Steve Wilent

Fire and forests folks, this collection of papers probably has something for every one of us:

Proceedings of the fifth international symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: ecosystem services and wildfires

For example, “Do Fuel Treatments Reduce Wildfire Suppression Costs and Property Damages? Analysis of Suppression Costs and Property Damages in U.S. National Forests.” Abstract:

This paper reports the results of two hypotheses tests regarding whether fuel reduction treatments using prescribed burning and mechanical methods reduces wildfire suppression costs and property damages. To test these two hypotheses data was collected on fuel treatments, fire suppression costs and property damages associated with wildfires on United States National Forests over a five year period. Results of the multiple regressions show that only in California did mechanical fuel treatment reduce wildfire suppression costs. However, the results of our second hypothesis tests that fuel treatments, by making wildfires less damaging and easier to control, may reduce property damages (i.e., structures—barns, out buildings, etc. and residences lost) seems to be confirmed for acres treated with prescribed burning. In three out of the three geographic regions of the U.S. which experienced significant property losses, prescribed burning lowered the number of structures damaged by wildfire.

Bill Gabbert at Wildfire Today posted a few clips from C-Span coverage of Chief Vicki Christiansen’s testimony yesterday before the Senate Appropriations’ Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies subcommittee, (May 15, 2019). In this clip, she answers a question from Sen. Steve Daines on Montana, about creating fuel breaks along USFS roads, esp. in or near WUI zones. Her answer: Yes.

The brief clip is worth a look and listen, but the first thing I noticed is that, of 11 of the 12 seats for subcommittee members that are visible in the opening scene, only one is filled (by Daines). Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was there — she chaired hearing — and Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) attended, but they are off camera.

Here’s a relatively balanced news report (video): Chad Hansen is balanced by a USFS district ranger, though Hansen gets more screen time. The “investigative report” focuses on salvage logging, and ties the Camp Fire to past USFS salvaging from a fire 10 years ago. I don’t think it’s so simple — I’ll wait for a detailed report on the conditions that existed before and during the fire.

Who are the 300 scientists? The story doesn’t explain. They may be the ones who signed a letter last year against salvaging.

Federal Govt. Blamed for Faster, More Destructive Wildfires

According to Greenwire today — full text is here. I would have kept the mission statement, or added the new text to it.

Some of the Trump administration’s sharpest critics are crying foul after the Bureau of Land Management excised boilerplate language from its news releases that describes the bureau’s mission as helping conserve public lands for future generations.

Specifically, BLM removed this sentence: “The agency’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

Instead, the boilerplate states the number of acres of federal lands it manages, including 700 million acres of mineral estate.

“Diverse activities authorized on these lands generated $96 billion in sales of goods and services throughout the American economy in fiscal year 2017,” it states. “These activities supported more than 468,000 jobs.”

The original standard language, almost word for word, was still included in the “Our Mission” section of BLM’s website this morning. That section also included a “vision” statement listing the bureau’s goal of enhancing “the quality of life for all citizens through the balanced stewardship of America’s public lands and resources.”

That’s the title of the article as republished in High Country News. It originally appeared on The Conversation with this headline: “Planned burns can reduce wildfire risks, but expanding use of ‘good fire’ isn’t easy.” The article is aimed at the general public, but some passages are interesting to forest-management geeks like us. Lots of links to sources.

In our research on forest restoration efforts, we have found that some national policies are supporting larger-scale restoration planning and project work, such as tree thinning. But even where federal land managers and community partners are getting thinning accomplished and agree that burning is a priority, it has been hard to get more “good fire” on the ground.
…

As one land manager told us, “The law doesn’t necessarily impede prescribed burning so much as some of the more practical realities on the ground. You don’t have enough money, you don’t have enough people, or there’s too much fire danger” to pull off the burning.

In particular, fire managers said they needed adequate funding, strong government leadership and more people with expertise to conduct these operations. A major challenge is that qualified personnel are increasingly in demand for longer and more severe fire seasons, making them unavailable to help with planned burns when opportunities arise. Going forward, it will be particularly important to provide support for locations where partners and land managers have built agreement about the need for prescribed fire.

Abstract from a new paper in Ecosphere, “The missing fire: quantifying human exclusion of wildfire in Pacific Northwest forests, USA.” Full text is online, free:

