WatershedEvents

BACK IN (PARTIAL) ACTION

I've been laid-up for the last few months - stroke #4 if you can believe it. Now I'm even more challenged than before. It seems to have impacted the essential interior muscles and bodily processes that make most natural and normal processes possible more than anything else. I can still get some external help from the limbs on my left side....and my brain - while full of holes blown through it by the multitude of strokes I've had without knowledge of them - it seems to be at least partly intact.

That's both a blessing and a curse. The damned thing always wants to be exercised and continually searches for something it thinks is worthwhile to focus on.....besides itself that is. However, it generally only wants light duty workouts and accordingly always avoids crossword-puzzles, number games, riddles, and  anything requiring much mental equity.

Anyway, I'm back to abusing the tip of my left index finger on this keyboard as I slowly hunt-and-peck for words that no longer can be spoken clearly enough even for Dragon, my expensive-but-now-useless VR program to transcribe them. And I am focused on what I consider "a worthwhile project:" The Study of a Local Group of Douglas Fir Trees.

Close-up of #4 showing both the gnarly texture of a not-so-young tree's bark, but still young-looking in spots. (See especially the upper third of this photo for younger, blister-like bark.)

Today I'd like to focus on FIR TREE #4 in my backyard. (I wrote about getting underway with the Fir Tree project a couple posts ago, and then other events took over.) #4 is one of the largest of the trees and is beautifully situated on one side of a lovely Japanese Maple.(#5 is just 12 feet or so further away.)

It is a very tall tree, but not that much taller than many of the younger trees around it. I think it may be old enough that it has begun bulking up in the trunk faster than it stacks on new sections of vertical growth. It generally has that gnarly rough textured bark characteristic of Old Timers, although it also has some bark with a younger look mixed in (see photo above) a rough indication of where it is age-wise.

I would take an educated guess of its age being around 125-150 years old, no older. That makes it "mature" for sure; but it isn't "old growth" by any stretch of the imagination.

This area of the state was logged off to the veritable bone by the turn of the last Century, and there are still a couple cedar artifacts left in the yard from that time:

An artifact of a less mindful time, this 3 feet-high cedar stump core is all that is left of a giant.

We are a stone's throw from the Capital State Forest, and by the very early 1920s our property was probably part of a privately owned forest-land. The trees maybe were a little less ruthlessly treated than they might have been otherwise; still, this acreage appears to have been harvested around that time. Hence, most of the other big fir trees on the property or in the neighborhood are just a little over 100-125 years old. #4 is one of the exceptions, and one of the more handsome I might add.                      

 

OPEN LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON STATE BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The Department of Natural Resources recently announced its intentions to lease two parcels of land for clear cutting. It’s left me shaking my head in disbelief. It’s hard to imagine a worse location for a couple timber operations than the proposed sites for Bears U1 andU2. The western unit (U1) is almost in Mclane Creek, and crowds the Mclane Creek Nature Trail. Bears U2 is a little less poorly sited but still posses potentially serious risks to the creek. They will turn a portion of the trail into a road through hell and leave an ugly scar on hillsides directly above desirable residential areas.

As a home-owner in the area, I’m not looking forward to such an operation. Timber taking, as necessary as it often needs to be done, is an inherently destructive and ugly business; but it is mainly a serious concern for the fate of Mclane Creek and its 3 species of salmon that prompts this note. They don’t need “another nail in the coffin,” which is what the Bears Project would represent.

The slope of the land where the Bears units are projected to take place is steep. The exact pitch is difficult to determine; but ask anyone who has hiked the trail in that area and they will tell you – it is a tough upslope trek in spots. The hillsides are fundamentally suspect, being an accumulation of glacial till over basalt. The potential for slides in wet weather is very worrisome.

Removing cut logs from the area will cause serious damage to terrain and vegetation. It will end up an awful mess. You simply can’t remove the forest cover from an acreage without doing major damage to the ground and everything that grew upon it. Nor can you expect the remnants to behave normally afterwards. The acreage’s drainage and other natural functions will never be the same. The mono-culture planted in place of the richness removed will be years in coming; in the meantime the damage will have been done.

The seasonal rains in the Black Hills are often strong enough to cause flooding and road closures – Delphi Road between 32nd and the 2400 block is impassable from time to time. How much the Bears timber package would add to those problems is hard to tell; but serious rain – perhaps with untimely snow melt at higher elevations – could end up dumping tons of silt and decaying vegetation in the creek. Not just once, but repeatedly. The short and long-term impacts on the Coho and Chum runs could be disastrous.

