Fires killed thousands of giant sequoia trees
Are there reasons not to replant trees in burned forests?
Volume 1, Number 33 - Thursday, March 9, 2023
Now twice a week — Monday and Thursday mornings!
This week’s spotlight
By Claudia Elliott
Giant Sequoia News
THE BOARD CAMP GIANT SEQUOIA GROVE is in a remote area of the southwestern part of Sequoia National Park. It’s part of 39,740 acres of the park that President Barack Obama designated as the John Krebs Wilderness in 2009.
The grove area is small, only about 48 acres, and according to a March 2021 estimate by park service scientist Christy Brigham, the 2020 Castle fire killed more than 73 percent of the trees in the grove. The National Park Service in 2022 said about 40 acres of the grove burned at high severity.
Brigham and others from Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks spoke during a virtual meeting about a potential reforestation plan for Board Camp and other areas on March 7.
The purpose of the meeting was to provide information about a reforestation project, answer questions and encourage the public to comment on the proposal.
It’s a project with a giant sequoia-sized name: “Re-establish Tree Seedlings in Severely Burned Giant Sequoia Groves and Adjacent Fisher Habitat in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.”
Not just Board Camp, but other areas, are included in the proposal for which the NPS will complete an EA (environmental assessment). An EA, as explained by Elly Bourke, branch chief, environmental planning and compliance, is one of the pathways of environmental review called for under the NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act).
Earlier proposal
In early 2022, the NPS proposed the Board Camp Restoration Project with plans to use a lower level of environmental view, a Categorical Exclusion. But the proposal drew hundreds of letters of opposition, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.
“We came to the public last year thinking that this might be an action that would be categorically excluded,” Bourke said, because the NPS regularly replants in forests across the country.
The 2022 proposal generated just over 2,800 comments. Bourke said the NPS incorporated feedback it received into the planning process. A “Frequently Asked Questions” document responds to public questions raised during the previous scoping process.
Comments framed as questions during the March 7 meeting appear to signal continued opposition to the planting proposal from some attendees.
One individual called for the agency to write a full scale EIS (environmental impact statement) before proceeding with the proposal. If the NPS determines this level of review is necessary, it would likely delay the project for many years.
And another said: “Is it possible that the Board Camp Grove was already at the edge of its natural range on a very harsh site — and was declining and (would) eventually disappear regardless of human caused drought and fire? Is your intent to perpetuate groves where they naturally … would not continue?”
Neither of those individuals identified themselves when posting the questions during the meeting.
Current proposal
The public scoping document developed for the current project states that “based on post-fire assessments completed to date, the NPS has preliminarily determined that intervention may be necessary on up to roughly 1,200 acres of formerly forested areas across Homers Nose, Board Camp, Dillonwood, Suwanee, Redwood Mountain, and New Oriole Lake Groves and one 485-acre proposed critical habitat corridor in Fisher Core Habitat Area 3, south of Redwood Mountain Grove.”
In addition to the groves, the review has addressed the impact that recent fires — specifically the Castle fire and 2021’s KNP Complex fire — have had on habitat for the endangered Southern Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of fisher (Pekania pennanti).
“Within the KNP complex footprint specifically, previously suitable fisher habitat is now comprised of a mosaic of high severity burn, mixed- to low-severity burn, and predominantly green forest,” the project document states. “While mixed-to low severity burn areas and remaining green forest appear to retain value in supporting fishers in the near future, the high severity areas may create barriers to fisher movement within the KNP footprint and between larger patches of green forest on either side.”
Opposition
Sue Cag is among a relatively small number of people who ever saw the Board Camp grove before the Castle Fire — and an even fewer number of people who have visited the remote grove since.
Cag, who describes herself as a “musician, writer, artist, photographer, and conservationist,” assisted the NPS in gathering data to produce its June 2021 preliminary estimates of giant sequoia mortality from the fire. And she published her own mortality report of impacts of the 2020 SQF Complex / Castle Fire, most recently updated last October, HERE.
In May 2021, Cag wrote about the Board Camp grove HERE.
Here’s an excerpt:
“The fire burned so severely that it left a lifeless moonscape of gray ash where verdant sequoias once flourished. Dead giants, fully blackened from top to bottom, stand defiled and destroyed on steep mountain slopes. All is exposed to intense sun that creates a harsh glare, making the sequoia skeletons difficult to see. These big otherworldly trees have been reduced to black sticks on a hillside.”
