Fire and Fuels

Disagreement About Fuel Treatment: Exhibit A?

by

Still More Agreement About Fuel Treatment: Conservation Colorado and former Secretary Zinke

Sharon said:

That’s why I’m thinking that finding some projects that entail:
1. FS clearcutting in California
2. Fuel treatments in backcountry
3. Fuel treatments taking out big fire-resilient (living?) trees

Would help us understand exactly what the issues are.

I think this project might be a good place to start:

Destructive wildfires along the California-Oregon border in recent years has the U.S. Forest Service pursuing projects to clear forests of burnt debris and trees that could feed future fires. One of those projects included selling the rights to log old-growth trees in Northern California, until a federal judge halted the timber sale on Friday.

Environmental groups asked a federal court to halt the Seaid-Horse timber sale in the Klamath National Forest. They say it would violate the Northwest Forest Plan by clear-cutting protected old-growth trees and harming Coho salmon.

Its purpose is: “Reduce safety hazards along roads & in concentrated stands, reduce fuels adjacent to private property, & to reduce the risk of future large-scale high severity fire losses of late successional habitat.”

So it’s got California, clearcutting, fuel treatment and big trees.  It’s also got wildlife issues, which is the other point of disagreement I suggested.  Maybe not back-country, but certainly not front-country – mid-country? 

It even comes with a spokesperson who is probably familiar with our questions:

Western Environmental Law Group attorney Susan Jane Brown says old-growth trees in Northern California provide a habitat for threatened species such as the northern spotted owl. They’re also the most resilient in enduring wildfires.

“We could agree that cutting small trees is a good thing to reduce fire risk, but when it comes to cutting very large, very old trees, that’s an entirely different matter,” Brown said.

 

 

Sierra Club Comments

by

I have seen a trend in postings from the Sierra Club, on their Facebook page. Online petitions have been popular with eco-groups but, those petitions really don’t do anything. They seem to be a way of riling up their followers, gathering personal information, and receiving donations. There is also a sizable amount of people commenting who do not side with the Sierra Club.

The particular posting I will be presenting regards the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and how the Trump Administration would affect it. The Sierra Club implies (and their public believes) that Trump would cut down the Giant Sequoia National Monument, without immediate action. With over 500 comments, there are ample examples of what people are thinking.

 

“So much of the redwoods and Giant Sequoias have already been cut down… the lumber trucks involved had signs which read ” Trees… America’s renewable resource”… and just exactly how to you “renew” a 2 thousand year old tree??? When a job becomes even remotely scarce, one must find a new occupation. Having cut down the redwoods,(RIP Pacific Lumber and the “Redwood Highway”) and when they’ve cut down the national forests (public lands), are “they” going to insist on the right to come onto my land and cut down my trees as well… to provide jobs for the lumber industry? The National forests and Monuments are public lands, and no one has the right to turn them over to private interests for money making purposes. When are they going to see that there is a higher calling here? The forests provide for much of the fresh air we enjoy… they take in the carbon monoxide we exhale, and they exhale the oxygen so necessary to us. They each also take up 300 gallons of water, so provide for erosion control, and I could go on forever with the benefits of trees… but there will still be short sighted detractors who are only able to see the dollar signs in this issue. If providing jobs is the object… bring back our manufacturing jobs from overseas, all you big companies… your bottom line profit will be less, but you will have brought back the jobs to the USA, and you claim that is the object…???? Investing in the big companies in order to get rich does not make the investing noble or honorable when it is condoning taking jobs off-shore to enrich the few. … at the cost of the lost jobs for our people. Love your neighbor..”

I think that statement speaks for itself. Well-meaning but, misinformed.

 

“Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Keep loggers out of National Giant Sequoia Forests. Forest rangers and the National Parks already do controlled burning when needed to protect forest ecosystem health. The idea that commerical logging companies can be trusted with that task is preposterous.”

I wonder if he had noticed all those dead trees inside the Monument. Another example of not knowing who is taking care of the Monument.

 

“No such thing as controlled logging look at the clear cut coast. Once you let them in they will take it all and say Oops. A long time ago Pacific lumber clear cut thousands of acres illegally and Department of forestry did nothing. Things have not changed.”

Yes, things have changed. Logging IS controlled in Sierra Nevada National Forests… for the last 26 years.

 

“Destroying over 200k acres of sequoias and leaving ONLY 90k acres is NOT “CONTROLLED LOGGING “. OUR planet needs trees to produce oxygen and just how long do you think those jobs will last?”

Someone thinks there is a HUGE chunk of pristine pure Giant Sequoia groves. Thinning forests is not destruction, folks.

