Rim Fire Images

May 27, 2015 by Larry Harrell Fotoware

The media does like to sensationalize events like the Rim Fire, often implying that the lands have been “destroyed”. The Rim Fire is so huge and burned across so many differing kinds of vegetation that you cannot summarize too much. Even my own “sampling” from the access roads doesn’t cover very much of the impacts and effects of a 250,000 acre wildfire.

Much of the wildfire burned in plantations generated from previous wildfires. Here is an example of one of those plantations that wasn’t thinned. I can see why it wasn’t but, maybe a “pre-commercial thinning” kind of task could have been included into one of the other commercial plantation thinning projects that I worked on, back in 2000.

In the same area were blocks of land that were left for “Mother Nature”, after the early 70’s Granite Fire. Here is what a 40 year old brushfield looks like. Those blocks are choked with deer brush, whitethorn and manzanita, with very few conifers, and fewer oaks than the “natural stands” (as they called the unburned portions).

As you can see, sometimes there is a fine line between a total plantation loss and one that has survived a wildfire. This is one of the thinned plantations, near Cherry Lake.

Here is another example of an “old growth” brushfield. While this one didn’t burn much, there are many examples of them burning at moderate to high intensities. Looking at Google Maps, I can find examples where the flames from the brushfields were pushed into the thinned plantations. The Forest Service should be treating those old brushfields with prescribed fire, instead of “whatever happens”.

This unburned stand, within the fire perimeter, is a good example of the work we did back in 2000. I don’t really know of any other reason why this large patch, near Cherry Lake, didn’t burn

The Clavey River, long-cherished by the local eco-community, acted like a conduit for the Rim Fire, as it burned so many acres in just one day. However, you can see that the intensity and damage is rather minimal. There is a fork in the river, down there, and the main fork of the fire went up that way, finding more conifers to burn. (It also found the big block of Sierra Pacific Industries lands.) I found it very interesting that the isolated pockets of Douglas-firs had very high mortality, but only a low-to-moderate intensity.

Here is one of those pockets, alongside the Clavey River. In the past, this kind of pocket would be thrown into a large helicopter salvage project.

Rim Fire Update

December 9, 2014December 9, 2014 by Larry Harrell Fotoware

Apparently, enough of the hazard trees within the Rim Fire on the Stanislaus NF have been cut so that the travel ban has finally been lifted, after more than a year. I heard one report that says that the litigation has failed at the District Court level, losing their pleas to stop the logging three times. The article below includes the Appeals Court but, I doubt that an appeal has been seen in court yet. It seems too soon after the District Court decision for the appeal to be decided.

http://www.calforests.org/rim-fire-update-final-motion-halt-restoration-forestry-rim-fire-denied/

Since the Rim Fire tore through the area and devoured over 250, 000 square miles of National, State and private forested land, the community has come together to put together a solution with positive environmental, economical and social sense. The whole effort to restore forests has been very successful due to cooperation of a diverse group of individuals, organizations and government agencies.

(Edit: Thanks to Matt for pointing out the acres/square miles error. That should be 250,000 acres.)

With a monster storm approaching California, we should be seeing some catastrophic erosion coming from the Rim and King Fire areas. Of course, very little can be done to prevent erosion on the steep slopes of the canyons with high burn intensity. Standing snags tend to channel water, while branches and twigs on the ground can hold back a surprising amount of soil. This flood event would have been great to document through repeat photography but, it appears that opportunity will be lost, too.

Bark beetle activity has also spiked where I live, northwest of the Rim Fire.

Rim Fire Salvage Logging, by SPI

August 25, 2014 by Larry Harrell Fotoware

Bob Zybach and I went on a field trip to the Rim Fire. The first stop on the tour showed us the Sierra Pacific Industries’ salvage logging results. I’m posting a medium resolution panorama so, if you click on the picture, you can view it in its full size. You can see the planted surviving giant sequoias on their land which were left in place. You can also see some smaller diameter trees, bundled up on the hill, which turned out to be not mechantable as sawlogs. You might also notice the subsoiler ripping, meant to break up the hydrophobic layer. They appear to have done their homework on this practice, and it is surprising to see them spending money to do this. SPI says that their salvage logging is nearly complete, and that they will replant most of their 20,000 acre chunk next spring. They have to order and grow more stock to finish in 2016.