In her update, she estimated even higher mortality than the NPS preliminary estimate — perhaps 90 percent.
“I didn’t count the trees,” she wrote. “But there are approximately a dozen smaller sequoia survivors down the creek at the bottom of the grove, and about half that number higher up on the west side. The remainder of the once indomitable giants perished.”
Her Board Camp website page provides numerous photos of the grove and individual trees with remarkable before and after photos arranged to allow a viewer to observe the stunning loss.
Cag has not responded to several requests for comment about giant sequoias over many months.
But she was among opponents to the NPS’s Board Camp Restoration Project proposal last year and the Twitter account associated with her ILoveTrees.net website pushed out a notice on Feb. 27: “The NPS is once again trying to impose their will on wilderness. Please submit your comments by 3/18/23 and tell them wilderness should stay wild!”
In an article published Feb. 25, Cag and guest contributor Kim Dicso were critical of the proposed NPS project.
“The NPS is once again planning on tampering with wilderness areas, this time with a massive planting project that covers six sequoia groves,” they wrote on ILoveTrees.net. “They also plan on planting south of Redwood Mountain to replace fisher habitat that had been, in their view, destroyed.”
Comments in their article reference visits through “every sequoia grove, before and after the fire.” Among concerns is what they believe is a disregard of genetic differences in the groves.
“Saying that these areas won’t recover is preposterous,” the article continues. “These are fire-adapted forests. It’s necessary that they burn, even severely, and they will recover on their own, in their own way and in their own time.”
Cag and Dicso also shared their February 2022 letters to the park superintendent HERE. Here’s an excerpt:
“The giant sequoias are obviously signaling that their habitat may no longer suitable for their long-term survival, much less their ability to thrive,” Cag wrote in that letter. “It is too hot and too dry. The big trees are not getting the snowpack they need. Board Camp is especially hot – and it’s only going to get hotter and drier.” Calling the tree-planting project a feel-good effort, she said putting “resources to alleviating climate change would be a much better use of our time and money.”
Other opposition
Among those opposed to the early 2022 Board Camp proposal were Wilderness Watch and Sequoia ForestKeeper.
Gary Macfarlane of the Montana-based Wilderness Watch organization and René Voss, attorney for Sequoia ForestKeeper, an organization based in Weldon, California, shared concerns in a letter dated March 25, 2022.
The two expressed objection to use of motorized equipment, including helicopters, in the Board Camp Grove, in part because it is within the John Krebs Wilderness. They also were critical of the seed-gathering effort in the grove prior to the scoping for the project.
“In addition,” they wrote, “because the proposed action could set a precedent for future similar planting and ecological manipulation actions in Wilderness, it is significant, to comply with NEPA, the Park Service must fully analyze its proposal in an Environmental Impact Statement.”
And during the March 7 meeting, Voss referenced an analysis of ecological intervention in Wilderness that he submitted to Boerke in January. The 23-page document was submitted on behalf of Sequoia ForestKeeper, Wilderness Watch, the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Sequoia Task Force of the Sierra Club. (It is linked to a question from Voss attached to the video from the March 7 meeting — see below for how to access).
“As an initial matter, we have serious concerns about an underlying premise of the guidelines for ecological interventions in Wilderness,” Voss stated in the letter that included the analysis.
Questions — and answers
In addition to producing the FAQ hand-out about the project (see below to access this document), the NPS responded to questions asked during the March 7 meeting.
Among the questions — won’t these forests recover on their own?
“In large sections of these groves and fisher habitat corridor that have been surveyed by the NPS, the density of new seedlings are not sufficient to achieve mature forest conditions over time,” the FAQ document states.
And another — why can’t NPS consider planting only in non-wilderness groves?
“Of the six sequoia groves that burned at high severity during the Castle and KNP wildfires, four occur entirely within designated wilderness, one is partially located in designated wilderness (Redwood Mountain), and one is partially located in recommended wilderness (Dillonwood),” the NPS said. “No frontcountry sequoia groves were lost or partially lost to high severity fire. As well, the area of mixed conifer fisher habitat that burned at high severity during the KNP is entirely within designated wilderness. Therefore, planting in only non-wilderness groves would not achieve the purpose and need of promoting forest recovery in the areas affected.”
And how does the NPS reconcile the proposal with the Wilderness Act?