 

“I went to sign this and put my address and what not but then I skipped over my phone number and it won’t let me sign it! Unless you give your phone number it’s not going to San. I will not give out my phone number. Is there another way to sign for this?”

There were many comments like this one.

 

“They are both classified under same genisus of Sequoia, It’s their enviroment that makes them different. The Redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) along N Cal coastline and then the Sequoias trees (Sequoiadendron giganteum) found in the Sierra Nevadas mountain regions are the same yet very different trees because of the chactoristics. Both trees share their unique and acceptional height and massive girth size, they share the same red wood tones.”

Someone thinks they are an authority in tree Taxonomy.

 

“As someone who works in timber, don’t blame it on us! Many foresters care about sustainable forestry. I hate Donald Trump just as much as anyone who cares about the environment”

Well, that is sure saying something, eh?

 

“The forests are being burned down by all these un-natural wild fires that are created by the powers that be to carry out agenda 21/30. It’s not a secret but most people don’t want to see it & the common mentality is if we don’t see it, or address it, it will go away. Right?”

There’s more and more loonies out there saying this stuff, and blaming “Directed Energy Weapons” for starting all the wildfires.

 

“There will be no more forest in America, it will be a big cacino and golf courses.”

And there’s other conspiracy theories out there, too!

 

“The most deushiest thing ever! Poor Trees “

People do believe that Trump would clearcut the Giant Sequoias.

 

“Oh yes look what tree hungers did to Oregon”

I love a well-mispelled insult!

 

“No More RAPE AND MURDER OF OUR TREES”

I wonder what real violent crime victims think of this comparison. Should we let those trees be horribly burned alive, or eaten by insects, resulting in a long and slow starvation death? *smirk*

 

“Wth…. He truely is satin”

Soooo smoooooth!

 

“Drop big rocks on their heads. Something like Ewoks from Return of the Jedi all those years ago. Ewoks were “original” monkey wrenchers.”

That’s a lovely solution! Violence will fix everything!

 

“I think you could stand to be a bit less adversarial in your comments. Oil has nothing to do with this subject and devalues your argument. There is no reason why the land cannot be managed without giving it away to unregulated for-profit companies. That is the right answer.”

Yep, there just might be oil underneath those giant trees. Yep, gotta cut em all down to make sure! Misguided but, kinda, sorta, on the right path.

 

“The devil could burn it all down there because most of the state is so ungodly. Trump isn’t your problem. Godlessness and son keeps your minds and state in a state of anarchy. Poor people. I will keep praying you will find out that you all need to pray to the living God.”

Yep, because…. ummm, …. God recognizes where California’s boundaries are???!!??

 

“Try direct energy weapons”

Certainly, the Reptilians and Nibiru are to blame, fer sure, fer sure.

 

“Because of Monoculture”

Blame the old clearcuts!

 

“Anyone cutting a tree should be SHOT!!!!”

And another violent solution.

 

“The lumbar goes to China and else where, not used used in USA, great loose loose thing.the logs get shipped out of country destroys old growth forest well some one will make $$$$$ of it but it won’t be you”

Dumb, dumb!

 

“Its not about forest management its about trumps business buddies being allowed to buy the land and develop it”

And even another conspiracy theory. People love to say “I wouldn’t put it past him” when promoting such stuff.

This American mindset, on a world stage, is troubling. People proudly display their ignorance and stupidity to fight a non-existent issue. America doesn’t believe the truth anymore, and the Sierra Club, and others, are spreading misinformation through phony petitions.

 

 

Still More Agreement About Fuel Treatment: Conservation Colorado and former Secretary Zinke

by

In this article from Colorado Politics, Joey Bunch, a political reporter, talks about a press conference after Trump’s “raking the forest” comment.

“Yes, the temperatures are getting hotter, the seasons longer,” Zinke said. “But there are active forest management principles we need to go forward on. One is to remove the dead and dying trees, to thin, to do prescribed burns late in the season rather than mid-season.”
Both secretaries said the Trump administration needed more authority from Congress to get ahead of fires by expanding “good neighbor” programs with local governments, expanding the fight against diseases and insects and managing funding better.

Bunch spoke with Scott Braden, the wilderness advocate for Conservation Colorado, the state’s largest environmental organization, who talked about points of agreement with Zinke.

He and Zinke had points of agreement, however. The landscape is increasingly dry, they said, and a century of fire suppression has built up a powder keg of brush and weeks awaiting their spark.

Braden went farther: Building houses and communities in these vulnerable places worsens the risks and raises the cost of solutions.

“Pretty simple,” he responded in an email when I asked his opinion. “Solutions, less so.

