WUI Fuel Treatment Potential Zone of Agreement 1.0

We have been having a fascinating discussion about dead trees burning differently, but I wonder if debates about the science obfuscate an underlying reality of agreement. I am wondering, that’s all.

This morning, I am proposing that we may all agree that

Fuel treatments (completed with fuel removed) to create defensible space and change fire behavior within 1/2 mile of a community are generally OK.

I would like to throw this proposition out there and see what everyone thinks.. because if everyone agrees to this proposition (or and edited version), much of the “science” discussion is not relevant (historic patterns, etc.). We are interested in making conditions safe for firefighters by changing structure (not having jackstrawed piles of dead trees, for example) and fuel conditions around communities (we can discuss what “communities” means).

Some people think that we should just let the homes burn and not put firefighters in, thereby solving the problem (and saving much money, both for fuel treatments and for suppression) but this does not seem socially and politically realistic.

I would be interested to know what people on this blog think about the proposition. Feel free to propose edits. From this discussion, I’d like to move on to the question of fuel treatments that are not in the WUI.

Check out some of this paper and other photos from the Wallow fire and fuel treatments.

18 thoughts on “WUI Fuel Treatment Potential Zone of Agreement 1.0”

  1. It’s most unusual not to have heard from ANYONE on this so far. Would appreciate any thoughts. It seems more direct (and clear) to disagree about the problem framing and discuss it, than to discuss what different pieces of science might, or might not, be telling us.

    Reply
  2. Sorry, but I am in “the wilds” and I checked out the Forest Service’s new version of “fuels treatments” in the form of the Warm Lake (Let-Burn) Fire, on the Kaibab. I’ve been to Zion in the warmth of “Indian Summer”, been at Bryce Canyon with fresh snow and was at the north rim of the Grand Canyon, yesterday. My last day of the trip will be in Zion, today.

    Many, many leftists are just fine and dandy with homes being burned, as brilliantly-displayed in the comments of articles this year. “Burn, Baby, Burn”, comes to mind. I think those fuels treatments are being given too much credit. The terrain and weather probably had a bigger role in saving the community than the cutting of small trees. If the winds had been downslope, nothing would have saved the homes, short of large formal fuelbreaks. I saw where a new wind-driven fire jumped a two-lane road, 80 feet of river, two sets of railroad tracks and a four-lane Interstate Highway, all back-to-back-to-back.

    Since people plan for 100-year flood events, why not plan for 100-year wildfires?!?! There should be no doubt that the Wallow Fire was, indeed, a disaster that will live on for decades.

    Reply
    • Foto – because fuel treatments won’t work under the more intense conditions you describe, are you saying that large formal fuel breaks are better?

      Reply
  3. I’ll chime in here. For what it’s worth, I am in agreement with proposal Sharon has offered here (i.e. fuel treatments with small diameter fuels completely removed from the forest within 1/2 mile of homes.

    But I think the lack of response in general comes from a sense from folks that the devil is in the details. (e.g. What constitutes “small diameter”?) For some folks I think there is also a question of whether commercial timber harvest would be a part of the process. For instance, there is debate about the level of fuel harvest necessary to achieve the desired conditions that would protect homes by creating a defensible space, etc. Those with suspicions that this discussion may be an avenue to justify commercial timber harvest will tend to “cherry-pick” the science that indicates only the finer fuels need be removed to achieve desired conditions. Those who are either in favor of, or at least not opposed to commercial timber harvest will tend to “cherry-pick” the science that indicates more fuel ought to be removed and calls for more significant forest thinning.

    Just my two cents as to why there hasn’t been more of a response. I know none of this new to anyone on this blog, and I don’t know if it is helpful in any way. Like most things, what seems simple on the surface can get more complicated when you take a closer look.

    Reply
    • Mike- that’s interesting. I thought the need to reduce fine fuels and ladder fuels was fairly well understood and pretty clear. Then you would only be arguing about how many “bigger” trees you need to remove to make a difference in fire behavior and to have defensible space. But in many parts of the interior west, the trees are dead and/or there is no timber industry to speak of, so that’s why bringing up the “commercial timber” concern was unexpected to me. If there is fear of motivation of the FS to get unneeded (for fuels treatment) big trees for the timber purchasers, then, how about this?

      Fuel treatments (conducted with service contracts, not timber sales) to create defensible space and change fire behavior within 1/2 mile of a community are generally OK.

      Reply
  4. I would be the first to agree with your proposition, and also the inference that there isn’t a significant science disagreement on what might be done in this area near the homes.

    What I find disappointing and hard to understand is our local WUI designations. Here in north Idaho we have private and national forest lands very close into the various communities, so management of the WUI zone is important to minimize fire dangers. But the local pols, in their infinite wisdon decided to “game” the process by creating WUI zones that extend miles and miles and miles upslope into the national forest. There seems to be an idea that if they create a huge WUI zone that this will somehow ensure more logging and “fuels reductions” in that area. And the local USFS management has not, to my knowledge, tried to correct this bastardization of the process.

