BMPs and Posters on ForestEd Website

by

colorado3 Note: This is only the top half of the Colorado poster.. I got an http error when I tried to upload the whole thing. Perhaps it was too large??

There was a helpful discussion below with Gil and his JOF citation on BMP’s in his comment here. I remembered the poster session at the Spokane SAF meeting which had posters from around the country about BMP’s.. hunting for it on the Internet, I found this on the SAF ForestEd website…

Water Resources and Best Management Practices

In forestry, Best Management Practices (BMPs) are techniques or methods used to meet certain goals. BMPs are often used to address water quality concerns during silvicultural activities.

In the sections below, you will find a compilation of peer-reviewed literature, reports, policy documents, and more about BMPs for water resources.
Table of Contents:

Section 1 – SAF Encyclopedia Entry
Section 2 – Forestry Source Articles
Section 3 – Literature
Section 4 – Convention 2012: Posters and Presentations
Section 5 – 2012 Forest Management And Watershed Health Technical Symposium
Section 6 – Policy: Clean Water Act and Forest Roads
Discussion Forum

There is a US map you can click on to find the poster from a specific state (cool!). Thanks to Carlin Starrs and everyone at SAF who got this info online!

Why Peer Reviewed Science is So Important

by

This just in:

Academic publishing
Science’s Sokal moment

It seems dangerously easy to get scientific nonsense published
Oct 5th 2013 |From the print edition

IN 1996 Alan Sokal, a physicist at New York University, submitted a paper to Social Text, a leading scholarly journal of postmodernist cultural studies. The journal’s peer reviewers, whose job it is to ensure that published research is up to snuff, gave it a resounding thumbs-up. But when the editors duly published the paper, Dr Sokal revealed that it had been liberally, and deliberately, “salted with nonsense”. The Sokal hoax, as it came to be known, demonstrated how easy it was for any old drivel to pass academic quality control in highbrow humanities journals, so long as it contained lots of fancy words and pandered to referees’ and editors’ ideological preconceptions. Hard scientists gloated. That could never happen in proper science, they sniffed. Or could it?

Alas, as a report in this week’s Science shows, the answer is yes, it could. John Bohannon, a biologist at Harvard with a side gig as a science journalist, wrote his own Sokalesque paper describing how a chemical extracted from lichen apparently slowed the growth of cancer cells. He then submitted the study, under a made-up name from a fictitious academic institution, to 304 peer-reviewed journals around the world.

Despite bursting with clangers in experimental design, analysis and interpretation of results, the study passed muster at 157 of them. Only 98 rejected it. (The remaining 49 had either not responded or had not reviewed the paper by the time Science went to press.) Just 36 came back with comments implying that they had cottoned on to the paper’s sundry deficiencies, though Dr Bohannon says that 16 of those eventually accepted it anyway.

The publications Dr Bohannon selected for his sting operation were all open-access journals. These make papers available free, and cover their costs by charging authors a fee (typically $1,000-2,000). Policymakers have been keen on such periodicals of late. Since taxpayers already sponsor most academic research, the thinking goes, providing free access to its fruits does not seem unreasonable. But critics of the open-access model have long warned that making authors rather than readers their client risks skewing publishers’ incentives towards tolerating shoddy science.

Dr Bohannon has shown that the risk is real. Researchers can take comfort that the most prestigious open-access journals, such as those published by the Public Library of Science, an American outfit, did not fall for the jape. But plenty of periodicals run by other prominent publishers, such as Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer and Sage, did. With the number of open-access papers forecast to grow from 194,000 in 2011 (out of a total of 1.7m publications) to 352,000 in 2015, the Bohannon hoax ought to focus editors’ minds—and policymakers’, too.

From the print edition: Science and technology

Alliance for Wild Rockies threatened with gun violence

by

HELENA — A man angered by a recent lawsuit aimed at protecting a dwindling population of grizzly bears on Monday fired-off a threatening email to the group that filed it.

The emailer, who identified himself as Steven Connly of Eureka, wrote to the Alliance for the Wild Rockies’ general email address warning the group to “stay the hell out of our forests.”

“GET THE HELL OUT,” Connly wrote in the penultimate sentence before adding his first and last name to the note. “We in Lincoln county carry guns and would just love the chance to use them on worthless pieces of garbage such as yourself.”

The Tribune contacted Connly by email Tuesday, but he declined to be interviewed.

“Nothing to really to discuss,” Connly responded via email. “Stay the hell out of our business.”

Michael Garrity, executive director for the Helena-based environmental group, said he takes the threat seriously and reported it to the FBI.

Garrity said in the more than 15 years he has volunteered and worked for the Alliance he’s seen plenty of threatening or angry letters and emails. But none of the previous letters or emails explicitly used the threat of gun violence to intimidate, Garrity said.

