[Ski]

RodF- From what I've been able to wade through so far ( while trying very hard to keep an open mind ), not just concerning ONP, but other areas around the country ( Everglades, etc. ) it's clear there was a great deal of pre-Columbian landscape management. So let me toss this out: all things considered, what is the desired condition? Should we go back to regular burns in an attempt to restore the landscape to pre-NFS fire-suppression days? Should we take no action and allow the open areas to become further encroached upon by forest? My next question would be: Do we have any idea at all what the landscape looked like prior to the time when the aboriginal populations were not great enough to warrant the need for such activities or not great enough to have the level of social organization to conduct such activities? It seems pretty clear from those documents that some areas ( particularly at Ozette and the south Cascades ) saw intensive management by fire prior to 1900. What I have to wonder is: what did they look like prior to 4000 years ago, prior to the introduction of Western Red Cedar ( Thuja Plicata ) ? Is that the historic condition we should strive for? Was that butterfly there prior to the burning activity?

[RodF]

I can't answer your big questions, but have some information on this small, local question:

[Ski]

re: ONP proposed controlled burns at Ozette The ONP Fire Management Plan proposes controlled burns: 10 acres at Ahlstrom and 7 acres at Roose Prairies. The areas were managed by pre-Columbian natives for at least 3000 years. from Olympic Park Associates: "the NPS must refrain from destroying the wilderness character by creation of artificial, i.e. human-created, landscapes". Not only does their position ignore "millennia of Native American occupation of this area, and the unique ecosystem is has preserved", it further ignores: "It was noted by those knowledgeable about NPS history that The Leopold Report, one of the most important guidance documents ever written for the NPS, which has heavily influenced the Service's thinking and policy development since 1965, suggests that national parks should be maintained as "vignettes of primitive America." This implies a condition coincident with that which Native Americans would have caused, rather than a condition where no human had affected the landscape." * * "A New Beginning for Equity & Understanding Through National Parks and Traditionally Associated American Indian Tribes" Yurok Indian Reservation, Klamath, California Oct. 7-9, 2003 On the surface, it would seem that NPS policy based on the Leopold Report might be in direct conflict with the Wilderness Act of 1964, "where man is a visitor". On the other hand, could it not be argued that the Wilderness Act ignores the fact that pre-Columbian natives had a substantial impact on the landscape in wilderness areas? At Ozette, and in the huckleberry fields in the South Cascades, early man was only a visitor: their customary dwelling areas were miles from those sites. While there is no archaeological evidence of human activity at Ozette or the South Cascades prior to ca. 3500 years BP, the mastodon kill site near Sequim indicates human activity ca 12000 years BP. In light of geological activity ( particularly mudslide events ) that has buried any evidence of human activity prior to 3500 years BP ( most all of which was composed of materials that would have decomposed over time ), and the evidence at the mastodon site, I would think it reasonable to assume there were humans in the general area prior to 3500 years BP, although it doesn't appear that they were engaged in landscape management with fire. "During a cooling trend 3,000 to 4,000 years ago (Whitlock pers. comm.), coniferous trees became established and Native Americans likely began burning the prairies to manage them for the continuation of the prairie species." ( Wray, Anderson, 2003 ) ** "Many sites in Washington show an increase in late-successional species in the past ca. 3000-2000 yr., which suggests climatic cooling ( Whitlock, 1992 ). The vegetational changes are attributed to neoglacial cooling in the past few millennia ( Burbank, 1981; Graumlich and Brubaker, 1986 ). At Little Lake [ Oregon Coastal Range ], Douglas Fir and true fir increased in the forest at the expense of western red cedar and red alder at c. 1950 yr. B.P.. The change implies effectively drier conditions, increased fires, or both." ** ** Late Quaternary vegetation and climate history near Little Lake, central Coast Range, Oregon ( July 1995 ) Whether or not those "increased fires" were in part human-caused isn't indicated, but there were fires which altered landscapes, and in some cases, such as Ozette, created conditions which supported unique ecosystems. By doing nothing, and allowing the forest to encroach on those areas, are we preserving a natural condition ( as it is the natural process for the forest to consume open areas over time ) ? Or does doing nothing, and maintaining a total fire suppression policy which flies in the face of evidence that fire is part of the natural landscape, "preserve in its natural condition" the landscape as we found it and has it has been for at least 3000 years? Efforts have been made to curtail encroachment of the forest into those areas by means of cutting and pulling, but does that maintain and preserve an ecosystem in which fire was an integral part? Something that should also be taken into consideration is the issue of tribal treaty rights. Does the Makah Tribe have treaty rights to gather plants "from their usual and accustomed places"? If that is the case, should not their treaty rights take legal precedence over the Wilderness Act? Should their right to gather plants in "usual and accustomed places" also include provisions to allow them to continue to maintain ( as opposed to alter ) those places as they did historically? [ the comments below, although superfluous to the subject of fire, concern the ONP fire management plan, and the issue of maintaining open areas in the areas mentioned. ] re: ONP fire management plan / Queets Corridor / Andrews and Smith Clearings / Queets RS A completely different scenario exists on the Queets clearings at Andrews Field and Smith Place than does at the Ozette prairie. While the ONP Fire Management Plan does not propose burning of the areas, it does prescribe other methods for clearing the sites. The site at Andrews Field is listed at 21 acres ( A Survey of Abandoned Homestead Sites in the Queets Valley, S. Williams 1975 ), and supported a farm up until the mid-20th century. Over the course of the last half century, the forest surrounding the clearing has encroached in around its borders. There are no structures extant on the site, other than the remains of a cement foundation which once supported a barn, and cement gate posts near the NE corner of the clearing. While it is highly likely the area was at least in part cleared by early settlers, it is possible at least a portion of it could have been at one time a natural opening. In either case, it is heavily used by a resident elk population for grazing and sleeping. The next clearing upstream from Andrews was "Andrews Upper Field", a much smaller opening. Shown as the "Vic Andrews" homestead ( Williams, 1975 ), it is listed as 0-9 acres. My clearest memory of it in the past is that it was only .5 - 1.5 acres. It was about 500-600 feet down-trail from the "Big Fir" trail junction at Coal Creek. Remains of split cedar fence posts and wire fencing can be found along what was formerly the southern boundary of the clearing. While the upper clearing has virtually been swallowed up by the forest, the larger clearing at Andrews has maintained a good portion of its original size, due in no small part to the elk. At Smith Place, a small meadow area surrounds the remains of the Shaube homestead cabin. Originally surrounded by wire fencing ( remains of which can be found under the narrow band of spruce immediately west of the cabin ), the clearing was used for stock grazing. The area is heavily used by the resident elk population for grazing and sleeping. There has been a significantly greater degree of encroachment by the forest into the Smith clearing than at Andrews Field during the last half century. At the Queets Ranger station, the small meadow area immediately surrounding the structure has been mostly swallowed up by cut-leaf blackberry ( rubus laciniatus ). Originally used for stock grazing, the clearing is now heavily used by the resident elk population for grazing and sleeping. ( I have been awakened by up to 50-60 animals immediately around the cabin at dawn. ) At the Andrews and Smith sites, considering both are at least in part products of human activity within the last 100 years; both are in backcountry wilderness areas; neither has archaeological sites or historical structures of any significance; and there is no apparent lack of open meadows along the Queets to provide grazing and sleeping areas for the elk, I have to wonder about "purpose and need" for any activity at those sites, other than efforts to eradicate the non-indigenous plants that have invaded both ( particularly the thistle ). However, considering the logistical difficulties encountered and the consequential ground disturbance which would have the potential to bring about a new set of unforseen consequences, and the thistle's tendency to self-propagate underground in spite of all human efforts to eradicate it, it could be argued that the prudent and rational course of action would be to allow the forest to swallow up both clearings, a process which might take centuries, but would inevitably eradicate the shade-intolerant thistle and blackberry ( at least from those areas ). The meadow at the Queets Ranger Station, being in a front-country area, is a different matter entirely. The meadow is supposed to be available as a helicopter landing site for emergency purposes, but is unsuitable for the purpose considering its present condition. A relatively small area, and immediately adjacent to a road ( presently closed ), clearing and maintaining the site would not pose an insurmountable task, blackberry's persistence notwithstanding. A possible benefit to clearing the site, in addition to restoring helicopter access, would be more available grazing area for the elk, which could in turn possibly provide more elk viewing opportunities for park visitors.