I’m not an Environmentalist so much as I am an old fashioned Conservationist trying to walk the often shifting line between perceived need and potential loss. In other words, I think we are going to have to cut down some trees; but we shouldn’t do it at the expense of a Salmon stream. Luckily, there is another option, namely DNR’s Carbon Project. Setting this acreage aside for that purpose makes a tremendous amount of sense, and I strongly recommend that approach to the Board.

Thank you for your time and attention!

DOUGLAS FIR #1

This is the first post in a series aimed at documenting and celebrating the many mature Douglas fir trees that are growing on the back half of our property. It is my hope that conducting this verbal and pictorial process will bring me even closer to these majestic creatures. I respect and admire them so much, and they've come to mean the world to me.

I called them “creatures” just now, which should give you a fair idea how I tend to view the vegetated portion of the world in general. I find it increasingly difficult to draw hard-and-fast distinctions among the various modes of life on the planet, and in some ways consider such labels as “animal,” “plant,” and “insect” artificial and unnecessary. The notion that we humans are fundamentally separate and distinct from any other living thing on this planet doesn't work for me these days. It's just too obvious to me how connected and interconnected it all is. I guess I am coming closer and closer to fully embracing the Gaia Hypothesis, and I definitely tend, at least partially, towards Animism on occasion.

But enough about me – it’s on to the trees! And I am starting with #1, although I will digress and get out of order frequently after this first excursion into the woods

The first thing to get your head around is the fact the Douglas fir isn’t a member of the Fir family at all; it’s a member of the Pine family. Pseudotsuga menziesii is its scientific name, and I’m still wrestling with that. “Pseudo” is from the ancient Greek and means “false.” “Tsuga” is from the Japanese language and means hemlock tree, referencing the fact that the Douglas fir is often confused with that variety of tree. It’s enough to make a guy shake his head and move on.

The Menzeiesii part makes a little more sense. Archibald Menzies was born toward the end of the Age of Enlightenment and became a naval officer, surgeon, botanist, and artist. He was a fascinating character, a contemporary of another famous Scotsman and botanist, David Douglas. During his visits to the Pacific Northwest, Douglas sent the first seeds of the species back to Britain. Douglas gave the tree its scientific name and honored Menzies in the process. That’s how the fir/false hemlock/pine tree was “discovered” by Menzies, yet ended up with Douglas for its common name.

#1’s trunk is roughly 6’ in diameter and it is about 150’ tall. It is one of the largest Douglas firs on the property. An educated guess puts it at about 100 -120 years old, typical statistics for the many large firs on the property and in our tree-blessed neighborhood. This entire area was heavily logged during the first part of the last Century, when the Timber Industry was at its peak.

I shudder to think of how the area must have looked when this tree was just beginning to grow. Turn of the century timber operations were conducted without much scruple for environmental concerns. Remember, this was the same period in which the hills of Seattle were cut down to size and the Panama Canal was built; those same mechanical and environmental sensitivities were employed in the clear-cutting of western Washington.

It's hard to believe #1 is really a young specimen, it's so tall and straight, and truly is a hefty piece of wood; but by Douglas Fir tree standards this tree is definitely just hitting its stride. They can get up to 300+ feet tall and be as big 8 feet in diameter. With any luck at all it can expect to live another 300 years or so, and a 500 year life-span is not out of the question. There are of course lots of variables involved with such speculations, but it could happen. This youngster has already weathered some tough times.

Forty years ago, or thereabouts, when this lot was first being cleared, a bulldozer or some other large piece of heavy equipment was working the land and gave #1 a nasty wound in the lowest section of the trunk. It could have been fatal at the time, but the tree was healthy enough to take defensive action. In a complex and fascinating process called compartmentalization, trees do not “heal” so much as they “wall off” or isolate injury. In a sense they grow a new tree around the site of wounds and disease. Compartmentalization in progress can be seen in the photo below.

The understory here has changed significantly since this tree started growing. Where once there were only sword fern, mahonia, salal and other natives in abundance there is now an increasing number of transplants also crowding the base of #1: non-native Rhododendrons mostly, plus some ubiquitous Herb Robert and the occasional, unwelcome non-native blackberry.