The FAQ handout goes into greater detail, but in a nutshell, the NPS is relying upon section 4(a) of the Wilderness Act that states, in part, “the designation of any area of any park, monument, or other unit of the national park system as a wilderness area pursuant to this Act shall in no manner lower the standards evolved for the use and preservation of such park…”
‘Hydrologic refugia’
Brigham, chief of resources management and science, addressed the question about whether Board Camp was already struggling to survive and if the agency’s intention is to perpetuate groves where they might not naturally continue.
“We did two different forms of climate change consideration in evaluating potential areas for replanting,” Brigham said. “The first was done by the interagency team … and that focused on climatic water deficit and assessing climatic water deficit in the past as a measure of what it would be in the future. That analysis concluded that Board Camp would support forest, perhaps at a slightly lower density.
“I would also say that we saw no signs of drought stress in Board Camp growth prior to the drought… We did not have monarch trees that died during the 2012 through 2016 drought,” she added.
Brigham said the second analysis was performed by Rainbow de Silva. De Silva, a forest scientist affiliated with the University of California, Merced, and UC Berkeley, is a giant sequoia expert in conservation and genetics.
“In that analysis Board Camp is not the hottest and driest by any means,” Brigham said of De Silva’s analysis.
“And additionally, giant sequoias are located in what we think are hydrologic refugia,” Brigham noted. “So when their range contracted several thousands of years ago, the places they still are on the landscape are the wettest areas on the landscape. All of that leads us to believe that none of the groves proposed for possible replanting are not sustainable in the long term, even under a changed climate.
“Our intent is not to perpetuate growth where they naturally would not continue,” Brigham added. “Our intent is to address the impacts of high severity fire from a century of active fire suppression (and) fuel accumulation, that was only made worse by climate change.”
What’s next?
The public scoping newsletter published in advance of the March 7 public meeting outlines the project and notes that the NPS plans to prepare an EA and complete additional analyses and consultations to “ensure agency decision-making conforms with all federal resource protection laws.”
Public feedback is due by March 18. Comments may be mailed or submitted online.
Following the public comment period, the agency will analyze and consider feedback and begin to prepare the EA. Park Superintendent Clay Jordan emphasized during the virtual meeting that it will not select an alternative for implementation until after analysis of alternatives and their potential impacts have been completed within the EA. The document is expected to be available to the public this summer.
Where to get information
The project planning page is online HERE. Finding the video of the virtual meeting, which includes questions from participants, is a little tricky. From the project planning page, click “Meeting Notices.” At the bottom of that page, click the URL for the meeting link. You will then have to go through several steps of interaction with Microsoft Teams to load the video.
Also from the project planning page, select “Open for Comment” to load the public scoping information. On the left hand side of the page you will then find a “Comment Now” button.
You can also comment by mail. Address your comment to: Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Attn: Re-Establish Sequoias, 47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers, CA 93271.
Might giant sequoias be ‘zombie trees?’
THERE WERE MANY articles in the news this week based upon a report that a Stanford-led study reveals a fifth of California’s Sierra Nevada conifer forests are stranded in habitats that have grown too warm for them.
Rob Jordan, writing for Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, didn’t mention giant sequoias. And the iconic trees aren’t mentioned in the report of the study published HERE. But giant sequoias are among conifers growing on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada in California, between 4,000 and 8,000 feet, where the study authors believe there is a VCM (vegetation climate mismatch), particularly for trees growing at elevations below about 7,730 feet.
Here’s how Jordan describes the so-called zombie trees:
“Like an old man suddenly aware the world has moved on without him, the conifer tree native to lower elevations of California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range finds itself in an unrecognizable climate. A new Stanford-led study reveals that about a fifth of all Sierra Nevada conifer forests – emblems of Western wilderness – are a ‘mismatch’ for their regions’ warming weather.”
The New York Times included maps with its article (gift link here), Mapping California’s ‘Zombie’ Forests. Here’s an excerpt:
“Mature trees are able to survive even after their local climate has shifted, but the species is not likely to grow back in these areas after a major disturbance, like a catastrophic wildfire, logging event or period of extreme drought. Instead, the study found, the forest is more likely to be replaced by smaller, shrublike vegetation that is adapted to warmer, drier conditions.”
Sierra, the magazine of the Sierra Club, also published a story about the study on March 1. Here’s the headline:
“The Forests of the Sierra Nevada Are Full of Zombies — They’re big, they’re beautiful, they’re too hot to have babies. What next?”
