As we move into the post-wildfire season here in western Oregon, I am thinking of having some bumper stickers printed up. Maybe, “Gaia Knows Best.” Or perhaps, “What Would Gaia Do?”

In the aftermath of this year’s big fires, I want to share the idea that when the land has suffered what may appear to be a major wound, sometimes the picture is brighter than it first seems—especially when we are willing to trust natural processes and give the land some room to heal.

It’s nevertheless true that major wounds lie all around us this winter. Large wildfires, many that were likely sparked by power lines then driven to conflagration by unusually hot and dry east winds, have caused tragic loss: some in our communities have lost their homes and businesses; some lost their lives. We mourn those lives, and extend our compassion and support to those who lost homes and livelihoods. Tough times lie ahead as people make plans for a different future than they might have hoped and planned for.

We have also heard people’s fears and concerns about the wild lives lost. Will our forests recover? Is destructive wildfire going to become our “new normal” under climate change? Will big fires in spotted owl habitat drive them to extinction?

I am happy to tell you that, at least as far as the forests go, you can breathe a sigh of relief. Our Western Oregon forests and native wildlife are used to wildfire. They’ve evolved with it, and a fully functioning ecosystem needs it.

As to whether large wildfires will become the “new normal” under climate change, the truth is that large wildfires are just … normal. In recent decades, we’ve emerged from an unusually wet time period that coincided with federal policy encouraging fire suppression, so our expectations of a normal fire year are based on an abnormal baseline. Large wildfires – even so called “mega-fires” – are the historic norm west of the Cascades. We may start to see increased drought and extreme weather due to climate change, though, and that will certainly influence fire behavior in years to come.

If you’ve been wondering whether our forests can recover from the fires, you can set your mind at ease about this, too. Very large, and often severe wildfires have burned in our forests for thousands of years. Our forests and the wildlife within them evolved in concert with fire and not only recover in its aftermath, but thrive. Even this season’s biggest fires burned in a mosaic, leaving a patchwork of green forest, untouched or lightly burned, intermingled with more severely burned patches.

If left to recover naturally, these blackened patches of charcoal forest will start to sprout new growth next spring, birds and their nestlings will feast on insects that have colonized the burned trees, and tree seeds will sprout, nourished by the living mycorrhizal network beneath the burned soil surface. Fire, our forests can handle.

Now, whether our forests, and the wildlife that depend on them, will recover from decades of destructive logging is another question – and that’s why we fight tooth and claw against any old-growth and mature forest logging, as well as the particularly destructive post-fire clearcutting.

There is also some good news on the spotted owl front with regard to wildfire. An ongoing scientific debate about the fate of spotted owls after wildfire has flared back up recently. The upshot of the controversy is that an independent scientist has shown that spotted owls thrive through wildfires, while a group of industry and agency-sponsored scientists have been trying to cast doubt on that. There’s going to be some back-and-forth for a while, but it looks like the debate will come down in favor of the rigorous, independent scientists, as it usually does. I’m ready to breathe a sigh of relief here: I don’t think wildfires, alone, are going to drive spotted owls extinct.

Yet the owl population has been declining steadily since they were listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, so much so that the US Fish & Wildlife Service has determined they should be uplisted from “threatened” to “endangered,” meaning they are now in danger of extinction (note, the listing is not finalized; the government has determined they are too busy to handle it just now, but will revisit the idea in a year). So, what is sending spotted owls down the extinction spiral?

In a word, logging. Despite the frantic efforts of the industry and, unfortunately, most of our federal land managers, to blame a myriad of other causes, the main culprit is logging.

When an industry strips away a habitat needed for a species’ survival – and for spotted owls, that’s old-growth forest – then that species will die off. Estimates vary on the amount of old-growth the industry has deigned to leave behind in spotted owl range, but it could be as low as 10% of what existed prior to colonial settlement in the 1800s. It’s not too surprising that spotted owl populations are way down, too. Species and their habitats go hand in hand; when their homes go, they go.

If they aren’t logged, we can expect to hear plentiful birdsong and enjoy native wildflower blooms in our burned forests this spring. Forests that develop on their own post-fire are more complex than clearcut-and-replanted stands; they can develop into old-growth twice as fast as managed forests. On top of that, many are surprised to hear that burned forests are great at storing carbon. But not if they’re logged.