When we can, we yank out the blackberry and tolerate a few of the Stinky-Bob - somehow there's always a little clump or two we somehow missed. We also keep an eye open for insects and quickly dispatch any we recognize as harmful; the rest we simply admire and let them go on their way. Overall we do our best to be good stewards for these great trees and the rest. It gives back way more than we can ever repay.

 

OPEN LETTER TO THURSTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Note: There are five County Commissioners: Carolina Mejia, District 1; Gary Edwards, District 2; Tye Mesner, District 3; Wayne Fournier, District 4; Emily Clouse, District 5. There is also a county Manager, Leonard Hernandez. Commissioners Mesner and Fournier each represent key sections of the Mclane Basin. For more information look here.

The Mclane Creek watershed is one of the most valuable natural resources in Thurston County. At its heart is the creek itself, the main body of water in one of the most ecologically intact watersheds in Thurston County. Today, however, that distinction is being threatened by the Department of Natural Resources(DNR) decision to put some of its most complex and mature stands of timber on the chopping block.

The two forested acreages involved are designated Bears U1 and U2 and are located in the Capital Forest. The timber stands on uniformly steep and unstable slopes directly above the Mclean Creek Nature Preserve. The land itself has gone without major disturbance for many decades. Except for hikers and hunters the forest rarely sees human visitors, and is home to a wide variety of animal life and native vegetation.

The environmental and aesthetic issues involved are of serious concern; but the direct physical threats to the creek are even more worrisome. A timber harvest on densely vegetated and steep hillsides such as those involved in the Bears project can’t possibly be conducted without harming a salmon bearing stream that lies in such close proximity. Bad luck during the harvest - a major weather event for example, or a landslide - could cripple it permanently.

I am urging you, as County Commissioners, to use every bit of your considerable power and influence to convince the Department of Natural Resources to abandon Bears U1&U2. The threats to Mclean Creek and all that its basin contains are too real and the potential loses too great. A better use for the Bears acreage would be to make it part of DNR's Carbon Project inventory. That would tie it in nicely to the planned trends in your own "McLane Creek Basin Water Resource Protection Study."

Thank you for your time and attention!
_________________________________________
Dr. Eric L. Lindstrom / WatershedEvents.com
Wetlands Advocate and Mclean Basin Resident

DNR - A WATERSHED MOMENT?

I recently wrote about a timber parcel on which DNR is planning to take bids. It occurred to me at the time that the organization might be at at a major inflection point when next it grapples with its mission. A recent court decision legally affirmed (once again) the Department’s discretionary rights where alternatives to timber harvesting contracts are concerned. This in turn furthers its Carbon Project Plan and, in the process enhances its environmental stance.

The suit was brought by a organizations and counties with strong ties to timber; it was opposed, naturally enough, by environmental groups that intervened in the DNR’s defense. It’s easy to get snarled up in the competing viewpoints between Timbermen and Environmentalists; but setting aside the Cutting vs Keeping arguments for a moment, it becomes clear that a larger and more pivotal question looms: given the clear option to move forward with a non-traditional forest management strategy, will the Department actually do it?

The initial plan only involves 10,000 acres or so, a minuscule portion of the State’s 2 million+ acres of forestland. For DNR to make this the kind of program a viable and meaningful one it will have to increase the size of those kinds of holdings significantly. That will require a considerable sales job, internally as well as in the marketplace. The internal side may actually be the harder sell.

If you appreciate the role that “culture” plays in management, then you’ll recognize that moving the Department further toward the Environmental side won't be easy. I would never call the Department “Old Fashioned,” but I will wager that many of the old hands in some of the offices were shaking their heads and saying, “WAIT, WHAT?” when this last court case was over.

It will be interesting to watch the DNR for the next several years. The Environmental Crisis is already upon them, just as it is the rest of us. Like the general population, there will be those stuck in the “Old School” mentality who won’t or can’t embrace change; many others will be too busy, worn down, or defeated to even care; but for the rest, the worries and challenges of dealing with urgent environmental issues of all kinds will continue to mount. How these get dealt with over the next few years will be telling.

I learned about Conservation as a kid, over 70 years ago, and adopted that perspective until the ’60s, when Environmentalism forced me to re-examine my conservationist assumptions. I’ve been trying to balance the two often conflicting ideas with daily life as an ordinary human being ever since. In some ways it’s a Have-It-All kind of mentality I am trying to adopt, and I’ve not yet figured out how to get that done. Neither, I’ll wager, has the DNR.