Natural amenities, “the creative class” and economic success

June 25, 2014 by Jon Haber

This map got my attention because of the disproportionate amount of “green” in the rural intermountain west. In this case it means counties have a disproportionately high number of employees in jobs like management, finance, technology, engineering, science, sales, entertainment and non-primary education (and of course lawyering).

“The creative-class thesis holds that communities that attract and retain more workers who are in creative occupations will fare better in today’s economy.”

From the background paper linked to this article:

“Richard Florida’s Rise of the Creative Class makes a compelling argument that urban development now depends on novel combinations of knowledge and ideas, that certain occupations specialize in this task, that people in these occupations are drawn to areas providing a high quality of life, and that the essential development strategy is to create an environment that attracts and retains these workers. While developed with urban areas in mind, this thesis may be particularly relevant in rural areas, which lose much of their young talent as high school graduates leave for college, the armed forces, or “city lights.” Our analysis of recent development in rural U.S. counties, which focuses on natural amenities (for which ERS has also computed county-level scores) as quality-of-life indicators, supports the creative class thesis.”

So, perceived natural amenities attract creative workers who improve local economies. With a caveat that “growth and success among creative-class workers doesn’t necessarily extend economic benefits to other parts of the economy, such as blue-collar and service workers, at least in metro areas.” (All wages go up, but housing costs go up more.)

So maybe all this is saying is to get the right kind of education so you can do well and live in a nice place, but it might also paint a promising picture for these rural “green” counties.

Elliot State Forest Parcels Are Sold

June 24, 2014June 20, 2014 by Larry Harrell Fotoware

Photo by www.facebook.com/LarryHarrellFotoware

An update from Bob Z.

Elliot State Forest Sale Closes Amid Controversy
Elliott State Forest Sale
Statesman Journal
The Oregon Department of State Lands has completed the controversial sale of three parcels of Elliott State Forest totaling 1,453 acres to Seneca Jones Timber and Scott Timber Co.
The Wednesday sale fetched $4.2 million despite the promise from environmental groups to file a lawsuit to halt logging over the alleged existence of federally protected marbled murrelets in the parcels.
The East Hakki Ridge parcel was purchased by Seneca Jones Timber for $1.89 million, while Adams Ridge 1 was purchased by Scott Timber for $1.87 million. Benson Ridge was purchased for $787,000.
In December 2013, the State Land Board approved selling about 2,700 acres within the Elliott. Managing the Common School Fund land within this forest —which in recent years generated annual net revenues in the $8 million to $11 million range — cost the fund about $3 million in fiscal year 2013.
Losses are projected to continue in fiscal year 2014 and beyond, due to reduced timber harvest levels as a result of litigation over threatened and endangered species protection.
“The Land Board realizes the Common School Fund cannot continue to have a net deficit from managing these Trust lands,” DSL director Mary Abrams said in a press release. “This first effort to sell three small parcels was to gauge interest in these properties, as well as determine the market value of land within the forest.”
The sale, which will benefit the Common School Fund, represents less than two percent of the 93,000-acre forest near Reedsport.
Even so, the sales have become a flashpoint in the lingering dispute between environmentalists and timber companies.
“These parcels, which once belonged to all Oregonians, should never have been sold in the first place,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity in Portland, in a press release announcing the notice to initiate a lawsuit. “Now that they’ve been sold, we’re not going to allow them to be clear-cut and contribute to the extinction of the unique marbled murrelet.”

Ski Areas and the Headwaters Study

June 13, 2014 by Sharon

You can buy this home in Avon Colorado for $5.1 million (559 Eagle Dr.)

A Denver Post article today here talks about ski visits being up this year in Colorado. Below is an excerpt:

Thanks to a 5.6 percent surge in visitation for the final three months of the 2013-14 ski season at its Colorado resorts — Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and Keystone — as well as increased guest spending on passes, lodging, dining, lessons and ski rentals, the largest resort operator in the North America netted $117.9 million in income for the quarter, up 20.8 percent from the same months in 2013.
Spring sales of Vail Resorts’ popular Epic Pass reached record levels in recent months, with an annual increase of 14 percent in number of passes sold and a 20 percent increase in sales dollars.
Vacationer spending is climbing in the high country, with many mountain resorts reporting record spending for the 2013-14 ski season.
Vail Resorts saw lift revenue for the quarter climb 17.1 percent, not including pass sales. That growth came from Colorado and Utah’s Canyons resorts and offset a decline in spending at its three Tahoe, Calif.-area resorts. Guests spent more on ski lessons too, delivering a 16.8 percent annual increase in revenue to the company. They ate more too, fueling an 11.7 percent increase in revenue. Retail and rental revenue climbed 11.2 percent for the quarter.
The company finished the quarter with $307.4 million in cash, which arms Vail Resorts for potential acquisitions of ski resorts.