    I am talking about WUI boundaries that extend 10 miles or more to the farthest ridge away from the accepted habitation boundaries. The concept of protecting homes and businesses adjacent to the one-half mile zone seems to be a secondary concern. Does the initial legislation that originated the WUI concept intend such broad designation? I doubt it. Politics and other agendas (more logging) has crept into an otherwise great program.

    Reply
    • Ed,

      Could you help me understand what WUI boundaries you are talking about? I think you are on to something. Are you talking CWPP (Community Wildlfire Prevention Plans) or some other designation?

      Reply
  5. WUI equals “WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE”.

    I must admit ignorance as to the legislation or regulations that instigated this mapping process several years ago. I am sure there are others out there that can fill in the details.

    Reply
    • Ed- here is a link to a powerpoint that describes my understanding of how HFRA, WUI and CWPPS are connected. I was wondering if the WUI boundaries you mentioned in your comment are part of a CWPP.

      In Colorado, I have seen CWPP’s (at least in the past) that go further than 1.5 miles. Not sure that politics and logging are influencing that, since there is no mill around the one I’m thinking of. Perhaps someone on the blog has direct experience with CWPP development and understands more about mapping boundaries.

      Also, in Colorado you can examine all the CWPP’s easily by going to this website. I would think that’s true for other states as well.

      Reply
  6. Most CWPP plans I’ve seen are usually 1.5 miles wide from the nearest home. It seems it’s limited to “up to 1.5 miles”-but don’t quote me.

    Reply
  7. “Some people think that we should just let the homes burn and not put firefighters in, thereby solving the problem (and saving much money, both for fuel treatments and for suppression) but this does not seem socially and politically realistic.”

    This statement implies that if trees are not cut down up to a half mile away homes will burn. I don’t think that is the case. The Forest Service’s own researchers have said time and again that:
    Recent research indicates that the potential for home ignitions during wildfires
    including those of high intensity principally depends on a home’s fuel characteristics
    and the heat sources within 100-200 feet adjacent to a home.

    Jack Cohen, “Wildland Urban Fire—A different approach.” Thus, I don’t see how treating large areas of forest a half mile away from homes is needed? The entire WUI scheme strikes me as an unneeded insurance policy being footed by a federal government that is already deeply in debt. I admit I’m not up to date on the latest science regarding how much space is needed to protect firefighters when a homeowner has adequately prepared for fire in the home ignition zone. Perhaps the government shouldn’t propose to log in the WUI until the homeowners have done the work first. Afterall, if the house isn’t fireproofed, it doesn’t seem like it would matter if the government has logged a half mile away.

    Reply
  8. John-

    First, CBD and WildEarth Guardians came out with press releases supportive of fuel treatments following the Wallow Fire. They are posted on this blog here and here.

    Second, I think there is a difference between a home, and a subdivision or community.
    This isn’t science so much as it is framing of the issue. See my post here, which includes the following quote.

    In this case, the difference in framing is as simple as it’s not about the structures- it’s about the fact that people don’t want fire running through their communities. It is about all kinds of community infrastructure, stop signs and power poles, landscaping, fences, gardens, trees and benches in parks, people and pets and livestock having safe exits from encroaching fires. It is about firefighter safety and about conditions for different suppression tactics. That’s why fire breaks of some kinds around communities (not just structures) will always be popular in the real world. Of course, people don’t actually fireproof their homes either in the real world. “How can we best keep wildfires from damaging communities and endangering people” would be a more complex, but more real framing of the question. Note that one scientific discipline can’t provide the answer to this framing- there are elements of fire science, community design, fire suppression practice, sociology, political science and economics.

    A couple of years ago, the State of Colorado had a multi-stakeholder meeting on the science of WUI treatments when working on an earlier version of the Colorado Roadless Rule. It was fairly clear that there is a variety of ways of defining, and GIS-ing, WUI. But as we talked, I wondered then if part of the disagreements revolve around different images of WUI that each person has in his or her head. To some, it might be a house on 35 acres; to another a subdivision of 15 homes surrounded by forest, to some a town surrounded by forest. I think most people wouldn’t want a fire going through their town, even if individual homes were protected.

    I think most people would think one home on 35 acres- perhaps not a good investment for federal fuel treatments- a town, yes federal fuel treatments to protect infrastructure and firefighters. Subdivisions- may depend on how they lay across the landscape, how large, etc. That’s why the holistic view involved in a CWPP may be just the right approach.