“We need to build smarter, fire-resilient communities where vulnerable (hello, Woodland Park, the next Paradise), address climate and reduce fuels (prescribed burns, not fighting every fire, thinning and fuels reduction, which is not the same as logging all the big trees; the big trees are the fire-resilient ones you want to leave).”

Thinking about our previous discussion about California, it seems like the difference between Colorado and California is that we think -if people would actually buy thinned material, that would be a good thing, so we don’t have to burn it. And dead trees are not particularly “fire resilient” and we have lots of those. Perhaps superstitiously, I would prefer if Braden hadn’t targeted my neighbors as “the next Paradise.” Especially since they have been leaders in community fire efforts.

The summary from Bunch: Again, it sounded like the two sides, at least in rhetoric, aren’t that far apart about tackling the symptoms, even as they differ on the cause. “We’ve talked about active forest management for a long time,” Zinke said. “The talking is over. Now it’s time to act.”

That sounds like, “Grab a rake, Colorado.”

We have one more type of straw project to add to the list:
1. FS clearcutting in California
2. Fuel treatments in backcountry
3. Fuel treatments taking out big fire-resilient (living?) trees

So the only thing this Administration and this environmental group disagree about is their approach to climate change mitigation? That seems to leave lots of opportunities for agreeing on priorities and on-the-ground community planning, fuel treatment and prescribed fire and all the rest of it. It would turn out that we’re all in agreement- and what’s wrong with (admitting) that?

Clearcutting and Fuel Treatment in California: Do the CFA and the Sierra Club Agree?

by

In reading the press about wildfires in California, I took notice of whom was quoted about what. Of all of the stories, I found this one particularly interesting and different in terms of the people interviewed. Jeff Daniels, a CNBC reporter, interviewed the head of the California Forestry Association and a representative from the Sierra Club. Now, you would expect them to have different views on mechanical fuel treatments- but perhaps not so much.

“The industry is certainly prepared to assist and encourage and support the thinning of our forests,” said Gordon. “We can actually have more resilient, fire resistant forests if we thin them a little bit.”
Wood agrees that the selective removal of trees to reduce fuels and a more robust timber strategy in the state “can be a piece of the puzzle” to reduce the fire risk.

Note that Gordon does not say that we can “log our way out of having fires”- he says it’s a “piece of the puzzle to reduce fire risk.” Here’s what he has to say about clearcutting:

Gordon, the trade group’s CEO, insists the industry isn’t pushing for more clear-cutting of forested lands — a practice the Sierra Club opposes. Rather, he said, the industry advocates “selectively removing smaller trees on a landscape so that the bigger trees (which are more resilient to fire and store more carbon) can survive and do better.”

So it sounds like CFA is in agreement with the Sierra Club. Here’s what a representative of the Sierra Club said:

Kathryn Phillips, director of the Sierra Club California, said the environmental group is not opposed to what she calls “selective logging and those sort of things. We’re opposed to going in and unnecessarily disrupting the environment and doing forest management practices that will lead to worse fires, and some forest practices do.”

She said the practice of clear-cutting and planting trees all at the same time creates added risk for the forest because “you don’t have diversity. That makes them more susceptible to fires. Older trees tend to burn less and slower. So you want to have a lot of diversity.”

So CFA and the Sierra Club are in agreement? Of course, Phillips might be talking about private lands. And I don’t think that the FS has been doing clearcuts for some time.. so..

One thing that I wondered about is whether the Sierra Club has changed its mind about “logging in the National Forests”. Some of us remember about 25 years ago, when that one of their positions (here’s one story about it). Did they change their minds about selling trees from federal forests sometime in the last 25 years? Was there an announcement?

If the Sierra Club and CFA have the same point of view, then, where is the conflict? Does someone know of a specific recent fuel reduction project in the National Forests of California that the Sierra Club was opposed to and why?

Shutdown, Wildfire Suppression Prep and Thinning and Prescribed Burns- Western Senators’ Letter

by

Once again, I have to say that I am totally against shutting down government as a policy tactic.  I think it’s interesting to watch who calls out which negative effects (e.g., National Parks, wildfire suppression).

There are slightly different versions of this AP story in different places.  Here is the one from Colorado Politics. The basic story is that Democratic western senators wrote a letter to President Trump pointing out the negative effects of the federal shutdown on fire preparedness.

Conservationists and fire managers say there are other concerns.

Clearing and thinning projects and planned burns on federal land that could lessen fire danger by weeding out flammable debris also are largely on hold in California, Oregon and elsewhere. Private contractors say they have received letters telling them to stop the work.