This seems to be about just the resorts themselves and not associated businesses, hotels, restaurants, gas stations, etc.

Now occasionally in arguing for more “protected areas” folks will cite this Headwaters study which “found a meaningful relationship between the amount of protected public land and higher per capita income levels in 2010.” Now we all learned in statistics that “correlation is not causation.” Still, if we put this study and the ski area info together it is hard to argue that folks in Summit County would have higher per capita income if the ski areas were removed and put into “protected” status (I am putting the term “protected” in quotes here because the term was used in the study in a specific way, and we can all disagree about what is “protected” and from what it is “protected.” If you don’t believe this, FOIA any Roadless Rule documents or check out the reports of the recent FACA committee (RACNAC).

Not to get all epistemological, but some things may be true if you look at numbers for all western counties and do a correlation, but not be true individually. It seems to me that the question is really a localized question…economically is protecting better than alternative uses (which might occur in a given area). If oil and gas leasing or ski areas are alternative uses, the economics would be be different from if the alternative to “protection” were campgrounds or OHV trails. But only certain places are conducive to wind farms, oil and gas leasing, coal mines, or ski areas.

This reminds me of the old studies that said if Forks Washington has a bad economy it doesn’t matter because jobs are growing in Seattle. Scale can be everything and choosing a scale is a value, not “science.”

Also in the Post today was a note that states get 50% from BLM lease sales.

Why Sierra Fuel Treatments Make Economic Sense

April 11, 2014April 10, 2014 by Steve Wilent

Sometimes it is useful to validate common sense with careful study. Here’s a report that does so:

Mokelumne Watershed Avoided Cost Analysis: Why Sierra Fuel Treatments Make Economic Sense

The study was conducted in an area just north of the Rim Fire.

An April 10 press release announcing the publication of the report follows:

Study: Investing in forests reduces megafires and saves millions

Cost-benefit analysis in Sierra Nevada shows savings of up to 3 times to pay for treatments up front

San Francisco, CA — A new study released today finds investing in proactive forest management activities can save up to three times the cost of future fires, reduce high-severity fire by up to 75 percent, and bring added benefits for people, water, and wildlife.

“Recent megafires in California and the West have destroyed lives and property, degraded water quality, damaged wildlife habitat, and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars,” said David Edelson, Sierra Nevada Project Director with The Nature Conservancy. “This study shows that, by investing now in Sierra forests, we can reduce risks, safeguard water quality, and recoup up to three times our initial investment while increasing the health and resilience of our forests.”

The Mokelumne Watershed Avoided Cost Analysis examines the costs and benefits of reducing the risk of high-severity forest fires through proactive techniques like thinning and controlled burns. Set in the central Sierra Nevada, just north of last year’s destructive Rim Fire, scientists modeled likely future wildfires with and without proactive fuel treatments. The results indicate that investing in healthy forests can significantly reduce the size and intensity of fires and save millions of dollars in structure loss, carbon released, and improved firefighting safety and costs.

Megafires have become much more common in the last decade—the average size of a fire today is nearly five times the average fire from the 1970s, and the severity is increasing. The Sierra Nevada is at especially high risk this year with only one-third of normal snowpack as a result of the drought. “Many scientists are predicting an increase in the size and severity of fires due to a changing climate,” said Jim Branham, Executive Officer of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. “These fires, such as last year’s Rim Fire, degrade wildlife habitat, release massive amounts of greenhouse gasses, and can result in many other adverse impacts.”

Last year, the U.S. Forest Service spent $1 billion to cover firefighting shortfalls, taking money from programs that fund activities designed to reduce the risk of such fires. New bipartisan legislation called the Wildfire Funding Disaster Act seeks to address this problem by creating a reserve fund dedicated to excess firefighting costs, similar to the way FEMA provides funds to respond to other natural disasters.