How (or even if!) DNR folks are going to make the sort of cultural change the Carbon Project represents will be interesting to see. There will soon be new management and that may significantly impact the change process. But, one way or the other, maybe they should adopt the practice of never making a hard decision about the forests they manage until they’ve stood alone under the trees for a while, listening to the wind.

BEARS U1 & U2 AND MCLANE CREEK

The DNR has announced plans to take bids on a couple stands of timber located in the State’s Capital Forest. The two sections are called Bears U1 and U2, and you can find them by enlarging this map to 50% and studying the east side. Look in Quadrant #35 in the extreme NE corner, just a stone’s throw from the Mclane Creek Nature Preserve. You'll see that U1 actually comes down very close to the creek itself.

A little familiarity with the lay of the land in that area should give you a good idea why wetlands advocates might be alarmed by the news. At the very least, logging in that specific area is sure to increase environmental strain on Mclane Creek and the basin through which it runs. And with a little attendant bad luck during the process it could even end the creek’s usefulness as a spawning ground for multiple species of Salmon.

The terrain in that general area is very steep and rugged. The base rock is Basalt, but the upper surface is several layers of till and glacial outwash deposited by both the advance and retreat of the Puget Lobe of the glacier that moved over and through this area around 19k BP. This soil is mostly packed layers of sand and gravel somewhat amended over the centuries by intermittent deposits of wind-blown silt and organic matter.

As a “skin” it leaves a lot to be desired because it is neither thick nor well-connected to the bedrock. Saturated with water it tends to move easily over sloped ground. When that slope approaches the Angle of Repose (roughly 30-40 degrees) layers within the saturated soil may begin to move on their own – “creep” takes place. At steeper angles that movement may occur wholesale – a landslide, in other words.

The slopes upon which Bears U1 & U2 are to take place are uniformly steep, sometimes so steep as to be unnavigable except by the most determined and skilled hiker. Even when the landscape is healthy and in its natural state this steepness, combined with the area’s geological properties and its location just a short distance above the creek makes any major disturbance in the area a potential threat to the stream and it’s seasonal lodes of Salmonid species,

At any point in time serious threats to the creek’s existence as a Salmon bearing stream will almost surely occur. A disastrous forest fire, landslide, or weather event – any one of these kinds of extreme events could occur. But an incursion by a timber operation would almost certainly cause permanent damage to Mclane Creek’s continued ability to be a spawning ground for the thousands of Salmon that return each year.

“The Mclane Creek basin is in relatively good shape,” according to a study by Thurston County’s Regional Planning Council. But the key word here is "relatively," and its vital not to loose sight of it when studying any environmental report by a state or federal authority. The fact is Mclane Creek isn’t at all “well.” Its dealing as best it can with a suite of serious water quality and environmental challenges. Almost all are attributable to human action, and all of them combined have been severe enough to land the creek on state and federal D303 lists of water quality impaired streams for decades.

The major issues from a Salmon standpoint are turbidity, temperature, and nutrient load. A forest operation like this in such proximity to the creek is bound to negatively impact all three of these. How much impact is a very difficult question to answer, until the damage is done. But there will be significant damage to the regular order of things, of that there can be no doubt. You can’t cut down a bunch of big fir and cedar trees without tearing up a good sized chunk of underbrush and the ground upon which all of it grows. While most of it will regenerate* over time, the initial blow will be felt by the land for years.

The timber harvesting industry has made great strides in terms of protecting human and forest health, and the DNR and other state agencies have much to say about how the process of harvesting should take place; but for locations such as those where Bears U1 and U2 are proposed, those rules and regulations won’t prevent real damage from occurring to the soil, vegetation, and wildlife of the area. Neither will they adequately protect the Salmon of Mclane Creek. 

As far as the potential revenue that Bears U1 and U2 timber sales might generate for the state, an intact forest is worth potentially much more, particularly in the long haul. There's always the Carbon Capture angle to consider. It would be great if DNR decided it should look toward that option where Bears U1 and U2 are concerned, now that it can.

_________

*Growing a monoculture where a diverse one once existed is in no way "regeneration," but it's what frequently gets passed off for being one by proponents of plantation forests.

KNOWING DOUGLAS

The highly anticipated project involving a stand of Douglas firs on the north and east sides of our lot is finally under way. Daughter Erica and I hung tags on the first six of the bunch yesterday. I hope to tag a few more today. Once I have the tagging chore taken care of I will start documenting various aspects of their day-to-day existence.

