Thanks all for the gifts to the blog! For a small fee, I found out I could redirect traffic from the old address to this address. I should probably have been able to figure out that such a thing is possible.. but better late than never! Now, on to hiring someone to get all the old links to work…
Southern Pine Beetle in New Jersey: NY Times
In Book Club we have been talking about whether scientists still refer to the balance of nature, and equilibrium kinds of conditions. So for the purposes of NCFP, I think it’s interesting to pursue this mystery with stories in real time. Thanks to Dan Botkin for sending this NY Times article:
Notice that “scientists say it is a striking example of how.. are disturbing the balance of nature”. But no actual scientist is mentioned saying this.
In an infestation that scientists say is almost certainly a consequence of global warming, the southern pine beetle is spreading through New Jersey’s famous Pinelands.
It tried to do so many times in the past, but bitterly cold winters would always kill it off. Now, scientists say, the winters are no longer cold enough. The tiny insect, firmly entrenched, has already killed tens of thousands of acres of pines, and it is marching northward.
Scientists say it is a striking example of the way seemingly small climatic changes are disturbing the balance of nature. They see these changes as a warning of the costly impact that is likely to come with continued high emissions of greenhouse gases.
The disturbances are also raising profound questions about how to respond. Old battles about whether to leave nature alone or to manage it are being rejoined as landscapes come under stress.
The New Jersey situation resembles, on a smaller scale, the outbreak of mountain pine beetles that has ravaged tens of millions of acres of forest across the Western United States and Canada. That devastation, too, has been attributed to global warming — specifically, the disappearance of the bitterly cold winter nights that once kept the beetles in check.
But the same bark beetle outbreaks have been seen in the past and we have been told in Colorado (by scientists) that bark beetles and fires are “natural disturbances.” Also, fire suppression must have a role or there wouldn’t be so much prime old lodgepole habitat. Perhaps it’s the location and magnitude that are different, but that’s a bit of a finer point.
Now there is an identified scientist, who says…
Dr. Ayres, one of the nation’s top beetle experts, has studied New Jersey closely for several years and has published research saying the rising temperatures have made the invasion possible. “I think the scientific inference is about as good as it gets,” Dr. Ayres said. “This is a big deal, and it’s going to forever change the way forests have to be managed in New Jersey.”
Ah.. here is the overstocked argument; my italics on “unnatural.”
Long ago, fires would have helped keep the forest more open, but they have been suppressed across much of the country for a century to protect life and property. That has left many forests in an overgrown, unnatural condition.
Experience in the South has shown that such “overstocked stands,” as foresters call them, are especially vulnerable to beetle attack because the trees are too stressed fighting one another for light, water and nutrients. Control of the pine beetle has been achieved there by thinning the woods, leaving the remaining trees stronger.
Mr. Williams, who is critical of New Jersey’s government, advocates a similar approach, involving controlled burns and selective tree-cutting. Mr. Smith, whose college degrees include one in environmental science, pushed through a bill that would have encouraged the state to manage its forests more aggressively. But several environmental groups were suspicious that large-scale logging would ensue.
“We saw this legislation as an excuse to come in under the guise of ‘stewardship’ to open up our forests for commercial operations,” said Jeff Tittel, the director of the state’s Sierra Club chapter.
I like the Guv’s attitude:
To allay such fears, the senator included a requirement that any state forest plan receive certification from an outside body, the Forest Stewardship Council, which is trusted by many environmental groups.
That approach has been followed successfully in other states, including Maryland. But Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the bill, saying he could not allow the state to “abdicate its responsibility to serve as the state’s environmental steward to a named third party.”
Below is my bolding:
Dr. Ayres said that if climatic warming continues, nothing would stop them from eventually heading up the coast. That means forest management is likely to become critical in many places where it has been neglected for decades.
“It’s hard for some people to accept — ‘What, you have to cut down trees to save the forest?’ ” Dr. Ayres said. “Yes, that’s exactly right. The alternative is losing the forest for saving the trees.”
Well, I would only argue that the only thing stopping them would be hosts.. which are relatively fewer to the north.
So we have an article in which the quoted scientist is pragmatic about “things used to be different, now they have changed and we have to deal with it.” But we have only the writer’s claim that
“scientists say it is a striking example of the way seemingly small climatic changes are disturbing the balance of nature. They see these changes as a warning of the costly impact that is likely to come with continued high emissions of greenhouse gases.
Still, old pine trees will still die, with or without the pine beetle. And if we can’t burn them to get rid of the tree corpses, they will hang around and ultimately fall over and decay, quicker in hot climates than in the Rockies. Is that what the people of New Jersey want from their forests?
