What is wrong with restoring western forests to their natural stocking levels?

Until we can agree on the where, how and why, our forests will burn and our chance to sequester carbon by making durable wood products will be lost for the rest of OUR lives. And our children's lives, too.

I'm currently working on a fire salvage project of about 300 acres of recently-thinned forest. Using the latest fire mortality guidelines, we're applying cutting edge science to this burned forest, 5 weeks after the fire was extinguished.

The eco-embracement of wildfires is still proceeding, where opponents to fire salvage projects call wildfires "natural and beneficial", ignoring the high-intensity acres that eliminate full recovery in less than 200 years.

Even the Forest Service has thrown up the white flags on National Forests like the Bitterroot, where they have chosen to make those lands part of a huge "Let-Burn" program, without any NEPA or public involvement.

The future doesn't look good for our forests, especially if we all continue to be polarized, stubborn and emotional. On the flip side, we can't just be "giving away" our forests. Even with careful and gentle management, our forests are full of value in many different forms.

But, if we don't make our forests drought, insect and fire resistant, there will be nothing left to save except for brushfields and plantations.

PS More new Shasta and Yosemite pics on my blog

PPS We had a nice new 6" coating of summer snow  on Mt Shasta last week, from top to bottom!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

I see that most preservationists agree with the Bush Administration on letting massive parts of National Forest burn, too. Nothing like releasing centuries of sequestered carbon, along with other toxic gasses directly into our atmosphere, eh?

Amazingly, no one even blinked when these programs were implemented without NEPA work or public opinion on an issue that will have environmental effects lasting well into your great grandchildren's lives.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

What the forests of the Pacific Northwest need is an aggressive schedule of prescribed burns initiated before and after the regular fire season. Overgrowth of brush and young trees in old clearcuts is extreme with trees in some areas growing so close that you cannot walk between the trunks. Tree planting is less of a problem than needed tree thinning.

Prescribed burns at times when crown fires are unlikely to propogate will kill off much of the excess fuel load and allow surviving trees to grow quickly at proper spacing. Currently most fires are fought and fuels have been allowed to accumulate threatening both the old growth and the second growth alike. As a result some fires that catch hold are completely unstoppable and eat everything in their path.

The great forests that europeans found when they arrived in California were subject to frequent prescribed burns to clear overgrowth and provide habitat for game. The initiators of these burns where the first nations peoples who had succesfully managed these environments for some 30 thousand years before "civilized" people arrived here.

Until recently there was no market for slash, small trees and brush pulled out during thinning operations but that should change. Bio-char production for Terra Preta agriculture allows recovery of fuels and produces charcoal for use as a fertilizer and soil conditioner.

We need to burn more, not less to sequester carbon in forests.

Put the Carbon Back

Again I see we're being punished for what foresters did back in the LAST millenium. Clearcutting here in California's National Forests are a thing of the distant past now, having banned clearcuting since 1993 (voluntarily so).

I do agree with you that burning is essential to the health of our forest ecosystems, here in California. However, many areas will first need a thinning. Otherwise, it's analagous to trying to burn tiny bits of a huge haystack without burning up the whole thing.

Some people will never see the big picture, thinking that more trees is always better for the environment. Well, the San Bernardino and Bitterroot National Forests are perfect examples of how to preserve a forest to death.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Still think wildfires are "natural and beneficial"??

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Employ people to harvest the waste wood that is the fuel in these forest fires.  They may just turn into fire storms that feed themselves with tordanic winds.  Then you are looking at months long GHG spewing disaster areas that leave economic devestation in their wake.  how much to rebuild afterwards?

Better to spend on fire prevention.  With hi-tech machines workers can safely harvest chipped wood for chipboard building material (carbon sequestered in wood buildings), pyrolisis (that leaves charcoal for soil amendment, carbon sequestration) energy/fuel production, and rotting wood returned to the forest soil to store moisture.

Forestry jobs like this to prevent GHG fire disaster are political winners.  And better satelite based fire detection and prevention.  And more local teams that go out at a moments notice to put out aany fire the satelite sees no matter how small.  Before it eats thousands of square miles.

Local fire prevention and forestry jobs.  Local industries that use wood chips.  It's a winning combination.  And of course selective harvesting would also continue.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Despite the fact that most stands are overstocked by ONE TO TWO orders of magnitude, nope, that couldn't possibly have ANY effect on available water or forest health!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ya know, you all seem to have already made your bed, good or bad, and now we're all sleeping in it. BURN, BABY, BURN!

Luckily my comments are etched in stone on the Internet so my conscience will be at rest. How about yours?!?!?!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Not that I'm a global warming denier, though. Since this IS happening, in my mind, it makes active forest management even MORE essential to saving the parts of our forests. We've let "Mother Nature" destroy entire forests. We've let Bush not fund the "Healthy Forests" law.

Time to invest in hot dogs and marshmallows, now!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Would a firestorm in an area like this galvanize awareness of GHG drought?   Northern Georgia is now an official drought disaster area.

It is interesting that no media interviews with local victims of drought and fires bring up this aspect.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

HURRAY!!

Meanwhile, fuels reduction projects go back to Square One, after a losing court battle.

Forest Restoration and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Efforts in the Forests of Oregon and Washington

Testimony of K. Norman Johnson Jerry F. Franklin

December 13, 2007 - Hearing of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

I am Dr. K. Norman Johnson and I am here today to give testimony for myself and Dr. Jerry F. Franklin regarding forest restoration and hazardous fuel reduction efforts in the forests of the Pacific Northwest. I am a University Distinguished Professor in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. Jerry Franklin is Professor of Ecosystem Sciences in the College of Forest Resources at University of Washington. These comments represent our view and not those of our respective institutions.