    Reply
  9. Yes, Sharon, I think you interpreted my earlier comment correctly. I don’t think there is a significant dispute over the science of reducing fuels and the positive effect this will have in terms of protecting homes from wildfire as a general statement. As you point out, CBD and other groups have been actively supporting projects that reduce fuels in the WUI for several years now, and I think its important to recognize the efforts CBD has made toward building a “small-diameter” wood products industry in the Southwest. Indeed, the commercial”, “non-commercial” debate appears to be evolving, and I think this is a positive development for sure.

    Having said this, my sense is that the details of each management proposal will most likely continue to be scrutinized on a case by case basis by those who wish to optimize the mix of fuels reduction and “forest restoration”, with emphasis on the latter, in each proposal even within the WUI. For example, one may optimize home protection in the WUI through significantly reducing overall basal area, utilizing methods that include overstory as well as understory removal (in areas that retain an industry with capacity to handle larger tree removal). This management would prioritize home protection but may not be considered “forest restoration” per se (highlighting the slippery idea of “forest restoration”). Thus, groups who may have differing values concerning “forest restoration”, but who also understand the need to protect homes, scrutinize this sort of prescription, pointing to research that indicates less extreme measures might still achieve a proximate result.

    The good news, and where I think you are heading with your question, is that there is no longer any real debate about whether we ought to reduce fuels in the WUI as you have defined this term (i.e. 1/2 mile from homes). The question, however, is in the means to meeting the results we all want to achieve, and therein lies the devil in the details. Once again, it all comes down to the values people hold most dear…

    But this is just my sense right now and I’d love to hear more from others more closely involved in this particular issue….

    Reply
    • I think commercial versus non-commercial can be settled with returning commercial size class densities closer to pre-European conditions. If there isn’t enough in those commercial size classes, then it won’t be a “commercial” project. Chances are, those historic conditions are also adequate for fire protection, too. Of course, everything hinges on sire-specific conditions.

      Also, I contend that communities would desire that stand-replacing fires not even be allowed within 1/2 mile from their community, for many VERY important reasons. What good does it do to stop the wildfire 1/2 mile from homes, only to watch as bark beetles bloom and feast on the community’s surviving trees? Would YOU like to be surrounded by vast snag patches and thick brush, instead of old growth and endangered species? Would YOU like a depressed rural tourist economy for the next 20 years? Would YOU like increased flood risks for the next 20 years? Finally, is 1/2 mile an “adequate buffer” to truly protect a community’s interests, as well as the interests of the American public?

      Reply
  10. I think Fotoware raises some interesting questions in his second paragraph, but these questions also point to the complexities raised in this seemingly straight forward topic.

    Once we begin to talk about forest “conditions” that go beyond a simple discussion of fuel loading (as Fotoware is doing in his second paragraph), the question is no longer just about protecting our “homes” as merely the structures that keep us dry and warm. Instead, the discussion turns to protecting the many other values that make our homes good places to be beyond merely keeping dry and warm. Indeed, Fotoware’s questions are really speaking to why so many of us choose to live near the forest in the first place, what Fotoware and many others call the “community interests”. The sticker is that understanding and meeting the “community interest” is quite difficult and requires a real dialogue amongst a broad consortium of people living in the community or with significant interests in the well-being of the area. These issues are extremely important and valid, but they are not directly relevant to the much more narrow topic of protecting our homes as structures, which is where I think Sharon was trying to find some zone of agreement.

    Reply
    • There is a BIG difference between saving homes and saving houses. When some people get burned out of their homes and have insurance money to rebuild, they choose not to live in the same spot, in the middle of a moonscape, surrounded by a sea of snags. It just does not feel, or look like “home” to them. Imagine your yard without shade for 20 years.

      Reply
    • Mike- I don’t think I ever framed the issue as being about houses only. That was precisely my point. If “the science” shows the best way to protect physical structures- that “science” is not necessarily relevant to the issue framed as protecting communities and keeping firefighters safe.

      Here’s what I said.

      Fuel treatments (completed with fuel removed) to create defensible space and change fire behavior within 1/2 mile of a community are generally OK.

      I would like to throw this proposition out there and see what everyone thinks.. because if everyone agrees to this proposition (or and edited version), much of the “science” discussion is not relevant (historic patterns, etc.). We are interested in making conditions safe for firefighters by changing structure (not having jackstrawed piles of dead trees, for example) and fuel conditions around communities (we can discuss what “communities” means).

      I think we’re currently having a discussion about what “communities” means. Not so much one home and outbuildings on 30 acres, but somewhere between that, and, say, a town.

      Reply
  11. I think a better focus than “communities” is transportation and energy corridors — maybe a minimum of 1/4 mile for each. In this way communities are also covered, as are vital services for the communities.

    Plus, corridors are relatively cheap and easy to manage and should produce a significant profit, thousands of jobs, and enhanced wildlife habitat by doing so.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Sharon Cancel reply