Yesterday I wrote about a new study from the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research station, which found that fuel reduction logging and thinning prior to the Fourmile Canyon Fire outside of Boulder, Colorado was ineffective at moderating the fire’s behavior, having had a minimal impact in affecting how the fire burned or the damage it caused.
Below that article from yesterday, frequent commenter Ed made an interesting point worthy of highlighting here:
Some people just refuse to accept the reality of this…that when you get really extreme conditions of humidity, temps, and high winds, there is no power, no planning, no treatment, no nothing that will stop a fire from going where it wants. Nada. I am tired of reading statements from pols (and others who should know better) that “demand this fire be stopped”…. We are now experiencing more and more extreme weather, for whatever reason that none of us are smart enough to explain. We will have to learn to live with these blowup fires, and concentrate our prevention efforts in and around the homes and structures along the forest perimeter.
Well, we know that at least one politician – and their staff – was apparently too busy on the campaign trail to actually have time to read the findings from Forest Service’s Fourmile Fire Report about the fact that fuel reduction logging and thinning had a minimal impact in affecting how the fire burned. This morning I woke up to see Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont) quoted in Montana newspapers with this amazing claim:
This election is about an area between here and Whitehall that is burning. If we could
have gotten my Forest Jobs Act past [sic] we would have been able to cut those trees.
– Senator Jon Tester
It’s worth pointing out that Senator Tester is referring the 19 Mile Wildfire, a 3,000 acre fire, which according to inciweb, is burning in grass, brush and some timber mainly on private lands west of Whitehall, Montana (see official maps below). The cause of the fire is under investigation. Yesterday, the weather at the fire was 97 degrees, 13% humidity and 20 mph winds blowing out of the southwest.
I’m not sure if the Forest Service has an official threshold that needs to be crossed in order for “extreme fire weather conditions” to be met, but suffice to say that temps near 100, humidity in the low teens and winds blowing 20 miles an hour qualify. Once a wildfire gets going under these types of weather conditions any wildfire expert will tell you there’s not much you can do to put the fire out.
But not Senator Tester. Nope, apparently he wants us all to believe that if Congress would have simply passed his mandated logging bill, which calls for a minimum of 5,000 acres of logging on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest annually for the next fifteen years, that this 19 Mile Wildfire, which has burned mainly on private land (and is burning mainly toward more private land and BLM land) would have prevented this wildfire from either starting and/or spreading. Incredible….
Tester didn’t say his bill would have prevented the fire. He said his bill would have cut the trees. These are different propositions. Tester’s “amazing claim” says nothing about tree cutting preventing the fire.
Mr. Koehler: your piece on how former fuel treatments had little effect on the growth of Colorado fires reinforced personal observations in multiple habitats throughout the Rocky Mountain Complex.
Your vendetta against Sen. Tester not withstanding, the removal of ladder fuels then immediately prescribing fire works if burns are introduced in subsequent seasons either through natural means or by stakeholders.
Encouraging aspen and other deciduous species to restore forest health might just work if Republicans would listen to Democrats.
Andy, Thanks for your comment. I made a small edit to the title of this post, adding the word “Did,” replacing the word “prevented” with “stopped” and also adding a question mark to the title of this post.
You’ll also notice at the bottom of the post that I original wrote:
Apparently [Sen Tester] wants us all to believe that if Congress would have simply passed his mandated logging bill, which calls for a minimum of 5,000 acres of logging on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest annually for the next fifteen years, that this 19 Mile Wildfire, which has burned mainly on private land (and is burning mainly toward more private land and BLM land) would have PREVENTED THIS WILDFIRE FROM EITHER STARTING AND/OR SPREADING.
I think the intent of Senator Tester’s words are clear. He is clearly giving Montanans the impression that if his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act was passed this wildfire would not be spreading the way it did yesterday in 97 degree heat, 13% humidity and 20 mph winds. What else could he possibly be referring to?
The fact of the matter is that even if his mandated logging bill passed last year, where is the guarantee that on the 3 million acre Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest the mandated logging would have started with a few hundred acres in the Upper Rader Creek area?
Larry: Thanks also for sharing your observations. My “vendetta” isn’t against Senator Tester. My “vendetta” (if that’s what you want to call it) is for good public lands policy bracketed by science and law. Thanks.