[RodF]

A book of interest to readers of this thread is "Environmental Issues in Northwest Forest Management", published by the National Research Council (2000), with full text available online. It includes an overview of westside fire regimes, highlights of which are below.

[mossy mom]

They are going to log 70 acres and use the money to close less then one mile of a logging road. They will use most of the money for "pre-commercial" thinning of 120 acres of LSR land. Will the land later be logged commercialy as it is "pre-commercial" thinning. The R in LSR must refer to reserving it for timber interests. Looks like they want old growth structure so they can get more money when they sell it later.

[Ski]

[faldaree]

[mossy mom]

[mossy mom]

[treeswarper]

Hoo boy! I can't answer via research but can from what goes on "on the ground". Pest, do you realize that after stands are commercially thinned on Federal lands, trees are required to be dumped and left for "down woody material"? We have left trees that were accidently pulled over to meet that requirement, plus trees that had to go for extra corridor space plus trees that were cut and went the wrong direction to yard in without scarring the heck out of standing trees. Then, you need to realize that there is root rot in some of the thinning units and there are already enough trees that are on the ground (blown down) that we hate to work in it. The blowdown is left on the ground if it isn't in the way. It is pretty much all cull, no value anyway. Topped trees are left for snags. We had a humorous conversation about falling one the other day. The hooktender did not bring his climbing gear so felled the tail tree to derig it. His boss chewed him out because that tree now had a good flat top for the birds and now they had one less.. By the way, that tree was left on the ground. You need to get out a bit and see what is going on more. Talk with the loggers. So much is written in papers but it is on the ground where you learn. Yeah, there's mudslides. Here's my take on that. Does Microsoft ever put out a new operating system that is perfect? Well, in forestry, when we make an error, unfortunately it is there for a while. But, it does heal up. I have to remember that. If I was afraid of making errors, I'd be ineffective. And I do make errors. The trees will grow back, the earth will be ok. I plan on building a wood house because that is what grows well here. Next summer, when logging is going hot and heavy again (I hope) PM me and I'll see about hauling you out for a look. Now I gotta get coffeed up because I think we will have blowdown on the roads to cut out today.

[gb]

[Snowbrushy]

[Ski]

[gb]

[gb]