Owls – and any other living thing that prefers to live in a forest (even a burned one) versus a strip-mined hellscape – are among the reasons we are particularly concerned by new post-fire clearcutting proposals coming hot in the wake of this season’s wildfires. We are geared up on all fronts with our conservation partners to fight this, the worst and most environmentally destructive form of logging.

Because industrial timberlands will flood the market with burned logs from private lands, we are asking our state and federal agencies to take a more responsible role with our shared forests and leave them to recover naturally, providing diverse habitat for a myriad of wild species.

Although we’d hoped the agencies might have the decency to wait until the pandemic eased, the holidays had passed, and 2020 was finally in the rear view mirror before acting, they’ve unfortunately decided to start pitching post-fire clearcutting in some of our most cherished watersheds this month. We are keeping an eye on three massive, harmful projects now (outlined below). We know more will be headed our way in the months to come, and we will keep you all apprised of opportunities to weigh in.

McKenzie River / HLB-MITA Salvage Project

This proposal out of the Bureau of Land Management proposes to clearcut over 1,300 acres of burned forest in the McKenzie River watershed (salvage and green tree harvest within Harvest Land Base-Moderate Intensity Timber Area (HLB-MITA). We’d like to see the agency operate with some concern for the trauma already suffered by the human and wild residents of the McKenzie valley. Clearcutting these hillsides would instead add increased landslide risk and risk to fish streams, degraded soil webs, flash floods, and homeless wildlife to the list of insults following the Holiday Farm Fire.

The agency is taking comments on its scoping proposal now through January 11. They are asking whether they should do a full Environmental Analysis (EA) or if they can get away with filing this under a “Categorical Exclusion” – a new pass on environmental impact review granted for post-fire logging in the waning days of the Trump administration. We want them to slow down and take the time to do a full EA review as required by law, giving our citizens plenty of time to look over their plans and comment prior to them committing to undertake actions that would ravage our forest and watershed.

You can contact the field manager in charge, Rebecca Brooke, with your concerns: rbrooke@blm.gov

North Umpqua River / Archie Creek Salvage Project

Here again, the Bureau of Land Management is moving lightning-fast on a proposal to clearcut a massive area along the North Umpqua River that burned in September’s Archie Creek Fire. We can’t even tell you exactly how many acres are involved, because their scoping proposal is so vague it doesn’t even list that basic information. So much for fair and open public oversight procedures. We do know this one is too big to go forward under a Categorical Exclusion, but we fully expect the agency to rush its Environmental Analysis.

We’ve asked for more information, but in the meantime, you can comment until January 8. If you support a careful environmental review that fully considers all the logging impacts to fish, streams, water quality, soil quality, and wildlife that we would expect, let the agency know!

You can reach out to Mike Korn, the field manager in charge: mkorn@blm.gov

North Santiam River / Santiam State Forest

This proposal is moving fast to sell off swaths of our burned state forest to clearcutting. About half of the roughly 47,000-acre Santiam State Forest east of Salem burned last fall. As with fires generally, this one burned in a healthy mosaic pattern, leaving fertile ground for a new, natural forest to arise there. Instead, the state is sticking to its outdated 2010 planning document and wants to clearcut up to 3,500 acres. We know some of what they will cut will be green, and as you know, even the blackened areas provide important habitat for years to come.

The Oregon Department of Forestry has provided very little information about what they intend here. We don’t know how old these trees are, how severely they burned, or where exactly the agency intends to allow loggers free rein. They’ve shortened the usual public comment period to 30 days – comments due December 23 – and have revealed they intend to auction off the first trees for logging that same day! We think our public trust deserves better.

You can ask for more information and share your opinion of this plan here:
odf.sfcomments@oregon.gov

The post BLOG: After the Fires, the Birds and the Blooms first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

by Alexander Harris, Forest Policy Consultant for Cascadia Wildlands

Last week, the Oregon Legislature ended its short session early, lacking the requisite number of legislators to pass any of the bills being considered. Two weeks prior, Republican members of the State House and Senate fled the state Capitol in protest of a cap & trade proposal being advanced by the Democratic supermajority, stalling all pending legislation and launching the Capitol into political turmoil.