“Our ongoing goal is to increase the pace and scale of our restoration work and this study strongly supports that,” said Randy Moore, U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Forester. “Our current pace of restoration work needs to be accelerated to mitigate threats and disturbances such as wildfires, insects, diseases and climate change impacts. The goal is to engage in projects that restore at least 500,000 acres per year. Many types of projects help us reach our restoration goals including mechanical vegetation treatments, prescribed fire, and managing wildfire for resource benefits.”

The study is authored by the U.S. Forest Service, the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, and The Nature Conservancy and was developed in consultation with a broad range of local and regional stakeholders. It concludes that the benefits from proactive forest management are 2-3 times the costs of fire fighting and that increasing investments in such activities would benefit federal and state taxpayers, property owners (and their insurers), and timber companies.

For more information on the Mokelumne Avoided Cost Analysis, or to download the study, please visit www.sierranevada.ca.gov.

Balanced Post-fire Treatments in the Rim Fire

June 1, 2014April 7, 2014 by Larry Harrell Fotoware

I ran across this excellent article from Eric Holst, Senior Director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s “working lands program”.

Here’s the link: https://www.edf.org/blog/2014/02/18/after-rim-fire-surprising-role-salvage-logging

This picture is a view looking down into the Tuolumne River Canyon, from the “Rim of the World” overlook. Down there is where the fire started. I’d bet the spin on this wildfire would be VERY different if it was ignited by lightning.

Holst is showing some excellent judgement in looking at the bigger picture of the realities of the Rim Fire, seeing that “letting nature take its course” isn’t the way to go on every burned acre.

The Forest Service recently proposed to conduct salvage logging – removal of dead trees – on about 30,000 of the 98,049 acres of high intensity burned area and remove hazard trees along 148 miles of high use road in the burn perimeter. While it may seem counterintuitive for a conservationist to do so, I support this effort. In the high intensity areas, the Rim Fire burned so hot that it not only killed every tree but the top inch or two of soil with critical soil microfauna, and seed stocks were also sterilized. Fire of this intensity has been relatively rare in the moist middle elevations on western slopes of the Sierra Nevada and the native forests are not adapted to bounce back from this type of fire.

There are also some “interesting” comments, and a hint of “eco-bickering”. In those comments is also a return of the “Chapparalian”, using his actual name (instead of one of his many pseudonyms and even fake names). There are also some other interesting names commenting about these issues. John Buckley, a local leader of an environmental group comments with an open mind and a dose of reality. Others continue to spout the misguided idea that leaving the Rim Fire alone is the only way to go. Some commenters talked about the reality that we have plenty of BBW habitat, protected within the National Park. One reality not covered is that re-burns cause extensive damage that is very difficult to recover from, especially in areas left to “recover on their own”.

I still see that post-fire management is essential to getting big trees back on the land. We already have site-specific evidence that forests didn’t return when post-fire management was excluded, 40 years ago. We ended up with old growth brushfields, and a few stunted trees. Those old brushfields burned at moderate intensity. We have a big variety of landscapes, with differing burn intensities and site-specific conditions. This partial comment is spot-on, regarding these facts

It is interesting to see how many comments Eric’s post attracted from authors who are vehement that absolutely nothing except ‘let nature takes its course’ on National Forest lands. Since we have 100,000 acres of National Park land for that experiment, it would be more interesting to apply some other options on the National Forest lands. In the climate change debate, we continue to witness the rapid expansion of vocal people so sure of their own story that they refuse to even consider the possibility that it is worth learning more about the changing earth. Hopefully, this fate will not befall the response to the Rim Fire.

It seems pretty clear to me that a few open-minded people from both sides are seeing the realities of the Rim Fire, and its future.