“My concern is we’re filing a lawsuit, it’s our constitutional right to challenge a government decision, and this person thinks the appropriate response is to threaten me with a gun,” Garrity said. “Discourse has really sunk in this country when people think that’s appropriate. We’re exercising our constitutional rights and their response is to threaten us.”

Read the entire story from the Great Falls Tribune here.

Why We Need to Salvage and Replant the Rim Fire

by

Greg asked why we should bother with salvage logging on the Rim Fire, and I tried to explain how bear clover would dominate landscapes. He also seemed confused about modern salvage projects, here in California. Everything, here in California, is fuels-driven, as wildfires happen up to 13 times per century, in some places in the Sierra Nevada.

This picture shows how dense the bear clover can be, blocking some of the germination and growth of conifer species. Additionally, bear clover is extremely flammable and oily, leading to re-burns. This project also included removing unmerchantable fuels, including leaving branches attached. Yes, it was truly a “fuels reduction project”. You might also notice how many trees died, from bark beetles, after this salvage sale was completed. Certainly, blackbacked woodpeckers can live here, despite the salvage logging. Hanson and the Ninth Circuit Court stopped other salvage sales in this project, in favor of the BBW.

P9256073-web

When you combine this bear clover with a lack of fire salvage and chaparral brush, you end up with everything you need for a catastrophic, soils-damaging re-burn and enhanced erosion, which will impact long term recovery and the re-establishment of large tree forests. Actually, there has already been a re-burn within this project since salvage operations in 2006. Salvage logging greatly reduced that fire’s intensity, as it slicked-off the bear clover, but stayed on the ground. Certainly, if the area hadn’t been salvaged, those large amounts of fuels would have led to a much different outcome.

Now, if we apply these lessons to the Rim Fire, we can see how a lack of salvage in some areas within the Rim Fire will lead to enhanced future fires, and more soils damages and brushfields. When the Granite Fire was salvaged in the early 70’s, large areas were left “to recover on their own”, in favor of wildlife and other supposed “values”. When I worked on plantation thinning units there, those areas were 30 year old brushfields, with manzanita and ceanothus up to eight feet high. Those brushfields burned at moderate intensity, according to the burn severity map. Certainly, there were remnant logs left covered by those brushfields, leading to the higher burn severity. It was the exact same situation in my Yosemite Meadow Fire example, which as you could see by the pictures, did massive damage to the landscape, greatly affecting long term recovery. Here is the link to a view of one of those Rim Fire brushfields, surrounded by thinned plantations.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=37.999904,-119.948199&spn=0.003792,0.008256&t=h&z=18

I’ve been waiting to get into this area but, I expect the fire area will remain closed until next year. The plantations were thinned and I hear that some of them did have some survival, despite drought conditions and high winds, during the wildfire. In this part of California, fuels are the critical factor in wildfire severity. Indians knew this, after thousands of years of experience. They knew how to “grow” old growth forests, dedicating substantial amounts of time and energy to “manage” their fuels for their own survival, safety and prosperity. Their preferred forest included old growth pines, large oak trees, very little other understory trees, and thick bear clover. Since wildfires in our modern world are a given, burning about every 20 to 40 years, we cannot be “preserving” fuels for the next inevitable wildfire.

We need to be able to burn these forests, without causing the overstory pines to die from cambium kill, or bark beetles. That simply cannot be done when unsalvaged fuels choke the landscape. We MUST intervene in the Rim Fire, to reduce the fuels for the next inevitable wildfire that WILL come, whether it is “natural”, or human-caused. “Protected” old growth endangered species habitats may now become “protected” fuels-choked brushfields, ready for the next catastrophic wildfire, without some “snag thinning”.  We cannot just let “whatever happens”, happen, and the Rim Fire is a perfect example of “whatever happens”. Shouldn’t we be planning and acting to reduce those impacts, including the extreme costs of putting the Rim Fire out, and other significant human costs? Re-burns are a reality we cannot ignore, and doing nothing is unacceptable. Yes, much of the fire doesn’t have worthwhile salvage volumes, and that is OK but, there are less controversial salvage efforts we can and should be accomplishing.

Here is an example of salvage and bear clover, six months after logging with ground-based equipment. This looks like it will survive future wildfires. You can barely even see the stumps, today! The bear clover has covered them.

clean_salvage-06

The Shut-Down Shuffle: One Step Ahead, Two Steps Back

by

It seems almost criminal to post these links after Travis’s photos below. Sigh. But here goes. Despite my exhortations to have a consistent approach..
as regular readers know, I am a fan of logic, and not so much concessionaire management. But here goes:

Here’s a link to a story titled:US Forest Service Reverses Itself and Suddenly Closes Hundreds of Private Concession-Run Campgrounds

We were certainly taken by surprise by this closure order,” said Warren Meyer, CEO of Recreation Resource Management. “In all past government shutdowns, such as those in the mid-1990’s, concession recreation operations have always remained open. This only makes sense, since our operations don’t use any government funds or employees. While we do partner with the US Forest Service on certain activities, none of these are critical to day-to-day operations. We are convinced this closure is an unjustified and unnecessarily punitive action that hurts the recreating public while doing nothing to reduce government spending.”