I think it is worthwhile to compare politician quotes to on the ground conditions. just not sure how fourmile is related,given that trees and uncompleted fuel treatments were there….
My error: uncompleted fuel treatments is a far better use of language.
Matt: you know how I feel about rewilding the West and restoring broken public lands to pre-settlement condition as the template for policy. Compromise is inevitable: only Democrats would acknowledge that your voice is indispensable to the process.
Larry, I’m interested in re-wilding…are there any papers about it? Also I don’t understand your last statement about Democrats… could you restate? I have often been called “politically challenged” so maybe I’m just not getting it.
Here’s a pretty good place to start, Sharon:
http://www.amazon.com/Rewilding-West-Restoration-Prairie-Landscape/dp/0520267958
Matthew isn’t the green within the red line on your second map Forest Service? Am I reading it wrong?
Sharon, the dark green on the very northern portion of the wildfire is Forest Service land, about 400 acres worth, far as I can tell.
However, the lighter green within the red fire perimeter line isn’t Forest Service land, it’s highly-subdivided private land, which is clearly illustrated in the last map, from the official Montana Cadastra land-ownership map.
The light green you see there doesn’t signify land owners, but signifies patches of trees/forest, as you often see on topo maps.
Finally, the photo caption I wrote for that second map clearly states:
“Another map of the 19 Mile fire from the official inciweb site of the U.S. Forest Service clearly showing this fire has barely burned any Forest Service land. Also note that the fire is moving towards the northeast, towards more private, BLM and state of Montana lands, and away from any Forest Service lands.”
Thanks.
What confused me was the color of green that looks like FS land on many maps, but I see now that the green is not blocked in sections which it would be if it were landownership. Thanks!
Looks like a political reporter at the Bozeman Chronicle got a similar impression from Senator Tester’s quote….Here are some snips:
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/politics/political_notebook/article_57db593a-f4ca-11e1-8533-001a4bcf887a.html
Eek! It is frightening that people are comparing 4 Mile to anything else, really.
Eek, really Sharon? So there is nothing at all that can be learned from the Forest Service RMRS’ Four Mile Fire study? If the study would have found that some types of fuel reduction projects were effective at stopping fires, even under extreme conditions, would it be equally as frightening?
And honestly, some of us don’t really believe the Four Mile Fire study says much different from what a lot of the scientific research has been finding RE: fuel reduction, wildfires, extreme weather events, etc.
Matthew.. we know that some studies show that fuel treatments can be effective at changing fire behavior and making defensibly space to be used by suppression crews.
Some studies show that they have not been effective. But you don’t need scientific papers, you can look at aerial photos and see the same thing
The key question is why or why not, and under what kinds of conditions?
Do you agree with that? Otherwise, if you believe differently about the research, we should go looking for literature reviews or possibly go through them study by study.
What bothers me is that the staff writer used one study in Colorado (that shows you need to finish the fuel reduction for it to work, duh, and you have to do enough to make a difference) as if it implies that the other dozens of studies are less valid, of course, she couldn’t know..
“but it turns out that thinning may have little effect on moderating fire behavior, according to a recent study by the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Foresters looked at the fuel reduction logging carried out in Fourmile Canyon near Boulder, Colo., before wildfire tore through the canyon this summer. They concluded the logging had little effect on how the fire burned or the amount of resulting damage.”
It’s like picking a random study out of a large pool of studies, and oddly for Montanans, not even from Montana!
In fact, the very same RMRS has done a bunch of different studies, many of which found fuel treatments to be useful.
Matthew:
It looks like the reporter left an important qualifying phrase out of his sentence, which one might reasonably expect from a political writer. I’m not sure who the unidentified “foresters” were, but I’m guessing a more complete sentence would have read something like (my insert in caps):
“They concluded the logging — AS IT HAD BEEN PERFORMED IN THE STUDY AREA — had little effect on how the fire burned or the amount of resulting damage.”
I think the Fourmile Canyon Fire demonstrated that poor fuel management strategies have poor results. Most of the busy-work “thinning” jobs I’ve seen and documented on federal lands are a waste of time and money — and I’m guessing that many of the Fourmile projects are more in line with that approach than with “logging” (however that is being defined).
Dr. Bob, can you please let us know just what type of logging projects are very effective at preventing or stopping or slowing a wildfire, even under extreme weather conditions? Oh, and also, would such a logging project be 1) legally and scientifically defensible? and 2) acceptable to the public?