And the Sierra Club guy seems a bit ideological. Local sourcing of things is good but making money from dead trees is bad, because it’s “commercial.” I thought the Sierra Club’s antipathy for selling dead trees was just for federal lands, but maybe not?
Tomorrow is Small Business Saturday: Sawmills and Local Wood
Since January, when I sent letters to my two Senators about getting the objections rule out, I have been on Senator Udall’s mailing list (I’ll say more about that experience in a later post).
Here’s his email, which you can apply to your own area:
Dear Fellow Coloradan,
Small businesses are the cornerstone of our local economies and the embodiment of the American dream. Colorado’s small businesses create thousands of home-grown jobs and are the primary engine of our economic growth. From Durango to Greeley and Lamar to Craig, these Main Street businesses support good-paying jobs, sustain middle class families, and reinforce that entrepreneurial spirit which encourages the best and brightest to set up shop right here in Colorado.
Mark Udall
This Saturday, Nov. 30 is Small Business Saturday — a day dedicated to supporting our local small businesses on one of the busiest shopping weekends of the year. Small Business Saturday is also an opportunity to support our friends, families and neighbors who work tirelessly every day to keep their businesses and our communities running strong.
Do you know an outstanding small business in your community? I’d love to hear about it.
From the restaurants that line Main Street in Grand Junction to the Old Colorado City shops in Colorado Springs, Colorado small businesses have something for everyone. I’ve met many small business owners throughout our state, and they never cease to impress me with their innovative drive and that ever-present Western spirit of strength and independence.
Recently, for example, I visited Hester’s Log and Lumber sawmill in Kremmling, a small business that the Hester family has owned and operated for 26 years. And on a visit to Pueblo I dropped by Hopscotch Bakery, where local residents can find homemade cakes and sandwiches.
I hope you will join me in pledging to support Colorado small business owners and participate in Small Business Saturday.
It made me wonder whether, in some states, like Oregon, visiting a lumber mill would be seen to be a political statement. In Colorado, it’s just another small business, like a bakery. And it’s considered to be good to buy from local folks from which money stays in the community. I wonder why that wouldn’t be the case, say, in Oregon. Are timber harvesting practices more destructive (don’t think so)? Are the aesthetics more important to people there? Is it the history of Big Timber and the Timber Wars? I don’t know, but since I’ve been a resident of both states, I wonder.
Happy Thanksgiving!
The above photo is from the National Wild Turkey Federation website here.
In terms of the blog, I thank Gaia for a more or less successful transition to the new host. I thank those of you who contribute through posts and comments, and for those who keep up the blog when I take vacation. I am thankful for Larry’s photos, that brighten my days and remind me what it’s about. I am thankful for for those who challenge me, helping me to grow in patience and to be a better thinker and writer.
I just found out earlier this week that one of my colleagues from my time at the Forest Service crossed over recently, Randy Karstaedt. He was the Director of Lands and Minerals for the seven years I was Planning Director in Region 2. He was an amazing writer and thinker, and a fun fellow beer-hoister and raconteur.
He could make the incomprehensibly complicated (federal coal regulations) make sense in a business letter. He would dream up great policy ideas (IMHO) and also assist me in tilting at windmills (like finding an agency to regulate coal mine methane). When I look at my life at the Forest Service, there were folks like Randy who were a joy to work with, even on the most otherwise boring things (pipeline litigation). Sometimes I wish I had told him these nice things, but I’m not sure that’s OK in Forest Service culture. It’s easy to say “hey, that letter you drafted was great” but not so much “when I share the burden of work with you, you not only do more than pull your own weight, and entertain me with your mental acuity, somehow your spirit brings joy to my heart.”
That’s not to say that we didn’t end up, at the tail end of our adventures, on different sides of some serious internal/external politics. But today, looking back, the political stuff doesn’t seem real or Real. The many field trips, reviews, meetings, long bus trips and associated beer-filled hours are what I remember. And I can say it now (and I believe he hears). Here’s to you, and thank you, Randy!
Documenting Projects with Photos
Massachusetts forester Mike Leonard recently posted a series of photos, each with descriptive text, of one of his projects:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.565717060175138.1073741830.107694529310729&type=1
I was thinking: The Forest Service ought to do the same thing to illustrate projects, from start to finish, and even years afterward. Maybe some districts have posted such photo records, but I’m not aware of any like Leonard’s. The agency puts so much effort into planning. Why not put some energy into documenting its work after all that planning?
Lowering stand density reduces mortality of ponderosa pine stands
Received this press release today from the Pacific Southwest Research Station. This is research that confirms what foresters have long known. I’ll bet that some groups will call this “best available science,” but others will contest or ignore it.