At this time, the closure orders appear to be aimed only at smaller, private operators. At least three Arizona State Parks that operate on USFS lands under very similar agreements apparently have not been asked to close. The closure order also appears to exempt large corporations that operate ski resorts on USFS land.

Here’s the ski area scoop:

DENVER – A group representing the nation’s ski industry said Monday it expects no major impact on this year’s ski season because of federal furloughs, even though about a third of the more than 350 resorts are located on federal land regulated by the U.S. Forest Service.

Michael Berry, spokesman for the National Ski Areas Association, said most expansion projects and construction that require federal approval have been completed as opening days approach in the $6 billion a year industry. Delays could occur as a result of other projects in the pipeline, he said.

Berry said he talked with Forest Service chief Tom Tidwell to clarify how the shutdown would affect the 121 ski areas operating on federal land and was assured resort leases are not immediately affected.

“The fact of the matter is, this will have no impact on ski area operations. Having said that, there are certain things in progress, and Forest Service furloughs may slow things like that down,” he said.

The federal government regulates expansion projects, environmental reviews and lease agreements that are subject to public review.

The ski association sent a memo last week to all ski areas operating with a special use permit on public lands administered by the Forest Service, advising them about the federal agency’s decision.

“Ski areas may continue to operate, as the improvements are not government-owned. Privately owned improvements are not to be affected by the shutdown,” the memo said.

The ski areas were advised that the U.S. Forest Service will work with areas that are under construction on a case-by-case basis if an agency inspection or other action is needed.

And finally, shutting down timber folks. Here

The agency plans to notify 450 timber purchasers across the country early next week that timber sales and stewardship contracts will be suspended, Forest Service spokesman Leo Kay said in an email.

“We regret the continued impact on the American public; however we must cease activities that require Forest Service oversight and management during the funding lapse,’ he said.

Now my logic is that 1) if special use permits, large and small, are monitored by people and 2) people aren’t there, is that the same or not, or why, as contracts that won’t be monitored? What about elk season and outfitter-guides who won’t be monitored?

Public affairs FS or USDA folks, please provide a consistent,logical approach. Otherwise it looks like you are a) random, b) don’t understand what the FS actually does (and that would be more likely USDA’s error), or c) are picking on people politically. So many people in this day and age will jump to “c”. You can circumvent that downward spiral of partisanization just explaining why you’re closing some and not others.

Rec-tech for a day: Misty Fiords by floatplane

by

DSC_0138_edited-1

DSC_0155_edited-1

DSC_0161_edited-1

DSC_0169_edited-1

This is a guest post by Travis Bushman.. thanks for being so generous with your (furloughed) time to share these with us!

This is partially a meditation on the challenge of developed recreation on the Tongass, and partially an excuse to post some spectacular aerial photos of Misty Fiords.

The week before the furlough hit, I had a chance to get out of my third-floor office at the SO and get into the field — both to provide an extra pair of hands to the Ketchikan district recreation staff and to gain an understanding of the challenge they face in maintaining the Tongass’ developed recreation infrastructure.

Our day’s work plan involved making end-of-season visits to a number of recreation cabins in Misty Fiords National Monument. We’d be cleaning out garbage, hauling skiffs out of the lakes, inspecting facility conditions and documenting any urgent maintenance problems that would need attention before the winter hits. On any other district of any other national forest, this would likely involve two people getting a pickup truck out of the motor pool and spending the day driving around forest roads.

Not on the Tongass.

Rather, the three of us drove down to the docks and boarded a contract DHC-2 Beaver floatplane, which proceeded to hopscotch across the 2.3-million-acre monument, setting us down at eight lakeside rental cabins in breathtaking, almost-inaccessible settings. There is no way into any of these cabins except by floatplane or helicopter. Many of them are in designated wilderness and must be maintained without power tools. Cabin maintenance crews even split logs with a maul and wedge to provide fuel for those cabins which have wood stoves.

We returned after a full day in the monument with 13 full garbage bags, 11 empty propane cylinders and a couple broken fishing poles all loaded in the floats — and I brought back a new appreciation for the hard work of the cabin crews, whose numbers continue to dwindle.

That, and it hit home just how much it costs to do anything in Misty Fiords. This one trip to eight cabins — out of the ~150 the forest operates — cost about $3,000 just for the flight. Or, put in another way, we expended 125 nights of rental fees from a single cabin. That’s the cost of doing business in the 17-million-acre maze of islands and fjords that is the Tongass, and it’s an increasing challenge in an era of declining budgets.