Hi Matt: Sure. Clearcuts are the most obvious type of logging that will stop wildfires, although you, personally, might not consider that “acceptable to the public.” Of course, the vast majority of the public could care less one way or the other, but there are a number of vocal critics of this practice, whatever their motives might be. Biologically, it is the best method for treating stands of dead trees (bugs, fire, wind, disease), and also for some species, such as Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, juniper, lawn grass, wheat, alder, and cottonwood.
As evidence of this certainty, my crews did more than 80,000 acres of reforestation work following wildfires, clearcuts, and conversion reforestation projects between 1970 and 1990 and I don’t think any of them — spread from Happy Camp, California to Mt. Rainier, Washington, to the Sundance Burn in Idaho — have ever been subjected to wildfire in the intervening 20 – 40 years. Many of those plantations, in fact, have been clearcut and planted again by others. Also, I have numerous photos of the B&B Complex and other major fires in which the burn boundary exactly follows a former clearcut, mowed lawn, or other openings in the canopy.
So you don’t like clearcuts, however “biologically defensible?” Then understory thinning on multiple-aged stands such as yellow pine, oak, and Sequoia, followed by regular broadcast burning — like the Indians did successfully for more than 10,000 years — seems to also work great.
I’ve seen some people in this blog refer to precommercial thinning and hazard tree removal as “logging,” but that’s not what I’m talking about. I consider logging the commercial removal of log-sized trees from an area for the purpose of selling them as “logging.” Otherwise, it’s a “treatment” or something else.
So, yes, removal of fuel can moderate future fire events if done properly and then maintained afterwards.
Thanks for asking.
A better question might be…. What kind of project is cost-effective at reducing fire spread and severity, under regular wildfire conditions? Or, maybe…. How has preservationism impacted forests under severe drought conditions and catastrophic wildfires? Or, maybe, …. Is letting wildfires burn, even under extreme weather conditions, acceptable to the public?
Acceptable to the public?. The USFS is gonna salvage clearcut 5000 acres around Breckenridge Colorado, who gave Obama 65% of the vote, and there ain’t a peep of opposition. Nauta. Oh, maybe a peep,from Bob Berwyn(who I respect), but absolutely no litigation. The “Millie fire” is burning right now just south of the Bozeman Municipal watershed project in Montana. We might just get a chance to see the “clearcuts don’t burn” phenomenon again. I was up in Hyalite canyon(south of bozeman) a few weeks ago,the whole damn place was clearcut logged back in the 60’s and 70’s, and yet I got a great picture I call “camping in a clearcut.” A family camping amongst a 50 years old lodgepole pine clearcut. For any of you beautifull people, the next time you drive up Hyalite, open your eyes so that you may see. Everything from the first campground to the reservoir is a clearcut.Nobody knows today that it was clearcut…but it will most likely save Bozemans municipal watershed someday. If not this fire, then the next one, or the next. The trick is to get the media to recognize that the surviving “green islands” were clearcuts…or any fuels treatments for that matter..
For the record, Senator Tester continues to make these types of claims about this year’s wildfires and his mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. Here’s a recent one from the Missoulian:
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/senator-tester-says-western-montana-on-cusp-of-economic-growth/article_aa3ec3fc-f7cb-11e1-a84e-0019bb2963f4.html
“Quite frankly, some of the areas that are burning right now could have been dealt with [by the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act].” – Senator Tester
Matthew, why did you omit the very next sentence of Tester’s quote? In the sentence that follows immediately after the quote you pulled he says “It wouldn’t have stopped the fire season we’ve had, but it certainly would have put some folks back to work.”
Doesn’t that directly contradict your argument that Tester was claiming his FJRA would have stopped or slowed the fire season?
Josh: I agree that the second part differs from the first part, and I appreciate you sharing it here. But my main point is that Sen Tester keeps on making claims in the Montana media that somehow the few areas burning on the Beaverhead Deerlodge NF would have been ‘dealt with’/’logged’ etc if his bill was passed. I think some people would assume that Sen Tester means the areas wouldn’t be burning, or wouldn’t be burning as badly. While other people may assume that Tester means those areas would have been cut already if his FJRA would have passed. Either way Sen Tester’s numerous statements to this effect don’t really match up with the reality of how the national forest lands are managed, with his bill or without his bill.