The walkout marks the third time in the past year that Republican legislators have neglected the core responsibility of their public service – showing up to legislative session – in an attempt to thwart the quorum Democrats need to pass legislation. The temper tantrum, which began February 24, effectively ended the 35-day session two weeks early and denied Democrats the opportunity to pass not only the climate bill, but also bills addressing wildfire risk (see below), flood assistance, and more.

To add to the political drama, Republican obstructionism also endangered a historic agreement between Oregon’s largest timber corporations and conservation groups, resulting in a rare rift between the GOP and logging interests. Republican opposition to the climate bill was bolstered by Timber Unity, the front group funded and organized by logging interests; however, the walkout that ensued ended up undermining the timber industry’s chief priority this session by threatening the viability of the timber-conservation deal (read more below). This development is quite ironic due to the fact that timber corporations literally bankroll the campaigns of Republicans in Oregon’s legislature.

The sudden end to the legislative session leaves a great deal of uncertainty for the months ahead and sets the tone for what is expected to be a major year in American politics.

ONCE AGAIN, OREGON FAILS TO PASS CARBON REGULATION

The most high-profile bill this session, SB 1530, aimed to create a market-based cap & invest program known as the Oregon Greenhouse Gas Initiative (OGGI). Environmental and social justice activists have advocated for a statewide carbon program for years, prompting Democrats to prioritize passing a cap & trade program this short session over all other bills; however, as the legislative session approached the bill was increasingly watered down in an effort to keep Republicans at the table (and in the building), leading dozens of organizations to refrain from endorsing the legislation. If you can believe it, the timber industry won over the key Democrats in Salem and succeeded in exempting logging in Oregon from the cap & trade legislation, even though logging is a leading source of carbon emissions in the state.

The most concerning provision in the climate bill proposed allocating a quarter of the all OGGI revenue to fund the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) to conduct a landscape-scale thinning program, largely targeting National Forests and other public lands. Using cap & trade revenue to fund broadscale thinning seems to ignore the scientific literature about how aggressive thinning programs release far more carbon into the atmosphere than wildfires do as well as increase the severity of future forest fires. Cascadia Wildlands and partner groups have repeatedly advocated for wildfire funds to be allocated towards strategies that bolster community resilience and preparation rather than thinning over vast landscapes. (Watch Sam Krop, Grassroots Organizer for Cascadia Wildlands give testimony on this topic: video available below, or HERE – timestamp: 1:40:47.) The irony with this provision of the OGGI was thick — use monies from cap & trade legislation to fund extensive carbon-emitting logging across Oregon’s forested landscape.

OREGON ASSERTS NEW ROLE IN MANAGING FEDERAL LAND

The other major priority for legislators this short session was to pass comprehensive wildfire legislation. Each of the wildfire bills proposed this session were based on the recommendations developed by the Governor’s Wildfire Response Council, which released a report in November 2019. Many of the Council’s recommendations were encouraging, especially those focused on making communities more resilient to future wildfires – others, however, urged state lawmakers to double down on the 20th century strategies that are proven to be costly and ineffective (e.g. increased logging and fire suppression).

The Council’s most controversial (and expensive) recommendation was for an unprecedented, landscape-scale thinning program meant to disrupt wildfire behavior. The program – estimated to cost $4 billion – would greatly expand the role that the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) plays in managing our National Forests, and would authorize thinning vast swaths of Oregon’s forested landscape. Sure enough, the proposal to adopt a landscape-scale thinning program showed up in legislation this short session, recommending that ODF “treat” one-tenth of Oregon’s entire landbase!

In preparation for the session, Cascadia Wildlands helped lead an informal coalition of climate, social justice, and conservation groups to advocate for wildfire funds to be allocated towards community adaptation and resilience measures instead of thinning efforts in the backcountry on public lands. On the first day of session, Cascadia Wildlands joined 18 other organizations around the state in a letter to legislators advocating for wildfire policy to adhere to the latest science. In our letter, we wrote:

Scientists predict that the coming decades will bring more climate change-driven wildfires in Oregon’s forests. Therefore, we must prioritize policies focused on community adaptation rather than futile attempts to modify fuel conditions and control fire behavior across the entire landscape.