4FRI: “$127 per acre in environmental study and contract costs”

April 11, 2014April 3, 2014 by Steve Wilent

Article from the Arizona Journal yesterday. I thought this line was interesting:

“The problem boils down to a projected gap in the number of forest acres available to timber industries that are currently thinning forests in Northern Arizona between the end of the White Mountain Stewardship contract and the beginning of the 4FRI project. In order for the Forest Service to make land available to industry for thinning, it must spend an estimated average of $127 per acre in environmental study and contract costs.” [emphasis mine]

Senators Flake And McCain Back Effort To Keep 4Fri Alive

By Tammy Gray
Red tape that has the ability to undermine the Four Forests Restoration Initiative (4FRI) has captured the attention of U.S. Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain, both R-Ariz.
In a letter dated March 24, the senators implore the U.S. Forest Service to make the success of the initiative, along with the White Mountain Stewardship contract, “a national priority.”
The problem boils down to a projected gap in the number of forest acres available to timber industries that are currently thinning forests in Northern Arizona between the end of the White Mountain Stewardship contract and the beginning of the 4FRI project. In order for the Forest Service to make land available to industry for thinning, it must spend an estimated average of $127 per acre in environmental study and contract costs. The funding for completing such work will dwindle over the next few years, and Navajo County Government Relations Administrator Hunter Moore noted that action is needed immediately to prevent future acreage shortages due to the amount of time it takes to complete the environmental study process.
“The major point is that we need to put more capacity into the system now, so that we do not run short in the years to come. If we don’t infuse new resources immediately, the ANSF (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests) will not be able to catch up due to the demands and time of the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process,” Moore noted. “For all intents and purposes, the industry that exists now will likely have a major role in the second phase of 4FRI. If that industry is allowed to starve and die after we have taken 10 years to grow it, we will regret not having it around when 4FRI needs to be completed.”
Flake and McCain note in their letter to the Forest Service that the White Mountain Stewardship contract, which has its roots in the aftermath of the Rodeo-Chedeski fire, is a model for the nation and it’s follow-up, the 4FRI, must be given every opportunity to be successful.
“As private industry continues to make a comeback, our fire-prone communities will become safer at a faster pace and lower cost than the federal government could accomplish on its own,” the senators wrote in their letter to U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “…However, the pending exhaustion of acres pre-approved for thinning under the National Environmental Policy Act poses a significant threat to thinning activity across Arizona’s eastern forests. Without addressing this projected gap in available acres, the industry that has developed in that part of the state could face significant obstacles. Such a setback would not only have an outsized impact on local economies, it could call into question the long-term viability of the stewardship contracting model on a national level.”
Moore noted that some of the private industry partners are willing to cover the costs involved in releasing the acreage for treatment, but that is not a legally available option at this time. He notes that approximately $4 million per year is needed from the federal government to make enough acreage available for industry to stay afloat.
“Estimates indicate that for a $4 million investment annually, the federal government gets private investment activity that is several times beyond that,” he noted.
Flake and McCain asked Tidwell to “make use of all available tools to expedite, streamline and increase the pace and scale of forest restoration.” They also noted, “In this fiscal climate, prioritizing these programs will ensure that communities throughout the West are less vulnerable to fire, while reducing the skyrocketing cost to taxpayers associated with fire suppression and post-fire recovery. We are sure that you agree that we cannot afford to let federal inaction hinder the prospect for continued forest restoration driven by private investment.”

Power Fire 2014

February 23, 2014February 20, 2014 by Larry Harrell Fotoware

We’ve seen pictures of the Power Fire, on the Eldorado National Forest, before. I worked on salvage sales until Chad Hanson won in the Ninth Circuit Court, with issues about the black-backed woodpecker. The court decided that the issue needed more analysis, as well as deciding that the Forest Service’s brand new mortality guidelines were “confusing”. From these pictures, it is very clear to see that those mortality guidelines were way more conservative than they maybe should have been.

As you can see, in this finished unit(s), there were ample snags available for birds to use, despite multiple cuttings, due to the increased bark beetle activity, during the logging. No one can say that they didn’t leave enough snags, (other than the Appeals Court). These pictures are very recent, shot last month.

This picture amused me, as I put this sign up back in 2005. Plastic signs last much longer than the old cardboard ones.

Here is another view of the area, chock full of snags, well beyond what the salvage plans asked for, to devote to woodpeckers and other organisms that use snags. People like Chad Hanson want more high-intensity wildfires, and more dead old growth. It is no wonder that the Sierra Club decided he was too radical, even for them.

Edit: Here is the link to a previous posting from almost 2 years ago, with pictures. https://forestpolicypub.com/2012/05/28/the-power-fire-six-years-later/