What’s Needed To Manage Wildfires?

NPR News has a Q&A with Scott Stephens, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, specializing in wildfires and forest management, entitled “What’s Needed To Manage Wildfires.” Stephens’ Fire Science Laboratory has a large collection of forest restoration and fuels management research.

Excerpt:

KURTZLEBEN: With climate change essentially ensuring that conditions will continue to get more suitable for big fires, do you have any hope in the state and federal governments’ ability to manage future fire seasons?

STEPHENS: This is a great question. And I actually have a lot of hope. You know, I really do believe that we could do some work now in the next 10 to 20 years, which is actually probably the most important period now, to do our restoration thinning, do the work that actually says we’re going to go into a forest and we’re going to actually identify what we want to leave for restoration and we’re going to take the excess of that. We’re going to do the prescribed burning to get the fire back into these systems. And then again, managed wildfire. I know that it’s such a big issue for this state. Look at what’s going on. So many people losing homes, smoking out communities, huge cities for months at a time, huge impacts to water quality. Lake Oroville just had a huge fire in the middle fork of the Feather River, the largest tributary to Lake Oroville, which is the largest lake in the state water project.

These are enormous issues. On top of that, giant sequoia areas in southern Sierra Nevada last year – severe fires killed, we think, 10% of the giant sequoia old growth trees in the state. So it’s not as if we’re wondering what’s going to happen. It’s happening right now. So that just tells me that we have to get on the system to get this work in earnest. My estimate is we need to do 10 times more restoration thinning and prescribed burning to start to change the rudder of the ship.

15 thoughts on “What’s Needed To Manage Wildfires?”

  1. Thank you, Steve. Your post led me to search for references that cite Scott L. Stephens and it led me to this interesting 2018 paper by Leigh Barton at Wellesley College:

    Let It Burn: An Argument for An Adaptive Resilience Approach to Federal Wildfire Management in the Western United States

    ABSTRACT
    Despite years of wildfire management, the Western United States continually experiences the most expensive and most destructive fire seasons on record. This trend indicates that the federal government’s wildfire management strategies, both past, and present, have been, and still are, inadequate. This Note explains the inadequacies in these strategies and suggests two ways in which these inadequacies can be addressed. First, the courts can maintain some environmental protections under the current management strategy, the Healthy Forests Initiative (“HFI”), by probing into the reasoning underlying proposed U.S. Forest Service projects. Such probing would not solve all the problems that the HFI poses, but it would help stop the projects that seek economic gain at the expense of the environment. Second, wildfire management strategies should shift away from fire suppression and fuel reduction approaches and towards an adaptive resilience approach that focuses on enhancing the ability of local environments to withstand a wildfire and rebuild afterward. An adaptive resilience approach would more adequately address both the inevitability of wildfires and the increasing threat posed by wildfires because of climate change and population growth.

    CONTENTS
    I. THE HISTORY, PURPOSE, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HEALTHY FORESTS
    INITIATIVE (HFI)
    II. THE HFI IS AN INADEQUATE APPROACH TO FEDERAL WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT
    III. TO MAINTAIN SOME ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS UNDER THE HFI AND HEALTHY
    FORESTS RESTORATION ACT (HFRA), COURTS SHOULD PROBE INTO THE REASONING
    BEHIND FOREST SERVICE PROJECTS
    A. BOTH THE HFI AND HFRA REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY
    NEPA AND NFMA
    B. THE HFI DOES NOT FOCUS ON AREAS THAT NEED THE MOST PROTECTION
    IV. FEDERAL WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT LAWS AND POLICIES SHOULD FOCUS ON AN
    ADAPTIVE RESILIENCE APPROACH
    A. CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE EVER-INCREASING POPULATION LIVING WITHIN THE
    WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE WORSEN THE THREAT POSED BY WILDFIRES

    There are two major issues worsening the future threat of wildfires: climate change and the increasing number of people living in the wildland-urban interface.

    B. AN ADAPTIVE RESILIENCE APPROACH IS BEST SUITED TO ADDRESS CURRENT AND
    FUTURE WILDFIRE THREATS

    1. Federal Wildfire Management Should Increase Use of Prescribed Burning Instead of
    Mechanical Thinning
    2. Fire-Planning and At Least Some Funding Should Shift to State and Local Levels

    CONCLUSION
    Although the Healthy Forests Initiative and the fuel reduction approach it advocates seems logical in the face of a long history of fire suppression management creating a dangerous buildup of fuel in federal forest lands, it is not an adequate approach to federal wildfire management. Multiple lawsuits and scientific studies indicate that the HFI’s fuel reduction advocacy and its categorical exclusions from NEPA requirements have significant negative impacts on the environment. Moreover, a few studies suggest that these approaches do not adequately address the landscapes that are most prone to wildfire, instead of focusing on those from which an economic profit can be harvested.