Experts have found that the three most effective strategies to protect homes and communities from wildfire are to: 1) retrofit homes with fire-resistant materials; 2) maintain defensible space within 100 feet of structures; and 3) limit new development in fire-prone areas. This approach differs starkly from landscape-scale thinning efforts, which are proven to be expensive, ecologically destructive, and ineffective at controlling wildfire behavior. Currently, government agencies spend millions of dollars logging to reduce fuels, yet data from the Forest Service shows less than 1% of thinning projects encounter wildfire each year, simply because our forests are vast and we cannot predict where fires will burn next. Thinning efforts should instead be focused on the forests directly adjacent to homes and communities where they can actually help enhance public safety.

Read our new factsheet to learn more about which strategies researchers say work best in protecting people and property from wildfire risks.

Over the last few weeks, several wildfire bills were wrapped into one large bill, SB 1536. Unfortunately, almost all of the adaptation measures we advocated for were dropped; however, due to our coalition’s efforts and the strong leadership of Senator Jeff Golden (D-Ashland), we were successful in striking the landscape-scale thinning program from the final bill. Instead, the bill includes a much more narrow and focused approach to reduce fuels by authorizing demonstration projects in strategic locations. These demonstration projects are meant to help inform state legislators and ODF about where thinning makes sense (and where it doesn’t), as well as how the state can expand its use of prescribed fire. The bill also includes many sideboards to keep commercial thinning out of the ecologically sensitive areas, although many notable exceptions remain.

Rumors of a special session are circulating around the Capitol, which means this bill actually has a chance of passing this year. If this happens, Cascadia Wildlands and partner groups will launch an extensive monitoring campaign to ensure these fuel reduction projects stay out of older, native forests and instead target the areas that pose the greatest risks to homes and communities – such as even-aged plantations and fire-suppressed stands near where people actually live.

FOREST WATERS BALLOT INITIATIVE – THE ROAD AHEAD

The Republican walkout derailed a variety of other important legislation, such as the aerial spray reforms agreed to by conservation groups and timber companies last month. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) – signed by two dozen conservation organizations and logging companies on February 10 – initiates a longer term process to enact comprehensive, science-based reforms to Oregon’s logging laws; however, the entire deal hinged on the legislature passing a bill this session to modernize aerial pesticide spraying laws.

With the legislative session now over, much remains uncertain about the future of this bill or the fate of the larger deal. The impetus behind the deal was the introduction of ballot initiatives by a statewide coalition of concerned communities and non-profit groups to greatly expand protections for Oregon’s forested watersheds. The growing “Forest Waters” movement around the state led the timber industry to propose their own counter ballot initiatives – which eventually prompted negotiations to scrap the initiatives and develop the MOU.

If the legislature is able to pass the aerial spray legislation during a special session – which is a viable possibility – the MOU will likely move forward as planned; however, if Republican obstructionism prevents bills from passing during a special session, conservation groups and frontline communities may well return to the original strategy of running a grassroots campaign to collect signatures and build awareness for a ballot initiative.

None of this progress would be possible without the grassroots support from activists and public lands defenders around the state. Thank you for staying active in all these efforts. Your voice matters even during these otherworldly political times, like when our lawmakers can walk off the job whenever they want to. Let’s keep our sleeves rolled up for what is likely to be one of the most consequential years in decades. Oregonians are demanding clean water, safety from wildfires, and expanded protections for our public lands – we won’t quit until systemic change is realized!

The post Salem Debacle Kicks Off a Very Consequential Year first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

Panelists involved in timber sale monitoring, wildfire science, and public lands defense will discuss issues regarding recreation, conservation, and fire safety in public forests managed by the Bureau of Land Management. You will hear different perspectives on land management practices, learn about the key concerns for our local forests, and gain insight into how you can get more involved in the process.

Download the event flyer.

Check out the Facebook event page.