Our testimony focuses on forest restoration in the National Forests of Oregon and Washington...

Our definition of "restoration" is the re-establishment of ecological structures and processes on these forests where they have been degraded and, simultaneously, restoration of economic and other social values on these lands. One product of this restoration will be substantial reductions in uncharacteristic fuel loadings. We emphasize restoration activities in which ecological, economic, and other social goals are compatible...

Restoration of Forests Characterized by Frequent, Low- and Mixed-Severity Fire Regimes

We will lose these forests to catastrophic disturbance events unless we undertake aggressive active management programs. This is not simply an issue of fuels and fire; because of the density of these forests, there is a high potential for drought stress and related insect outbreaks. Surviving old-growth pine trees are now at high risk of death to both fire and western pine beetle, the latter resulting from drought stress and competition...

Without action, we are at high risk of losing these stands-and the residual old-growth trees that they contain-to fire and insects...

We know enough to take action (uncertainties should not paralyze us). Inaction is a much more risky option for a variety of ecological values, including preservation of Northern Spotted Owls and other old-growth related species. We need to learn as we go, but we need to take action now. Furthermore, it is critical for stakeholders to understand that active management is necessary in stands with existing old-growth trees in order to reduce the risk that those trees will be lost.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Activities at the stand level need to focus on restoring ecosystems to sustainable composition and structure-not simply to acceptable fuel levels. Objectives of these treatments need to include: Retention of existing old-growth tree populations; shifting stand densities, basal areas, diameter distributions, and proportions of drought- and fire-tolerant species (e.g., ponderosa pine and western larch) toward historical levels... Finally, restoring old-growth tree populations to, and maintaining them at, historical levels should be a goal of restoration management...

Restoration programs must be planned and implemented at the landscape scale to be effective; management over the last century has altered entire landscapes and created the potential for very large wildfires and insect outbreaks. Treating isolated stands within these landscapes will not be effective...

Creating fuel treatment patches and strips is a useful first step to help control wildfire, but is not sufficient to save these forests or the important array of values that they provide, including owls and old-growth trees. Many of the intervening areas will eventually burn and, even if they do not, old-growth trees will succumb to insects during periodic drought, since they are surrounded by dense competing vegetation.

To conserve these forests, we need to modify stand structure (e.g., treat fuels) on one-half to two-thirds of the landscape.

This level of restoration will create a matrix of more natural and sustainable forest, which has a greatly reduced potential for stand-replacement fire and insect mortality, interspersed with islands of dense stands. These interspersed dense stands will provide habitat for species like the Northern Spotted Owl that utilize such areas. In fact, an approach that results in restoring conditions on the majority of the dry forest landscapes is the only way in which sustainable habitat for Northern Spotted Owls can be provided.

Key elements of actions to restore these forests include: Conserving old growth trees as a first priority.

Utilizing historical conditions, such as historical densities and distributions of tree sizes, as an ecological guide...

Combining conservation of old growth trees, stand density targets, and emphasis on drought and fire-tolerant species as an overall guide to action.

We suggest moving away from approaches based on diameter limits.

Focusing on areas with concentrations of old growth structure as a high priority for treatment. Recognition that such areas should receive early attention is recent; there has been a tendency to think that stands with numerous old-growth trees should be left alone or, at least, be of much lower priority for treatment. The reality is the opposite! Forests that still retain substantial numbers of old-growth trees should be priorities for treatment because these are irreplaceable structures that are at great risk from uncharacteristic wildfire and bark beetle attack. Hence, reducing the potential for accelerated loss of these old trees should be at the top of the agenda.

Many areas that characteristically had frequent, low-frequency fire regimes no longer do... Reversing these effects will be needed...

Prescribed fire is a useful tool in forest restoration but is not sufficient alone--mechanical silvicultural activities typically will be required...

Difficulties exist in safely dealing with the build-up in fuel; in many cases harvest is required to help reduce fuel loads...

Harvest can help pay for actions and provide useful economic and social benefits, but additional funds will be needed. Significant commercial volumes need to be removed to restore these forests. They can provide the funds for treatment and also help maintain milling capacity and communities...

Commercial harvest, though, will not pay for all that needs to be done. Fire or other actions must follow harvest to reduce the short-term fuel hazards...

Rarely has there been such a coming together of ecological, economic, and social considerations.
-------------------------------------------------

So, when is GRIST going to see the light and embrace active forest management?? The first message from Franklin and Johnson seems to have been so skillfully buried and hushed up by people who refuse to see the big picture, despite what their icons are saying. 50 million Toyota Prius cars won't save our forests. Al Gore still probably declares our forests to be off-limits. I've been saying that more hands-on forest management is needed for more than 10 years on the Internet and scientists are finally changing their views. Why doesn't the rest of America see the light?!?!?

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

http://www.forestguild.org/publications/2007/ForestGuild_ ...

Forest management "deniers" continue to use rhetoric, dogma and lies to stop from harvesting  even "one stick". Mainstream Gristers seem to want to be told what to think, confused about what their idols tell them and what they're seeing from scientists.

It's NOT too late to save parts of our forests from high-intensity fires AND unsustainable logging. However, political inertia and the eco-industry have too much power in reaping donations off the ignorant masses with guilty consciences.

Amazing that there STILL are big groups out there suing against scientific forest management, and winning. It's even more amazing that Gristers ignore this evidence, preferring to argue about hybrids and coal-powered toasters.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Since most of this material gets burned anyway, why can't we capture that energy and pollution and use it to offset coal power? Is it better than letting it burn uncontrollably, and at high intensity, spewing it all directly into our atmosphere, in a "natural and beneficial" manner??

Will "forest management deniers" be the last ones to see the obvious scientific and economic truths?

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com