The tagging itself is as challenging as I thought it was going to be. Only a few of the trunks are easily accessible from a wheelchair, which means I will have to involve others. That’s not always easy given personal schedules; but several friends and family members have offered to help when they can. I should be able to make progress, although it’s hard to know right now what that will look like. It’s fair to say I’m mostly making this up while it’s going along.

For context #5 (L) and #6 and the underbrush and general lay of the land between me and the trees.     

Part of the problem is that I’m not at all sure exactly what I’m after, if anything. Cataloging is the best single-word description I’ve been able to come up with, when I’ve tried to explain it to others, and that seems as useful a term as anything else. But really, in a way I’m just trying to “hang” a little more tightly and closely with these magnificent “beings.”

One of the more accessible trees in the section completed today.

Trees are amazing and wonderful things, no matter how you approach the subject, and worthy of as much respect and interest you can give them. We’ve handled them brutally for much of our wretched, resource-driven existence – much in the same brutal and careless manner with which we’ve handled every other “thing” on Earth I might add. That’s why we ought to try thinking in terms of verbs rather than nouns…it’s refreshing to stop and reconsider the possibilities.

______

Note: When I first composed the last line of the third paragraph above I used the word ‘creatures.’ Only later did I decide to use the word ‘creations’ instead. I’m ok with either term, but in actual fact a third term seems more accurate for the particular context I have in mind. Hence the final word-choice ‘beings.’ But I’m still thinking it over….

MOTHING - WHO KNEW?

Moth trap prototype. Modifications coming soon,

My first recollection of encountering the mysterious side of moths came one night long ago, when my mother and I discovered a Luna moth fluttering around the light on our back porch. Neither of us had ever seen anything like it and we had no idea what it was. No such thing as Google, of course – it was in the mid-1950s – so we had to wait until she could get to the small library in the nearby county seat to get an ID.       

We lived in hill-country of northern Arkansas at the time and were always seeing new things in nature; but rarely did we ever see anything more exciting and strange than that moth. What a fabulous and mysterious creature.

My roots in Natural History can be traced back to many childhood encounters with the natural wonders of an Arkansas Red Oak forest, including that marvelous Luna moth. They left me with an appreciation for the natural world that sustains me even now, when my mobility and range of motion are severely limited. Every now and then, however, I get wind of a great activity or two that is within my range of capabilities. “Mothing” is one of those.

The inspiration for this new activity comes from an Instagram site, @clouded.silver, which is the project of a fascinating person living on “a tiny Scottish island.” The site features information on everything from moths to oysters It also provides a wide range of DIY information ranging from how to harvest and prepare “Gut Weed” salads to making your own low-budget moth trap. It was her series of moth photos and her trap information that has led me to try my hand at it. 

The trap design is rather simple, all in all, and easy to make. It's also inexpensive to put together – I made mine for under $60, and a little more time spent shopping could easily have lowered that initial investment. A potentially expensive add-on turns out to be the purchase of a good visual resource that will help with the identification process. The best for this region of the country I’ve been able to track down so far appears to be Moths of Western North America, and it runs about $80 at Abe Books. 

I think I’ll wait until I have actually trapped a few moths to identify before I’ll take the plunge. Meanwhile I have a couple old handbooks on lepidoptery that may see me through. Here's my first night's take. (The books tell you setting a trap during a full moon is likely to yield less than a bucket full.) I'll try again later in July, when the moon is closer to New.

 

TROUBLE IN PRADISE DEPARTMENT

The central pond at Mclane Nature Trail Park.

I recently received an email from Friends Of Mclane (FOM), a recently formed wetlands advocacy group. They are bringing attention to a plan by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to lease a couple parcels of timber in the State’s Capitol Forest. The proposed lease of the two parcels, called Bears U1 and U2, is aimed at a start date  of 2025, with cutting to begin sometime in 2027.

The land involved first entered the State of Washington’s inventory of assets in 1889 when it was granted Statehood. The initial parcel of 5,000 acres became The Capitol State Forest by legislative act in 1933. The act also specified that the property was to be managed in perpetuity as a commercial forest.

Initially a total of 14,000 acres of land ended up being involved in the establishment of the forest, but over time the holding has grown to include 25,000 more. The 182 acres involved in the Bears leases are more than likely part of the initial trust, and just a small portion of the entire repository. The acreages were logged the last time in the 1980s-1990s, which means it’s a mature forest, but not old-growth by any stretch.