The Thurston Hills timber sale, aka “Pedal Power”, is currently the closest federal public timber sale proposal to town, and is located directly adjacent to the recently opened 655-acre Thurston Hills natural area and the 79th street residential neighborhood in Springfield. The proposal involves 100 acres of clearcut-style management in middle-aged forests and a trail system that would extend through the sale area and connect with existing trails in the Thurston natural area.

On February 19th, Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild jointly filed a lawsuit challenging this sale. Representatives from both groups will discuss the status of the Thurston Hills sale as well as key concerns with ongoing BLM land management practices in our local forests.

Panelists are professionals in forest management, timber sale monitoring, conservation, and fire ecology:

• Chandra LeGue, Oregon Wild
• Tim Ingalsbee, FUSEE (Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology)
• Gabe Scott, Cascadia Wildlands
• Francis Eatherington, Umpqua Regional Advisor, Cascadia Wildlands

Download the event flyer.

Check out the Facebook event page.

Panelist discussion will be followed by an extended Q & A which will provide ample time for community members to ask questions and engage in discussion about issues, ideas, and next steps regarding the management of local forests.

The post Town Hall Discussion: Local Timber Sales, Public Lands, & Wildfire Safety – April 18, 2019 first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.

“Only YOU can prevent forest fires!” Smokey Bear began bellowing his evergreen slogan in 1947. The blue jeans wearing, shovel toting, bear-turned-park ranger has been the official mascot of fire suppression for over 70 years now. Smokey’s message had good intentions: practice responsible fire safety measures. The commercials featuring Smokey, however, told a different tale. Black and white cartoons broadcasted the message that forests are responsible for everything from the water you drink to the food on your plate. One errant fire and it all disappears, cuddly critters included. Decades of this type of marketing lead to a common misconception: forest fires are detrimental and must be prevented at all costs.

The reality is that forests depend on fires to remain healthy. Fires provide many benefits to a forest’s health. Fires instantly return nutrients to the soil that was previously locked away in dead organic matter that may have taken decades to decay. Much like a fever, the heat from fires also cleanse the forest of many harmful bacteria and viruses. Fires support healthy watersheds, and yes, Smokey, that means the water that you drink.

It wasn’t just the drinking water that Smokey got wrong. By aggressively preventing wildfires, we’ve also, ironically, made them more dangerous. When fires burn often, fuels have less time to accumulate between fires. Frequent, smaller fires are much more manageable. They’re less likely to become out of control, dangerous conflagrations, and are better for the forest’s health. Because of this, wildfire experts agree that the best practice is an aggressive “prescribed” burn schedule in which fires are intentionally started and monitored. This allows forest managers to make sure all fires are safe because they can control the conditions under which they are started. They can not only make sure the burns don’t become out of control, but they can also plan prescribed burns around wind conditions that will make air quality impacts much less substantial.

Instead of adopting expert-recommended prescribed burning as a staple of forest management, many land managers opt to “thin” forests by allowing timber companies to cut down large mature and even old-growth trees under the guides of reducing wildfire risk. Removing older trees, which often times survive wildfire due to their size and thick bark, does nothing for fire prevention. It is a profit-driven management practice, and a lucrative one at that.

The persisting practice of logging in place of burning has led to some of the most matchbox forest conditions we’ve ever observed. These conditions coupled with climate change and more homes being built nestled inside these matchboxes makes for a tragedy that writes itself.

Experts agree that if we are to live in heavily forested areas, we need to start planning our structures around forest fires. Fire shelters need to be as common as the tornado-safe basements that are ubiquitous in the Midwest. Roads, which also work as fire barriers, need to be built with wildfires in mind. Homes need to be built out of fire-resistant materials. Enough space needs to be between structures to keep them from spreading to one another.

California Governor Jerry Brown described conflagrations like the recent Camp Fire that ravaged the town of Paradise as “the new abnormal.” Until we can fix our forest management practices, how we design our structures, and mitigate the effects of climate change, he just might be right. Until then, maybe it’s time to update our old Smokey Bear message. Instead of preventing forest fires, let’s leave them up to the experts.

The post The Need to Update Smokey Bear’s Message first appeared on Cascadia Wildlands.