Western U.S. wildfire area burned has increased dramatically over the last half‐century. How contemporary extent and severity of wildfires compare to the pre‐settlement patterns to which ecosystems are adapted is debated. We compared large wildfires in Pacific Northwest forests from 1984 to 2015 to modeled historic fire regimes. Despite late twentieth‐century increases in area burned, we show that Pacific Northwest forests have experienced an order of magnitude less fire over 32 yr than expected under historic fire regimes. Within fires that have burned, severity distributions are disconnected from historical references. From 1984 to 2015, 1.6 M ha burned; this is 13.3–18.9 M ha less than expected. Deficits were greatest in dry forest ecosystems adapted to frequent, low‐severity fire, where 7.2–10.3 M ha of low‐severity fire was missing, compared to a 0.2–1.1 M ha deficit of high‐severity fire. When these dry forests do burn, we observed that 36% burned with high‐severity compared to 6–9% historically. We found smaller fire deficits, 0.3–0.6 M ha, within forest ecosystems adapted to infrequent, high‐severity fire. However, we also acknowledge inherent limitations in evaluating contemporary fire regimes in ecosystems which historically burned infrequently and for which fires were highly episodic. The magnitude of contemporary fire deficits and disconnect in burn severity compared to historic fire regimes have important implications for climate change adaptation. Within forests characterized by low‐ and mixed‐severity historic fire regimes, simply increasing wildfire extent while maintaining current trends in burn severity threatens ecosystem resilience and will potentially drive undesirable ecosystem transformations. Restoring natural fire regimes requires management that facilitates much more low‐ and moderate‐severity fire.

IMHO, Restoring the historic role of fire will require prior mechanical fuels reduction in many areas where fuel loads are higher than historically. That means commercial and non-commercial harvesting, and paying for it, and that spells controversy.

WaPo article via SF Chronicle…. No, not The Onion.

USDA orders scientists to say published research is ‘preliminary’

Ben Guarino, The Washington Post Published 9:30 am PDT, Friday, April 19, 2019

Researchers at the Agriculture Department laughed in disbelief last summer when they received a memo about a new requirement: Their finalized, peer-reviewed scientific publications must be labeled “preliminary.”

The July 2018 memo from Chavonda Jacobs-Young, the acting USDA chief scientist, told researchers their reports published in scientific journals must include a statement that reads: “The findings and conclusions in this preliminary publication have not been formally disseminated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.” A copy of the memo was obtained by The Washington Post and the USDA confirmed its authenticity.

Interesting lecture coming up. If anyone here can go, please post a report on what you see and hear.

Restoring pattern to frequent fire forests with variable-density thinning: implementation and initial outcomes

Thursday, May 2, 2019
1:00 PM 2:00 PM

University of California-Davis Asmundson Hall “Big Hannah” (Room 242) Davis, CA

In the abstract for the lecture, I highlighted text that demonstrates the outcomes of such thinning. These treatments are needed throughout the west, including spotted owl habitat. I am mystified why anyone would oppose such management and claim it is “industrial logging” designed to line the coffers of timber companies.

Abstract: Historical forests shaped by fire were highly heterogeneous at the within-stand scale, with dense groups of trees and individual trees interspersed with numerous small gaps. Stem maps from research plots on the Stanislaus National Forest dating to 1929 show that prior to any logging, canopy cover was 45% and over 20% of the area within stands was in canopy gaps where shrubs were abundant. As a result of past logging and fire exclusion, the contemporary stands were denser and more homogeneous, with no gaps and very low shrub cover. To improve resilience to disturbances such as wildfire or drought, while better balancing the needs of associated plant and animal species, we utilized the historical structure as a guide to a ‘variable density’ thinning prescription, comparing this with a standard thinning to an even tree crown spacing, and an unthinned control. Half of the units were then treated with prescribed fire. Mechanical thinning removed 40% of the basal area, and by favoring pines over fir and cedar, produced a species composition similar to the historical reference condition. Variable thinning enhanced within-stand structural heterogeneity and did so at spatial scales similar to heterogeneity found in historical stands. Both thinning treatments experienced significantly less tree mortality during the recent drought than unthinned controls. In addition, understory shrubs and grasses are already much more abundant, especially where thinning was followed by prescribed fire. While still early, it is our hope that the variable density thinning with prescribed fire treatment will not only be more resilient to future wildfires and droughts, but also produce conditions suitable for a greater diversity of species. [emphasis added]

Greenwire today: “Efforts to clear fire-prone Calif. forests face hurdles.” Excerpt:

Forest treatment projects must obtain approvals under the California Environmental Quality Act. Butte County Fire Safe Council Executive Director Calli-Jane DeAnda said the environmental review process typically uses up 10 to 15 percent of grant funds local fire agencies receive for forest management projects. The reviews can take years.

The state has been working since 2010 on an environmental impact report that would cover all vegetation treatments in California under one overarching environmental document. It would identify environmentally sound processes for various natural landscapes. Then, if a project were proposed that met the guidelines for its landscape, it could be approved through a “checklist scenario,” according to Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Executive Officer Matt Dias.

Some projects wouldn’t fit the template, he said, and would require more review, but the idea would be to get projects approved and moving forward in a matter of weeks instead of years. A goal has been set to complete the document by the end of the year.

Maybe we need a western US EIS for fuels management projects on federal lands.

Letter of resignation from Battalion Chief (District AFMO) on the Kern River Ranger District of the Sequoia NF in the Pacific Southwest Region.

E&E Daily has an article on this today: “Forest Service’s sexual harassment plan: Ban alcohol.” Mentions the letter.