And an excerpt:
“This mismatch increases the likelihood that any disturbance to these forests—like drought, wildfire, or logging—will lead to their being replaced with more shrublike species, such as chaparral. The changes will most likely happen at the seedling stage—since young plants are more vulnerable than adult trees, conifer seedlings will be less likely to grow back in the drier, warmer climate than seedlings of chaparral species.”
From the NYT article:
“Longer-lived species, like conifer trees, which can live for centuries, often find it harder to keep up with the velocity of climate change,” said Chris Field, the director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and senior author on the study. “They can only move as fast as their seeds get dispersed.”
All of these articles — and the study — are worth a read. And consider them, also, as part of the debate referenced in the previous article about a proposal to do reforestation at Sequoia National Park.
My thoughts this morning — giant sequoias grow in the areas the scientists have identified what they call VCM. I had to wonder why they weren’t mentioned along with the ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and Douglas fir.
The idea of a “zombie forest” is catchy and has attracted media attention that distracts us a bit from recent snowstorms that have buried the Sierra Nevada (and all of those trees) with snow.
This is a serious subject, but I’m confused sometimes by how we’re supposed to respond to scientific reports. Is the problem in conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada — which certainly include giant sequoia groves — due to wildfire, climate change or a history of fire suppression that changed the landscape?
Can it be all of the above? How much more do we need to know? And will there be any forests left by the time we know what we need to know (if we don’t know it already)? — Claudia Elliott
Wildfire, water & weather update
Here’s a gift link from Washington Post with an update on weather trends for California, including this excerpt:
“After an approximately two-week period in which atypical cold brought snow to unusually low elevations along with massive mountain snowfall, California is about to transition to a new phase of warmer storms with higher snow levels and rising flood risk.”
In some areas near where giant sequoias grow, residents have been advised to evacuate or be prepared to shelter in place. It’s important for many reasons that all of that snow stays where it is and melts slowly during the spring and early summer. Significant amounts of warm rain could create lots of problems.
Sequoia National Forest published this advisory on Wednesday afternoon, calling attention to weather concerns for the next several days. Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks will update this page with weather information. Yosemite National Park will be closed at least through March 12 (and maybe longer).
Drought update: A new California drought map is out this morning and shows tremendous improvement with many areas of the state — and essentially all of giant sequoia country – no longer in drought.
Wildfire update: No wildfires in snow-covered giant sequoia country right now, but here’s a podcast (with a transcript) from NASA that details how the space agency helps support firefighting. Here’s a very brief but important excerpt: “There's always a fire burning someplace on Earth.”
Did you know you can comment here?
It’s easy to comment on items in this newsletter. Just scroll down and you’ll find a comment box. You’re invited to join the conversation!
Giant Sequoia News is now on Facebook
Consider following (or liking) Giant Sequoia News on Facebook for occasional updates in between newsletters. CLICK HERE to find us.
Giant sequoias in the news
• A town hall meeting at Calaveras Big Trees State Park to discuss forest management has been rescheduled to 6 p.m. on Thursday, March 16. More info here.
• This video from PBS is about 18 months old, but it’s worth a watch as a reminder of giant sequoia forests when they were burning, not that long ago. Christy Brigham, chief of resource management and science for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (who is quoted in the article above about reforestation) is featured in this video.
• A California project is among those funded by this USDA partnership, specifically Forest Health and Fire Resilient Rural Communities Phase Three.
• If you want some ideas of how the federal government might fund forestry, including national forests with giant sequoias, take a look at the progress of the Farm Bill through Congress. This might not make sense if you don’t know that the Forest Service is part of the United States Department of Agriculture. (The National Park Service is part of the Department of the Interior). Here are a couple of articles providing updates on Farm Bill politics:
Competition policy in the 2023 Farm Bill offers next chance for bipartisan progress
A work in progress — The Big Trees & the presidents
I’m skipping this section this week because I needed more time for the two articles above and because I’m still reading!
More next week — Claudia Elliott
Thanks for reading!
I appreciate this. These are legit questions re restoring seq groves in seki. I had a cabin in Alpine Village, my folks had it built in the 60's. My stepdad planted three sequoia's mid 80's, they were 120'+ and producing cones... on a south facing slope... Did I water them? Yeah... but not in the dog days of Sept/Oct... I was a teacher, I had to work. So, if there's water - even an ephemeral creek - sequoia's can survive/thrive. When we built the cabin the place had been heavily logged and it was hot and bare, there were scorpions and snakes, but big trees eventually grew... A lot of them died from drought and bark beetles... even though I watered them... and then the fire storm came... and wiped it all out...