The Future of the Rim Fire?

by

These are 2011 views of the A-Rock/Meadow Fire re-burn, within Yosemite National Park, after 4 years of “recovery”. The actual “recovery” time is now at 24 years, since the original A-Rock Fire raged through majestic old growth. You can barely make out the road into Yosemite Valley. You might also notice a lack of any conifer trees growing back.

Meadow-fire-2001-web

Even fire-adapted oak trees are doing very poorly, and the large snags from the previous stand, before the A-Rock Fire in 1989, are completely gone. Remember, no salvage logging happened away from roadside hazard trees.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

This is how the Sierra Nevada “recovers” from catastrophic wildfires. It can take hundreds of years to re-grow a forest, without help from humans. Indeed, Yosemite is a living laboratory, and it is clearly showing us some “lessons learned”. It is also clear that any Yellowstone recovery parallel to Sierra Nevada wildfires is not supported by actual results.

 

Newton’s Paradox: Why fish prefer clearcuts to regulated buffers

by

9002_fish-photo3

Native trout in full sunlight on a warm day in the headwaters of Blue River, Lane County, Oregon, August 24, 2013. Photograph by Aaron L. Zybach.

This post is generally specific to western Oregon salmonid (salmon and trout) populations in relation to current streamside vegetation buffer regulations. The “paradox” in the title refers to the fact that research work done by Mike Newton and others clearly indicate that Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations intended to protect native fish populations are, in fact, counterproductive – that is, salmonids do much better in streams that have been clearcut with no buffering vegetation than they do in streams with partial buffering; which in turn do better than streams with full buffering.

The post follows a discussion that John Persell and I were having on this blog regarding the effects of streambank vegetation on fish:

https://forestpolicypub.com/2013/10/01/federal-forestlands-would-benefit-from-oregon-rules-op-ed-in-oregonian/comment-page-1/#comment-19634

I made the point that I thought fish preferred clearcuts and sunlight to streamside vegetation and shade because they are cold blooded animals and there is usually more food where greater photosynthesis is taking place. Also, that they had responded to millions of years of fluctuating temperature changes in the rivers and streams they inhabited, and that streamside buffers did not provide much lasting effect on potentially hazardous (to fish) stream temperatures. In support of my statements I referenced personal observations (“fishing”) and the work of Mike Newton, a long-time friend and nationally recognized forest ecologist at Oregon State University, regarding a paper he had written several years ago on that topic.

John responded to these assertions with some reasonable questions: “Over what period (time of day, point in spawning cycle, season of year) did Newton determine fish numbers and volume were higher in sunny clearcut areas? What was the size and depth of the stream? At what life stage were the fish? It seems there are a lot of factors to consider before determining fish like clearcuts better than uncut areas.”

John’s challenge caused me to confer directly with Mike in regards to his paper and his own thoughts. As fate would have it (to coin a phrase), Mike was just completing a major article on that very subject, Managing Riparian Forests and the Paradox of Streamside Regulations, for the SAF Journal of Forestry, and was also getting prepared to present his findings to both the regulatory Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (a sub-set of EPA) and to the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). These works included references to ten or so reports showing that fish prosper more in clearcuts than in buffered or uncut streams, beginning with Murphy and Hall in 1981.

Several references were listed in the materials Mike provided me (including Murphy and Hall), a selection of which I posted for John’s benefit in regards to his questions:

https://forestpolicypub.com/2013/10/01/federal-forestlands-would-benefit-from-oregon-rules-op-ed-in-oregonian/comment-page-1/#comment-19676

These linked references also serve for the few citations I have included in this post. I have also provided several PDF files from Mike and from my own records at the end of this post, for those interested in original source materials.

The importance of stream temperature to salmonids

One of the earliest studies of the relation between water temperatures and salmonid populations was by Geoffrey Greene in North Carolina in 1950, comparing the different temperatures and trout populations in two streams: one that ran through a forested area, and another exposed to full sun as it ran through farmland. He confirmed that the “maximum temperature limit” for rainbow and brown trout was about 80 degrees Fahrenheit.

The maximum year-long measures of the farm stream varied from 65- to 79 degrees F., while the forest stream never became more than 66 degrees: which Greene considered the “optimum temperature” for brook trout. Neither stream reached 80 degrees during the year. From these findings he concluded: “once-productive trout streams can be restored by the control of stream temperatures through good watershed management.” To achieve that objective he thought it important to manage “all aspects of a watershed as a unit,” rather than be managed “on a piecemeal basis.”

Greene also recognized that trout obtained almost all of their food from aquatic organisms, “which are believed to thrive more abundantly at higher temperatures.” He therefore advised that “the most satisfactory practices would be those that raised the feeder stream temperatures to the maximum productivity of the aquatic organisms, yet did not increase the downstream temperatures above the limit of tolerance” via “the careful manipulation of vegetation and other kinds of land use practices.” Many of Greene’s findings and edicts remain as the basis for managing salmonids and water temperatures in fish bearing streams to this time.