    In place of the HFI, federal wildfire management should focus on an adaptive resilience approach, which uses prescribed burning to effectuate simultaneous fire suppression and fuel reduction and shifts management planning and costs onto the jurisdictions that approve local zoning and the people who choose to live in fire-prone areas. Such an approach would better address future wildfire risks, especially in the face of climate change and the ever-growing number of people living in the wildland-urban interface.

    https://www.law.georgetown.edu/environmental-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2018/11/Barton-Let-it-Burn.pdf

    Reply
  2. Just a hundred and fifty years ago bison and cervids would be clearing the grasses that drive prairie fires.

    After a century of destructive ranching practices invasive grasses infest northwestern South Dakota but in the aftermath of the Pautre Fire Republican Senator John Thune convinced Congress to add additional layers of bureaupublicanism to fuel treatments driving the cost of prescribed fires to over $2000 an acre.

    The cost to We the People for managing the 2013 blaze was about $1 million. No livestock was lost and there was minimal damage to fences. There were no injuries and the only structure lost was a derelict rural schoolhouse. 3,519 acres of federal and 7,160 acres of private property were cleared of invasive grasses.

    The US Forest Service knew an advancing cold front would aid the clearing of foot-high grasses and mowed a fire break instead of using a disk to make a fire line because disturbing soils can allow the infestation of plants that had been introduced by European settlers in the 19th Century. Snow showers ended the fire. According to Forest Service records an employee in the federal government misspelled “Pasture” as “Pautre” and the name stuck.

    A lawsuit claiming $50 million in compensation for the Pautre Fire was not only frivolous, it was reckless in its hypocrisy.

    Reply
  3. Just a hundred and fifty years ago bison and cervids would be clearing the grasses that drive prairie fires.

    So, after a century of destructive ranching practices invasive grasses infest northwestern South Dakota but in the aftermath of the Pautre Fire Republican Senator John Thune convinced Congress to add additional layers of bureaupublicanism to fuel treatments driving the cost of prescribed fires to over $2000 an acre.

    The cost to We the People for managing the 2013 blaze was about $1 million. No livestock was lost and there was minimal damage to fences. There were no injuries and the only structure lost was a derelict rural schoolhouse. 3,519 acres of federal and 7,160 acres of private property were cleared of invasive grasses.

    The US Forest Service knew an advancing cold front would aid the clearing of foot-high grasses and mowed a fire break instead of using a disk to make a fire line because disturbing soils can allow the infestation of plants that had been introduced by European settlers in the 19th Century. Snow showers ended the fire. According to Forest Service records an employee in the federal government misspelled “Pasture” as “Pautre” and the name stuck.

    A lawsuit claiming $50 million in compensation for the Pautre Fire was not only frivolous, it was reckless in its hypocrisy.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Station in Miles City, Montana, assessed the impacts of the fire and concluded it should have been burned prescriptively long before fuels were so explosive.

    In an era when western states are scrambling to preserve habitat for bison, wapiti, bighorn sheep, pronghorns, deer, the threatened Greater sage grouse and all the other wildlife at risk to the Republican Party how is running nurseries for introduced species like wild horses and burros either conservative or sustainable?

    Clear the second growth conifers and eastern red cedar then restore aspen habitat, prescribe burns, begin extensive Pleistocene rewilding using bison and cervids, empower tribes, lease private land for wildlife corridors, turn feral horses from BLM pastures onto other public land to control exotic grasses and buy out the welfare ranchers Tony Dean warned us about.

    Reply
  4. Thanks for posting the link to this interview. I found the first part of the interview to be quite interesting also. It’s posted below.

    While I know this was just a 6 minute interview, I found it interesting that Scott Stephens didn’t mention the fact that many forest and wildland ecosystems require—and evolved with—mixed- and high-severity fire. Seems to me that too many forest and fire ecologists still appear to be focusing on forests and ecosystems that may have evolved with mainly low-severity fire as a stand in for forest and wildland ecosystems in general.

    KURTZLEBEN: So let’s start with a big question. Why do fire conditions seem to be getting worse and worse over time in California?

    STEPHENS: We have climate change impacting the state with higher temperatures, more drought, drying fuel. All of this contributes to our already vulnerable conditions from fire suppression and past harvesting. The other piece, which is really difficult, is so many people living in the wildland-urban interface. And this also causes great vulnerability.

    KURTZLEBEN: Quick point of information there. You mentioned the phrase wildland-urban interface. Can you tell us what that is?

    STEPHENS: Yes. This is the area where we have people living in and among the wildland vegetation of California and elsewhere in the United States. It’s a place where maybe people are living on 1 acre, 5 acres of land, but sometimes they’re actually a subdivision right adjacent to a forest or sometimes a shrubland. So it really is an environment where you’re right next to or within the wildland areas from a fire behavior standpoint. And no doubt, many of these areas are very vulnerable in the state.