There’s already a backlog of such projects in federal forests in Oregon and Northern California, said Michael Wheelock, president of Grayback, a private contractor in Grants Pass, Oregon.

Intentional fires can only be set in a narrow winter window before temperatures and humidity falls — and that is rapidly closing, Wheelock said.

“Every week that goes by, it’s going to start increasing the impact,” he said.

Notice that in this version “conservationists” are included in those who want “clearing and thinning projects and planned burns.”

Yet the actual letter by the Senators did not mention those activities specifically.

Beyond the significant implications of halting firefighter training and recertification efforts, the shutdown is also delaying critical forest health projects across the country. Press reports indicate that hazard tree removal, pile burning, and other important forest restoration activities are on hold indefinitely. By stopping these important forest management activities, during the very winter months when it is safest to carry many of them out, you are needlessly putting people and rural forested communities at risk.

(My bold) For those of us who talk about this all the time, hazard tree removal is not the same thing as thinning, and pile burning is not the same as prescribed burning. Was this just an inexperienced staffer who wrote the letter, or a careful parsing of words? Or would it not be OK to say that efforts to reduce thinning and prescribed burning are “needlessly putting people and rural forested communities at risk?” Are western Democratic elected officials in an awkward spot? Would they have to support “thinning without logging” or “burn piles, don’t use the wood” to not put “forested communities at risk” and also satisfy their environmental group supporters who are against selling thinned trees?

Let’s Identify and Discuss Some Specific Projects- Fuel Treatments “Miles Away” From Infrastructure

by

A number of years ago, before I graduated from the Forest Service, our Regional Forester invited some academics from the University of Colorado at Boulder to talk to us. There was a fairly large groups of Regional Office specialists at the meeting (including our Regional Fuels Specialist, wildlife, fish, ecologists and so on.).  I do remember the professors kept telling us that logging in the backcountry was not necessary for fuel treatments to protect communities.  We found ourselves in agreement (of course there are many definitions of WUI and backcountry) and said “but we’re not doing that.” But it was like information only went one way.. from them to us.  My hypothesis is that teachers are sometimes not used to being challenged by people who know the same, or more, about a topic.  Of course, I wanted to ask them to cite evidence for their claims, but in the context of the meeting that was considered to be – I guess- inhospitable or inappropriate.   The underlying fear, I believe, by FS folks was, that if challenged, even in the most gentle way (I thought I was gentle, anyway), they might become even more outspoken about us in a negative way. I don’t know if that was true and suspect that they might have enjoyed an intellectual free-for-all.

Nevertheless, here we are, years later, and Matthew has brought up a related concept.. “protecting homes and communities from wildfire does not include logging miles away from the homes and communities.” This sounds a lot like what those professors from CU told us years ago. But since then I realized that the professors framed fuel treatments as only being about homes and communities. I know, Denver Water headquarters is not that far from Boulder, but I don’t know that the circles ever crossed.

Denver Water, for example, does not want wildfires costing them large amounts of money in sediment removal.

At the EADM workshop for Region 2, power line folks were represented. They were looking for coordinated NEPA approaches to do vegetation management around their power lines.  Are there power lines in the “backcountry” or does the existence of power lines make it “not backcountry”?

So fuel treatments may be desirable to protect infrastructure besides home and communities. And where is that infrastructure located? Are we just talking past each other when some say “homes and communities” and others say “protecting water supplies” or “power lines”? Do different parts of the country have different infrastructure concerns that drive the way this discussion gets framed? Should someone (??) organize field trips so that people can see the same projects and discuss them?

I think to really understand each others’ points of view, we would need to find some examples of “logging miles away from communities” or “logging in the backcountry” and see 1) if fuel treatment was in the purpose and need and 2) specifically what infrastructure the treatments were intended to protect (what we might call “protection targets”.

Based on Dr. Mark Finney’s work, it can be “science-based management” to do treatments that are further away from specific protection targets based on the model. So it would be interesting if that science (on Strategically Placed Landscape Treatments)  is currently being used, and how far those treatments are from protection targets. Here are the links to two posts  one on Finney’s work and its application in the Sierra Nevada in California.

Here’s a link to the Forests to Faucets YouTube video in the image above.

 

Another Piece of the Executive Order Puzzle- WGA MOU with Forest Service

by

 

So far this week. we’ve had (1) the Executive Order by President Trump posted by Jon dated Dec. 21, (2) the Letter by Governors Inslee, Newsom, and Brown dated January 9th that Steve posted here.  But another similar sounding piece of information is an MOU that was signed by the Western Governors Association Dec. 18th.  IMHO, the Western Governors always seem to be working on useful things, but generally don’t  seem to get much coverage in the media.  Anyway, here’s the MOU.  Sounds like everyone’s in agreement about what needs to be done. Maybe Inslee, Newsom and Brown are trying to get to the head of other western states’ funding pack? Or there’s some political angle that is not obvious (at least to me).