Of greater scientific significance, because of geographic range, technical sophistication of measures, and sheer volume of research over time, is the numerous papers and reports by J. R. Brett, beginning in 1952 and continuing into the 1990’s. Brett’s work regarded the relationship of temperature and food supply for salmonids, and forms the basis of much of Newton’s writing and planned testimony on this topic — as well as provide context for subsequent field research Mike has performed on this topic during the past 22 years, often in collaboration with his long-time research assistant, Elizabeth Cole. Brett’s research showed that the warmer the water, the more productive for well-fed fish up to about 64 degrees F., whereas at 68 degrees well-fed fish grow at 90 percent of the maximum rates observed at lower temperatures; thus confirming, with greater precision, Greene’s findings.

Current Oregon regulations

I was involved in forest management issues as a reforestation contractor when riparian vegetation first became a topic of general discussion and new regulations in the Pacific Northwest during the 1980s. Prior to then the USFS even used to have “stream cleaning” contracts, where contractors were charged with removing all evidence of logging and other management activities from streams – even leaves and small twigs! The work made little sense: twigs, leaves, limbs and trees would keep falling into the stream after the workers left, and were being washed downstream to the ocean in any instance. The first contract I ever did of that nature was also my last, about 15 stream miles from the ocean.

Around the same time efforts were being made to save remaining old-growth trees from being logged and large amounts of land were thus being set aside and put off limits to logging. Soon, hydrologists and fish biologists followed this lead and began championing similar set asides for riparian areas, claiming the trees and shrubs were needed to 1) help off-set erosion and 2) provide good habitat for fish. Regulations followed, and harvesting next to a stream bank was soon forbidden. The argument quickly became how wide unlogged stream “buffers” should be, and regulations began being revised and more riparian land began being removed from management operations.

The research of Newton and Cole and others examined whether buffers lead to acceptable regulatory standards for fish-bearing streams. These studies revealed that small differences within buffer rules can make the difference between meeting or not meeting desired standards. Thirty-two streams with full regulatory buffers were measured over time, but State of Oregon forests had somewhat wider buffers than the current rules required, as set forth in the Protection of Cold Water Standard criterion for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

This triggered the question of whether wider buffers might be necessary. The DEQ study considered only buffer width on both sides of a stream, and water temperature, but did not consider other factors influencing the fishery; i.e., the very resource buffers were intended to protect, salmonids, did not factor into the findings – as a result, the several reports of general increase in fish productivity when clearcuts extended to the water’s edge (including those of Newton’s research) were not considered in the state-sponsored study of the use of buffers in meeting the regulatory criteria.

The history of disturbance

History tells us that fish have evolved and survived disturbances far more severe and widespread than clearcut logging, including: windstorms, catastrophic wildfires, volcanic eruptions, mass flooding, major landslides, etc. Such disturbances have almost always resulted in significant changes to streamside shading. Native fish have therefore survived and evolved with fluctuating stream temperatures — daily, seasonally, and occasionally. Their ability to swim to more favorable conditions during these changes should not be discounted.

As one result, the DEQ standard of 64 degrees F. for most of the salmonids and their habitats in Oregon fits neither the streams nor the fishery. The streams vary so much, and the environments in which they flow vary so much, that one standard cannot be made to adapt the fisheries that are acclimated to those streams. Neither the streams nor the fish are as homogenous as the standards; they never have been and they never can be.

Research Methods

The DEQ criterion for protecting the cold water standard is that no forest practice shall allow an increase in the 7-day mean temperature of water of 0.5 degrees F. or more downstream from a forestry operation, regardless of the natural temperature of the stream. This requirement eliminated any forestry operation intended to maintain the riparian forest — or to provide improved growth and health of affected fish. A technical problem is that existing temperature measuring equipment is only sensitive to plus or minus 0.32 degrees F., with a range of 0.64 degrees. Moreover, year-to-year variation in natural stream temperature is well over one degree. That means the only way to enforce this criterion is to require that there be no change at all in the riparian forest cover.

Germane to the above considerations is what, other than temperature, limits primary productivity of streams. Answer: short-wave light energy, and the photosynthetic process that supports the food chain. Newton and Cole’s research in the past 22 years has employed well over 100 thermistors registering summer-long stream temperatures along several streams. Their placements bracket clearcuts, partial buffers, and ODF’s Best Management Practices (BMP) streamside buffers. The instruments have recorded years before harvests and 5-17 years following harvests of several kinds.

Study streams range from eastern Douglas County to northern Lincoln County, all in western Oregon, in both the Coast and Cascade mountain ranges.  The work is part of the Oregon State University (OSU) Watershed Research Cooperative (WRC), an organization with several other large watersheds under close examination. Streams in the WRC study range from maximum summer temperatures of 50- to 68 degrees F. – all well within the desired range of temperature conditions for salmonids.