    We’ve seen some terrible fires – Camp Fire, the wine country fires in 2017, where we just have enormous numbers of homes and lives impacted by wildfire. And this is an area of incredible importance in the state. I think we have to get our communities themselves better prepared for the inevitability of fire and these systems. And I’m afraid that a lot of communities underappreciate their vulnerabilities to fire.

    Reply
    • Stephens also says:

      “But one thing’s for certain – if we don’t actually address the fundamental aspects of this, which is actually the fuels and forest and restoration, it doesn’t matter how much money you put on the suppression side. We will never fix this problem unless we actually work to actually make our forests more in a condition to deal with fire and climate change. We have to get that work done.”

      I agree. If we don’t increase forest health and resilience, we’ll lose large areas of forest. That means reducing fuels and, in some cases, thinning, non-commercial and commercial.

      Reply
      • Yes, I saw that quote also Steve.

        Again, that quote makes zero mention of the fact that many forest and wildland ecosystems require—and evolved with—mixed- and high-severity fire. The truth is that many forest and wildland ecosystems in the American West “deal with fire” through mixed- and high-severity fire.

        Reply
        • Matthew, as you well know, lots of forests that evolved with fire are far out of step with the natural fire regimes. In addition, even forests that are still within the natural range of variation in the fire return interval will need some management so that they are more resilient to climate change — including federal forests. Yes, fire — even high-intensity fire — is important in some areas, but I think it is fair to say that we are experiencing far larger, more intense fires than is acceptable. More such fires are in the offing. I do not think we ought to step back and do nothing.

          Stephens: “So that just tells me that we have to get on the system to get this work in earnest. My estimate is we need to do 10 times more restoration thinning and prescribed burning to start to change the rudder of the ship.”

          Reply
  5. Many of the fuels in the Sierra Nevada last for 50 years, or more. The summers are so dry that dead trees don’t rot (very fast). We’ve seen what happens when such Sierra Nevada forests burn. We’ve seen Yosemite fires that kill 400 year old trees. Sadly, there is little human desire to mitigate the coming firestorms, significantly. It’s easier for Congress to buy new equipment, every few years. It makes some some great fundraising and campaign photo ops. Of course, we could always spend more money on ‘for-profit’ fire resources to fight fires for 3 months out of every year.

    But, making government bigger is, apparently, a worse disaster than firestorms. We need site-specific plans to mitigate these fires. Not a one-size-fits-all approach.

    Reply
  6. Anyone who wants to start on the “we need more high severity fire” trope ought to visit me in old Shasta county. Multiple 100,000 plus acre fires burning at high severity. Thousands of acres of conifer forest reverting to brush and hard woods. I think we’ve had enough high severity fire for a minute folks. Whatever the potential negatives on fuel treatments may be, I’ll take them over the massive erosion and regeneration issues we face when whole watersheds get torched at once.

    Reply
    • Hi Cameron, Realizing that soil burn severity doesn’t tell the entire story, and that one fire doesn’t tell the entire story, here are the BAER assessments for the 2000 August Complex fire.

      Reply
      • Howdy Matthew, the August did seem to have a decent amount of “good burning,” as in lower severity under burning which prepped a seed bed for residual trees. I’m talking about fires like the Carr, Delta, Hirz and Zogg. These ones had large patches which killed all the overstory conifers across a large portion of the landscape. Even if the soil wasn’t burned at a high severity, the seed source was removed and these forests are converting to brush and hardwoods. Its hard to find vegetative severity maps versus soil severity maps, but here’s one for Whiskeytown NRA: https://images.app.goo.gl/FRbGneQqNskeBoMm7. Hundreds of contiguous acres of mixed conifer forest burned here, and are likely to succeed to hardwoods or brush. The erosion issues are extreme as well.

        Reply
      • I would note soil burn severity is generally lower than burn severity. Many areas of stand replacing fire may only exhibit moderate soil burn severity. As such, the original BARC map or some other index like RAVG is a better index. There are exceptions to this of course.

        Reply
        • Thanks for the extra link Cameron and for your point Drew. Agree with you Drew, which I why I qualified the soil burn severity maps. If you can find links, or have access to other maps, please share them (or I’d gladly post them for you).

          Reply
  7. I have always had a hard time understanding why it better to burn up our remaining old growth forest than it is try and be proactive. It is like it ok to kill millions of trees, just so we don’t kill any trees through active management like logging.
    What I have been thinking about lately is that after decades of fire you would think the forest service would have plans on how to fight fires on a local level. I mean they should know all the road systems, all the previous constructed fire brakes, and the general fire behavior in a known watershed. They should be experts in the field by now and known exactly what to do when a fire breaks out. And I think that should include more than waiting a few days and calling up a team from another state who do not know the local terrain, printing up t shirts and passing out ice cream.
    Some of the last stands of Alaskan yellow cedar in the southern cascades are now endangered by the Jack fire. Does that matter?

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Matthew Koehler Cancel reply