Lowering stand density reduces mortality of ponderosa pine stands
REDDING, Calif.—As trees grow larger in even-aged stands, competition develops among them. Competition weakens trees, as they contend for soil moisture, nutrients, and sunlight. Competition also increases trees’ risk to bark beetles and diseases, and subsequently leads to a buildup of dead fuels. A recent study, led by Dr. Jianwei Zhang, research forester at the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Research Station, considered if the onset of this risk could be determined. The study, which appears in the Canadian Journal of Forest Research, also considered if the relationship between density and mortality varies with site quality as ponderosa pine stands developed.
Based on the analysis of 109 long-term research plots established on even-aged natural stands and plantations from 1944 to 1988, and 59 additional ponderosa pine plots measured by the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis group, these researchers found that site quality affected the relationship between density and mortality.
“Any silvicultural treatments that enhances growth will reduce mortality rate for a given stand density.” Dr. Zhang said. “By establishing the self-thinning boundary lines from the size-density trajectories, the onset of mortality risk can be determined for ponderosa pine stands.”
The research also confirmed the added value of such long-term study sites which allow new questions to be addressed that were not included in the original studies. Other recently published research from this group of scientists demonstrated thinning forest stands to a lower density reduces fuel buildup significantly, and enhances its economic value by increasing growth of residual trees. Specifically, stand basal area, which is the cross sectional area of all trees in a stand measured at breast height, is not affected by thinning ponderosa pine stands to half the normal basal area of a specific site quality. If the stand has experienced high mortality caused by bark beetles, it can be thinned more heavily without sacrificing timber, biomass, or volume increment and plant diversity.
In addition, results from these long-term studies show that early shrub removal and tree density control are the most effective and efficient ways to reduce fuel buildup. Under Mediterranean climatic conditions, shrubs reduce overstory tree growth and keep tree crowns in contact with the shrub canopy. In turn, this growing fuel ladder can carry a ground fire into the crowns of the overstory trees. Although carbon stocks may be the same with or without understory vegetation, by controlling competing vegetation, carbon is reallocated into the trees instead of shrubs; and carbon loss to wildfire is reduced.
These findings provide useful information for managers in their stand treatment projects within National Forest and private forestlands.
To read the full article, go to http://treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/45108; or http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/efh/staff/jzhang/ for other articles.
Wyden’s O&C Lands Bill Announced
No sign of the bill or a press release on Wyden’s site, yet, but The Oregonian has a link to the release. Excerpt:
Wyden’s legislation, called The Oregon and California Land Grant Act of 2013, amends the
original Oregon and California Lands Act passed in 1937. Compared to the last ten years it
would roughly double timber harvests on O&C lands for decades to come. At the same time, the
bill would permanently protect old growth trees, ensure habitat for sensitive species, and put in
place strong safeguards for drinking water and fisheries.
The legislation requires the Secretary of the Interior to provide a sustained yield of timber in
forestry emphasis areas, while taking the most controversial harvests off the table, ensuring that
old growth stands in moist forests currently over 120 years old and trees over 150 years old
across the O&C landscape cannot be harvested.
While keeping the O&C lands under the protection of federal environmental laws, the bill
proposes streamlining the environmental review of timber sales by:
· Improving timelines for environmental and judicial reviews;
· Eliminating the individual environmental impact statements for each timber sale and replacing
them with two large-scale environmental impact statements – one each for dry and moist forests
– covering 10 years of timber sales;
· Requiring better coordination between federal agencies during environmental reviews; and
· Requiring upfront studies of areas to prioritize treatments.
The bill would also permanently protect nearly a million acres of conservations areas that
would be managed for the benefit of old growth trees, native wildlife, recreation and tourism.
In the conservation areas, road building would be limited and mining prohibited. Timber
harvests would be limited to improving habitat and forest health.
Finally, the bill provides new ways to consolidate land ownership and reduce the
checkerboard of public and private lands across Western Oregon.
Senator Wyden will introduce companion legislation to this bill that will extend long term
funding to the counties which currently receive PILT, SRS, and similar payments, ensuring that
communities who produce energy, minerals and timber and other resources that benefit the entire
country are fairly compensated for the local impacts of that work. The federal government owes
these communities, and other resource producing communities too much to allow county
payments to end.
###
Excerpt from press release from The American Forest Resource Council, Associated Oregon Loggers, Douglas Timber Operators and Southern Oregon Timber Industries Association:
“At first glance, it appears that Senator Wyden’s proposal falls short of providing our communities the level of legal certainty, jobs, and county revenues they deserve and have been promised,” said Partin. “While it won’t be easy, we look forward to working with Senator Wyden and the entire Oregon delegation to find a comprehensive and permanent solution. Our communities absolutely need meaningful reforms to eliminate the broken policies that have resulted in endless paralysis and failed both Oregon and our federal forests for the past twenty years.”