Newton and Cole’s research within the WRC involved four low to medium elevation streams with basins of 600 to 1000 acres each to determine how the arrangement and amount of streamside buffers in clearcut units influenced stream and air temperatures. Conditions included no-tree buffers, partial buffers 40-feet wide, and two-sided BMP buffers 50- to 100-feet wide. Impacts of clearcut logging on stream temperatures were determined based on time series analyses of post-harvest trends compared to pre-harvest trends.

Research Findings

Trends for daily maximums and means significantly increased after clearcutting in no-tree buffer units. Partial buffers led to slight (less than 4 degrees F.) or no increased warming. BMP units led to significantly increased warming, slight warming, or no increased warming, depending upon the stream. The effects of clearcutting and different buffers on daily minimum temperatures also varied by stream. Maximum temperature peaks were not maintained in downstream units; that is, elevated temperatures quickly returned to average stream temperatures within short distances.

Clearcutting led to increases in daily maximum and mean air temperatures above the stream for most buffer designs, with the greatest increases in the no-tree units. Changes to daily minimum air temperatures varied among buffer design and streams.  Although there were some inconsistencies in trends with different buffer designs among the streams, there were also some differences related to buffer implementation, changes in radiation, and stream features.

Brett (1956), Brett et al (1982), and Sullivan et al (2000) have all described tolerance of fish to elevated temperatures, the ability of fish to adapt with only 24 hours of adaptation time, and the very critical role of food availability with rising temperature. Viability of fish at temperatures 77 degrees F. and above depend on duration of exposure. The importance attached to stream temperature in regards to fish has been widely cited, but seldom with respect to the variability with which fish can respond within a range of responses.

The differences between units in fish biomass and other parameters were negligible before clearcutting in the spring of 2005, and all cut units increased in the three years following logging. Clearcuts with no buffers showed the largest positive response — but all cut units measured better than any unlogged units.

Peak temperatures above 64 degrees F. are necessary to achieve mean temperatures in the optimum range for salmonid metabolism.  The daily fluctuations of temperatures ranged from 2 degrees to 4 degrees F. in most forest streams within the study areas, with brief peaks and very productive means.

Stream reaches with some direct sun on them were the most productive for both the food chain and the fishery as long as they didn’t exceed 71 degrees F.  To this point, none of the study area streams have reached that level.

Temperature changes in logged units did not persist more than briefly downstream as water moved into other environments. Water temperature equilibrates rapidly with its local environment.  It naturally rises as it goes downhill, and remains very warm in interior valleys, gaining heat each day and losing it each night.

Why fish like light

Newton and Cole’s streams have compared buffer designs from no harvest to standard ODF buffers to residual-tree screens that shelter streams from the sun (one-sided buffer) between 9AM to 5 PM (daylight time), and units with no buffer other than scattered shrubs.  Brome Creek, a tributary to Hinkle Creek, the site of a major WRC basin-sized study in the western Cascades of Douglas County, demonstrated that full sunlight on the stream provided twice as much fish biomass as any other harvested unit, and all three harvested units produced more fish than any of the uncut units between harvested units.

Light clearly is responsible for fish growth. This was despite the complete clearcut units reaching maximum (but not mean) temperatures of 71 degrees F., and was frequently above 64 degrees.  The harvested units on Brome Creek ranged above 64 degrees before harvest.  Newton’s studies in several of these streams showed that the periphyton and macroinvertebrate abundance (“fish food”) was greatest where the most light reached the streams. On all streams peak temperatures were within the range defined by Brett et al (1982) in which fish growth was roughly 80-100 percent of growth observed at 62 degrees; the optimum.  This level of productivity is reached only when temperature exceeds about 57 degrees.  It is by no means a harmful temperature.

The argument against homogenized standards

Several factors weigh against a single set of criteria for all streams.  First, fish tolerate a wide range of temperatures.  Mortality of salmonids begins only when held above 75 degrees F. for an extended period of time. Above this temperature mortality becomes a function of the duration of time in which fish are subjected to warmer temperatures.

Brief excursions to such temperatures reduce feeding rate and raise respiration reversibly, leading to slow or even cessation of growth before mortality begins.  A single regulatory criterion (e.g., 64 degrees F,) does not capture the evidence that even though the constant temperature where growth is near or at maximum if well fed, 68 degrees F. is tolerated with only a 10 percent decrease in growth from the maximum; it is still a very favorable temperature.

Newton’s observations of highest stream productivity occurred when streams were fully exposed to sun, and when summer temperature peaks were well above the numeric criteria, revealing serious and costly flaws in the regulatory process.

The notion of requiring more shade when less shade equates to more biological productivity of streams represents a conflict between regulatory convenience (meeting a numerical criterion) and resource sensitivity (increasing fish biomass). Moreover, many streams are far too cold for optimum fish metabolism, and yet the Protecting Cold Water Standard prohibits operations that would provide both a more productive temperature range, but also improved food supplies.

