reducing overgrown areas around a community and improving wildlife habitat through mechanical thinning and use of prescribed burning. 

To read the full article from Dr. John Talberth, President and Senior Economist at the Center for Sustainable Economy, click here. Below is Dr. Talberth’s intro:

Extractive industries have proven adept at generating record profits, then using those same profits to protect themselves from any responsibility for cleaning up the mess they leave behind. Oregon’s timber industry is a case in point: it is the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, the biggest threat to clean drinking water supplies, and the biggest source of wildfire risk as climate change unfolds. Yet, as Oregon’s “Clean Energy Jobs” bill (HB 2020) moves out of the House and heads to the Senate, the timber industry has not only shielded itself from any restrictions, it is now being rewarded with new subsidies to add to the several hundred million dollars a year it already receives.

On June 13, 2019, the timber industry secured a late stage amendment to HB 2020, introduced by Senate President Peter Courtney (D-District 11), that ensures “wood products manufacturing facilities” do not suffer any “permanent or temporary” reductions in the “supply of wood fiber” in the carbon offsets protocols of HB 2020. This amendment is a supply side subsidy that will keep log prices down and wood to mills flowing at roughly the same pace as now. Any reductions in logging associated with forest carbon offsets would have to be made up for by increased logging elsewhere. In the technical language of offset markets, this phenomenon is called “leakage,” and is a basis for invalidating any offset proposals that do not actually result in less logging.

Slowing down the pace of clearcutting to let forests grow longer and their soils mature so they can soak up more carbon, scientists say, is one of the most important natural climate solutions we have at our immediate disposal. Yet Courtney’s amendment does the opposite: It will make our forest offsets program even worse and more ineffective than California’s.

UPDATE: ‘Militia threat’ shuts down Oregon statehouse

SALEM — A “possible militia threat” is shutting down the Oregon statehouse amid an ongoing walkout by Republican lawmakers who are blocking a vote on landmark climate change legislation with their absence.

A spokeswoman for the Senate President confirmed late Friday that the “Oregon State Police has recommended that the Capitol be closed tomorrow due to a possible militia threat.”

Gov. Kate Brown has deployed the state police to round up Republican senators who fled the Legislature — and in some cases, the state — to thwart passage of a climate proposal that would dramatically lower fossil fuel emissions by 2050.

Right-wing militia groups said they would protest at the Capitol on Saturday as lawmakers convened.

It’s unclear if the “militia threat” was related to the protest or is something additional.

Mike Archer had this item in his Wildfire News Of The Day newsletter on June 18, from High Country News:

The rise of wildfire-resilient communities
As fire seasons become longer and deadlier, communities turn to urban planning to combat dangers.

The 2017 fire season, at 665,000 acres burned, was the worst Oregon had seen, according to the Oregon Forest Resources Institute. The next year, a community coalition of city council members, fire managers and city planners from Sisters enrolled in the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire program (CPAW), a federal program designed to reduce wildfire risk through improved land use planning.

Through a coordinated team of land-use planners, foresters, economists and wildfire risk modelers, CPAW, funded by the U.S. Forest Service, integrates land-use planning with fire management to help communities draft a customized plan to reduce wildfire dangers.

Community fire adaptation has been one of the more popular approaches the Forest Service has funded and promoted in the past decade, according to Pam Leshack, the national program manager of the agency’s fire-adapted communities and wildland-urban interface programs. The federal government has moved away from solely educating communities about fire dangers and towards a holistic, localized approach, she said.

…

But this combination of land-use planning and forest management can be an effective tool for mitigating the wildfire damage to a community, according to John Bailey, professor of fire management at Oregon State University. Communities can be at the mercy of fires without local urban planning and forest management, with support from the state and federal level, Bailey said. “We’re going to have to make changes,” he said. “You have to acknowledge that’s where you’re living and plan for it. Then we can adapt.”