Examples of Broken Links
One of our problems to be addressed on the blog was that if a post referred to “ncfp.wordpress.com” it didn’t automatically change to “forestpolicypub.com”. I know examples are out there, but I couldn’t find one through a couple of searches. Does anyone have examples I could point to when trying to get them fixed? Thanks!
UPDATE On Wyden Bill
A helpful reader found out that Wyden’s office says that the information I posted earlier here is “old and out-of-date” and the new information will be available tomorrow. If you get it, and it’s not posted here yet, please send and the fun will begin.
Historic Range, Natural Range and the Planning Rule
Well, when I posted the book club piece on Chapter 4 here on NCFP, I had the comments go to the Book Club blog here as usual. However, Jon Haber had a thoughtful comment there about the current Planning Rule that I thought deserved its own thread on this blog. So if you want to talk about the Planning Rule part of the Chapter 4 post, please do it here.. I’ll put a note to that effect there.
Here is the relevant piece of the Chapter 4 writeup:
I just ran across one this morning, that policies need to address “fire’s role in forest ecosystems.” My first question would be “fire’s role as to what aspect of plants, animals, water, soil and air?” Fire’s role, like climate or anything else, is not a constant. I like this quote from the book (The Moon in the Nautilus Shell):
P 85. ..we find that nature undisturbed is not constant in form, structure or proportion but change at every scale of time and space. The old idea of a static landscape, like a single musical chord sounded foresver, must be abandoned, for such a landscape never existed except in our imagination. Nature undisturbed by human influence seems more like a symphony whose harmonies arise from variation and change over many scales of time and space, changing with individual births and deaths, local disruptions and recoveries, larger-scale responses to climate from one glacial age to another, and to the slower alterations of soils and yet larger variations between glacial ages.
If you have been a reader and writer of Forest Service regulations lately, the “form, structure or proportion” will call back to your memory perhaps “ecosystem composition, structure and function”:
2012 Planning Rule: Alternative A would require plan components to provide for the maintenance or restoration of the structure, function, composition, and connectivity of healthy and resilient aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area.
2001 and Colorado Roadless Rule: Tree cutting, sale, or removal is needed to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition, structure and processes.
These statements, in regulation, imply that certain characteristics should be “maintained or restored”; that is, maintained as they are today, or restored to what they used to be (yes, I realize that some in the FS is talking that “restoration” doesn’t mean that, it really means “resilience to change”, but English is English, and if you mean that you should put in in regulation, IMHO.)
Now, scientists reviewed all these regulations and did not say “hey, that doesn’t take into account current scientific thought, because there is no one unchanging way that composition structure and function is “supposed to be” and that “needs to be” maintained or restored.” I think in Botkin’s book, he is again asking the question “if science tells us that everything is changing, why do scientists (including ecologists, I assume) review and accept regulations and other policies that seem to say the opposite?
I have three hypotheses. One is that the ecosystem idea has fuzzed everyone’s thinking. The second is that so much “science” is based on these ideas that scientists can’t imagine a world without them. Third is that scientists don’t study the “appeal to nature” idea in philosophy nor the history of its use (see Wikipedia here), so they don’t see that using it has conceptual problems way beyond the scientific community.
Here is Jon’s comment:
I have two other hypotheses. One is that the scientists were not in charge of the planning rule, so while they may have brought up these points, such nuances were not considered especially important by those who were in charge. The other is that ‘historic range of of variation’ became a mantra for active management over the last quarter century. This provided a convenient point of reference for ‘restoration.’ (I think there was a PR component to this – who could argue with ‘restoration?’) To a large degree the new planning rule has just captured the current practice of the agency. In a nod to global warming, the term used in the rule is ‘natural’ instead of ‘historic’ variation (which, while it has its own problems, at least acknowledges that ‘historic’ may not be the best point of reference).
There were some voices raised against including the phrase ‘maintain or restore’ as a universal planning. I suggest now that the best way to read this language is to focus on the fact that what will be maintained or restored is ‘ecological integrity,’ which is defined in terms of natural range of variability. This allows more of a moving target to ‘restore’ to.
I think the regulations mean what they say, but you have to read them pretty carefully. ‘Ecological integrity’ (and NRV) applies to ‘ecological characteristics,’ but not all ‘ecological conditions.’ The former is limited (by example) to ‘composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity.’ The latter includes roads and ski areas. You can add new roads and expand ski areas if you can still meet the ecological integrity requirement.
So I’ll go ahead and start commenting on Jon’s comment, as a comment below. Whew, I hope you are not confused by all that!