Recommendations

Newton makes the following recommendations, based on his own research and the research of others:

1) The approach to stream quality should be one that first reflects that:

a) water quality in most Oregon commercial forest lands is excellent;

b) existing quality is protected by forest management that actively maintains streamside cover in direct proportion to stream temperatures; and

c) fisheries are not limited by temperature if good at the time of proposed harvest.

2) There should be flexibility in harvesting toward options that allow optimizing the harvest in order to improve fisheries productivity according to initial condition:

a) cold streams should be allowed (or even encouraged) to design harvests with no buffer; streams running 90-day mean averages of 59 degrees to 63 degrees before harvest should be allowed (or encouraged) to design a sun-sided partial buffer that would permit increased productivity in both fisheries and forest growth.

b) warmer streams should be allowed a sun-sided partial buffer plus a narrow screen of residual trees, which would increase forest and fisheries productivity with no appreciable change in temperature.

3) Such an approach is forest management friendly, fish friendly, and allows (or encourages) periodic entry into buffering forests in order to maintain optimum conditions — an activity not allowed by current rules.

References

https://forestpolicypub.com/2013/10/01/federal-forestlands-would-benefit-from-oregon-rules-op-ed-in-oregonian/comment-page-1/#comment-19676

Greene, Geoffrey E. 1950. “Land Use and Trout Streams,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 5, No. 3: 125-126.

www.esipri.org/Library/Greene_1950.pdf

Newton, Michael 1996-2013. Select Publications and Brome Creek Presentation.

www.esipri.org/Library/Newton_Michael/

Seeds, Joshua 2011 Nonpoint Source Compliance With the Protecting Cold Water Criterion of the Temperature Standard. Protecting Cold Water Criterion Internal Management Directive, State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon: 12 pp.

www.esipri.org/Library/Seeds_2011.pdf

Zybach, Bob and George Ice 1997. “Revisiting the Botkin Salmon Study,” IN: Proceedings of the 1997 NCASI West Coast Regional Meeting, Special Report No. 97-13, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), Corvallis, Oregon: 276-321.

www.nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Reports/1997_NCASI_Salmon/

Aerial view of the 1987 Complex Fire Salvage

by

I took this shot while flying with a Forest Service buddy in 1989.

Aerial-1987-complex-web

I am pretty sure that this is Forest Service land, near the Groveland Ranger District office. When I worked there in 1990, the Timber Management Officer was still angry at the less-than-aggressive post-fire salvage efforts that allowed so many “brain dead” trees to die and add to the fuel loading. I’m sure that all those dead trees had some green needles on them as salvage logging was proceeding. As you can clearly see in the photo, there are PLENTY of snags left in this HUGE wildfire zone. This isn’t even where the fire burned hot. The subsequent bark beetle bloom spread northward, chewing up forests more than 100 miles away. On the Eldorado, our Ranger District harvested 300 million board feet, between 1989 and 1992, of dead and dying timber from the severe bark beetle infestation. We were lucky, able to slide our EIS into place before the litigators could gather their case together. The Tahoe National Forest was too slow, and lost 2 years worth of salvage logging opportunities, turning merchantable dead trees into future wildfire fuels.

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit was also hard hit, and slow to react. Here is a 1990 view of the north end of the Lake Tahoe Basin. My first two summers in the Forest Service were spent at the top of that mountain as the Martis Peak fire lookout. Of course, there are a LOT more dying trees up there than just the brown trees. So many of those trees became unmerchantable before they could be salvaged, as the public and eco-groups hoped that “nature” would take care of the problem. Since fire suppression in the Tahoe Basin is ensured, most of those dead trees are now horizontal, and perfectly preserved as fuels for the next big, destructive, erosion-causing, lake-polluting disaster.

tahoe_bugs2

Tongass Timber Sale Update: How an endemic species can halt a timber sale

by

Earlier in September, a press release from the Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Community (GSACC) was shared with this blog. It opened with:

On August 16, GSACC and four other organizations filed an administrative appeal of the Tongass Forest Supervisor’s decision to proceed with the Big Thorne timber project. The appeal went to to the next highest level in the agency, Regional Forester Beth Pendleton. The appeal is known as Cascadia Wildlands et al. (2013), and other co-appellants are Greenpeace, Center for Biological Diversity and Tongass Conservation Society.

The project would log 148 million board feet of timber [enough to fill 29,600 log trucks], including over 6,000 acres of old-growth forest from heavily hammered Prince of Wales Island. 46 miles of new logging roads would be built and another 36 miles would be reconstructed.

Today, we get an update on the Big Thorne timber sale on the Tongass National Forest in Alaska in the form of this article, written by Dr. Natalie Dawson, one of GSACC’s board members.