What sort of involvement I’ll have with the group I’m not sure. The founding members are neighbors, although not close ones. I share their general concerns in many ways; but the organization itself is just getting started and has a hard task ahead of it. Launching a watershed advocacy group isn’t as easy in these politically complex and relatively unfriendly times as it once was in the 70’s and 80’s, when the Clean Water Act was new, the popularity of environmental protest was young, and environmental litigation strong.

I can see one issue in particular that might create some initial and long term problems for the group: Emphasis on the potential impact of the leases on property values. Arguments from that point of view are hard to mount and even harder to sustain. If the group focuses too much on that angle it runs the risk of inviting the dismissive label of NIMBY. That label once established is extremely hard to overcome.

For most people not living in this particular area of Olympia, probably the only rock-bottom issue here may be the potential impact on salmon and their protections. Improper logging practices have been a major concern for quite some time, particularly logging in landslide country. Washington's DNR does a great job of making much of their research data available on the internet, and the LIDAR maps of landside prone areas and other geological info are fascinating material. The slopes of at least some portions of the Capital Forest have been LIDAR mapped and would be well worth a study to see if either of the Bears proposed sites are high-risk. That would not automatically put the skids to those projects, but it would probably increase the attention given to the site work.

Mclane Creek is a lovely gem of a salmon stream and certainly deserves all the attention and care it can get. It has already been heavily impacted on some reaches by human action and suffers significantly from the Urban Stream Syndrome. It would be a shame to see it further degraded.

GREEN GIANTS AND MYSTERY TREES

When we moved into this house we were impressed by the large number of evergreens in the yard, as well as all those in the adjacent neighborhood. For the most part the homes, particularly the older ones were built with the native landscape at least partially in mind. Ours certainly was, for which we are eternally grateful. As a result a major portion of the forest that originally covered this land is still intact.

Having lived in Washington and Oregon for more than 40 years you would think we might have become a bit jaded with all the greenery by now; but we are still in love with all the plant-life, particularly the tall trees that have surrounded us most of the time. Cedars, hemlocks, Douglas fir, Big leaf maple, Red alder, and a dozen other species of tree have been the literal backdrop for the greater portion of our lives.

For the first half-dozen years we lived here we were content to just admire them. After all, a stand of giants, be they firs or cedars, should be a sight you just don’t get used to. And to have it growing in your backyard, literally, is simply wonderful.

But then an old Red cedar came down in a nearby neighbor's yard, and I became interested in knowing the cause. That in turn led me to spend a lot more time getting to know more about their natural history in general. The more I studied the more fascinated I became with all the trees growing on our property, particularly the big Douglas firs that dominate every other plant type on the property (Red cedars excluded of course).

That interest culminated in the idea for a project. I began making plans for its execution almost four years ago. Then health issues sidelined me for a bit. I’m only just now beginning to make some headway with a revised plan for photographing and cataloging the key characteristics of the more noteworthy and accessible specimens on the property.

It was during the initial research for this project that I discovered a bit of a mystery among the trees that line the rear of our property – two trees that that don’t quite fit in with any of the others we have.

The larger trees we enjoy daily are Douglas fir, and for the longest time I just assumed these two were of that variety. They are definitely young conifers of some kind or another, but their bark seems somehow different. One preliminary ID was Spruce, because the needles are somewhat sharp; but the idea has since been abandoned. Balsam firs were also candidates for a time, but were ultimately ruled out because of their range.

The two trees stand at the very rear of the yard. They are about 10 feet apart, and the lower sections are very overgrown with Hazel nut saplings and scrub Maple. Maneuverability – always a bit of a problem on rough terrain in the wheelchair – makes getting a clear shot of their full extent particularly challenging. That and things like a phalanx of stinging nettles that effectively block one line of approach.

In spite of all that, and with the help of a neighbor I have managed to get my hands on part of a lower limb, complete with some clean and well formed needles.

I’ve also managed to get a few shots of the lower section of the trunk of the largest.

More than likely they are Silver firs, which are native to this area. But If they are Silver firs, then we have yet another mystery: that species is normally found at higher elevations, or in cooler, wetter environments. We are at about 200+ feet here, and our climate is what gets described as being “Mediterranean.” How did the two of them end up in this group of Douglas firs?

I will keep an open mind continue and with my project. In the meantime suggestions and comments are more than welcome! You can enter them in the comments section below, or email me directly at upfannocreek.com.