Wolf

“When you spend much time on islands with naturalists you will tend to hear two words in particular an awful lot: ‘endemic’ and ‘exotic’. Three if you count ‘disaster’. An ‘endemic’ species of plant or animal is one that is native to an island or region and is found nowhere else at all.”
-From Last Chance to See by Douglas Adams, author of A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

by Natalie Dawson

On the Tongass National Forest, we hear mostly about trees – whether it be discussions about board feet, acres of old growth, percentage of forest converted to “second-growth” or “the matrix”[*], our conversations tend to focus on the dominant plant species group that defines the rare “coastal temperate rainforest” biome. However, the Tongass is more than a forest, it is a conglomerate of islands, islands of different sizes, islands of different geologic and cultural histories, islands with or without black bears, grizzly bears, or wolves, the iconic species of Alaska. Because of these islands, there are unique, or, endemic, species of various size, shape and color across the islands. Though they have played a minimal role in management throughout the course of Tongass history, they are now rightfully finding their place in the spotlight thanks to a recent decision by regional forester Beth Pendleton.

On Monday (Sept. 30), the US Forest Service announced its decision to reconsider the Big Thorne timber project. This project would have been the largest timber project on the Tongass National Forest in twenty years, taking 6,200 acres of old growth forest (trees up to 800 years old, 100 feet tall, and 12 feet in diameter) from Prince of Wales Island, an island that has suffered the most intense logging in the region over the past six decades. It is also an island that is home to endemic animals found nowhere else in the world.

Citizens of southeast Alaska and environmental organizations including GSACC jointly filed an administrative appeal on the Big Thorne timber project on August 16th of this year. Monday’s response comes directly from regional forester Beth Pendleton. In the appeal, Pendleton cited an expert declaration written by Dave Person, a former Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) biologist with over 22 years of experience studying endemic Alexander Archipelago wolves on Prince of Wales Island, with most of his research occurring within the Big Thorne project area. Pendleton cited Person’s conclusion that “the Big Thorne timber sale, if implemented, represents the final straw that will break the back of a sustainable wolf-deer predator-prey ecological community on Prince of Wales Island…” Her letter states, “This is new information that I cannot ignore.” The response to the appeal requires significant review of the timber project before it can move forward, including cooperative engagement between the Tongass National Forest and the Interagency Wolf Task Force to evaluate whether Dr. Person’s statement represents “significant new circumstances or information relevant to” cumulative effects on wolves (including both direct mortality and habitat).

As one of my students today in class asked me pointedly, “So what does all this mean?” Well, it means that the largest potential timber sale in recent history on our nation’s largest national forest, on the third largest island under U.S. ownership, is temporarily halted under administrative processes due to an endemic species. It does not mean that this area is protected. It does not mean, that our work is done. Pending the outcome from conversations between the Forest Supervisor and the Interagency Wolf Task Force, especially under the current political climate within the state of Alaska, we may have plenty to keep us busy in the near future. It does mean that, even if only briefly, the endemic mammals of the Tongass National Forest received a most deserving moment in the spotlight. This could result in a sea-change in how the Tongass National Forest is managed.

This also means that science is being given a chance to play an important role in an administrative decision on our nation’s public lands, and two endemic species, the Alexander Archipelago wolf, and its primary prey species, the Sitka Black-Tailed deer, are forcing federal and state agency personnel to reconsider their actions. Science must continue to play an important role in the future of all activities on Prince of Wales Island. It is home to many endemic animals found only on a small percentage of islands on the Tongass National Forest, and nowhere else in the world. This lineup includes the Prince of Wales Island flying squirrel, the spruce grouse, the Haida ermine, and potentially the Pacific marten, which was only recently discovered on nearby Dall Island. The future of the Tongass timber program and human development on these complex islands are inextricably tied to ensuring a future for all other species in one of the world’s only remaining coastal temperate rainforests.
____

Dr. Natalie Dawson has done years of field work on endemic mammals throughout much of Southeast Alaska, studying their population sizes and distributions through field and laboratory investigations, and has published peer-reviewed scientific papers on these topics. She presently is director of the Wilderness Institute at the University of Montana and a professor in the College of Forestry and Conservation.

[*] What is the matrix? The conservation strategy in the Tongass Forest Plan establishes streamside buffers (no logging) and designates minimal old growth reserves, in an attempt to ensure that wildlife species on the Tongass remain viable. (Whether the strategy is sufficient for this is at best questionable.) The matrix is the expanse of habitat that is allocated to development (such as logging) or that is already developed, and which surrounds those patches of protected habitat.

UPDATE: Readers may notice that in the comments section a claim is made that the Sitka black-tailed deer are not endemic, but were were introduced. The Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocdileus hemionus sitkensis) were not introduced to Southeast Alaska; the Sitka black-tailed deer is indeed an indigenous, endemic species there.

Also, another commenter suggested referring to the article on the GSACC website, as at the bottom of the article one can find much more information about the Big Thorne timber sale and also the declaration of Dr. David Person regarding Big Thorne deer, wolf impacts. Thanks.