 

The purpose of this MOU is to establish a framework to allow the Forest Service and WGA to work collaboratively to accomplish mutual goals, further common interests, and effectively respond to the increasing suite of challenges facing western landscapes. Federal, state and private managers of forests and rangelands face a range of urgent challenges, among them catastrophic wildfires, invasive species, degraded watersheds, and epidemics of insects and disease. The conditions fueling these circumstances are not improving. Of particular concern, are longer fire seasons, the rising size and severity of wildfires, and the expanding risk to communities, natural resources, and firefighters. To address these issues, the Forest Service announced a new strategy outlining plans to work more closely with states to identify landscape-scale priorities for targeted treatments in areas with the highest payoffs.

The Forest Service will partner with state leaders and work shoulder-to-shoulder to co­-manage risks, and identify land management priorities, using all available tools to reduce hazardous fuels, including mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, and management of unplanned fire in the right place at the right time, to mitigate them.

A key component of the Forest Service’s new shared stewardship strategy is to prioritize investment decisions on forest treatments-in direct coordination with states-using the most advanced science tools to increase the scope and scale of critical forest treatments that protect communities and create resilient forests and rangelands.

As the chief elected officials of states, Governors expect to engage with federal officials on the formulation and execution of public policy. Governors also have specialized knowledge of their states’ environments, resources, laws, culture, and economies that is essential to informed federal decision-making. By operating as authentic collaborators, the states and federal government can improve their service to the public by creating more efficient, effective, and long-lasting policy.

As far as I can tell, there is not another similar MOU with Interior.

Another WGA item of note:

Initiation of Collaborative Conservation Task Force (Dec. 2018)

 

 

Letter to President Trump from Govs. Newsom, Brown, and Inslee

by

Letter to President Trump from Govs. Newsom, Brown, and Inslee regarding forest management:

 

January 8, 2019

President Donald J. Trump

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing to request increased cooperation as our respective states endure more frequent and devastating wildfires with every passing year. The federal government is a major landowner and a critical partner in preventing, fighting, and recovering from wildfires. As we look ahead to the beginning of another fire season in just a few months, we respectfully request immediate attention and increased efforts to responsibly manage the lands owned by federal agencies in our states.

Specifically, we request that you direct the Department of Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Forest Service to double the investment made in managing federal forestlands in California, Washington, and Oregon. In recent years, federal forest management budgets have remained flat, creating a significant gap between funding and need.

Immediate progress can be made by prioritizing funding for projects that have already received environmental review and ensuring that progress is made before summer begins and fire danger increases significantly. Additionally, we request that you prioritize projects adjacent to each of our states’ priority areas so we can create synergy between state and federal wildland management efforts.

We are encouraged by Executive Order 13855, which you signed on December 21, 2018, promoting active management of America’s forest, rangelands and other federal lands to improve conditions and reduce wildfire risk. However, it is constrained by current appropriations. We all must acknowledge that without significant additional federal investment, these partnerships have too little impact on changing the catastrophic reality of wildfire season on the West Coast.

We stand ready for partnership. Over the past decade our states have partnered with federal agencies to prioritize resilience to wildfire through the Memorandum of Understanding between the Western Governors’ Association and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, and Good Neighbor Authority. We also look forward to working together on the Secretary of Agriculture’s new initiative, Shared Stewardship.

Our states have invested heavily in managing our own wildlands, working with private landowners to fire-harden communities, and enhancing our response capabilities. California has committed to a five-year, $1 billion forest management plan, and has already invested $111.3

million on forest health since 2017, of which 49 percent was spent on managing federally owned land, while the state doubled the size of its actively managed lands to half a million acres. For this coming biennium, Washington’s budget will exceed $85 million to address forest health, wildland fire projects and suppression, and we expect this number will continue to grow in future biennia. And in Oregon, annual fire-fighting costs have skyrocketed. Since the signing of the state’s Good Neighbor Authority Master Agreement in 2016, roughly $4 million is invested each biennium in accelerating the pace and scale of restoration on federal forest lands.

We are doing what is needed to mitigate fire danger within our own borders. In each of our states, we are adding more and year-round fire crews to acknowledge the reality that fire season no longer lasts just six months. We are investing in cutting-edge technology to detect and fight fires, and we are pioneering new strategies for large-scale forest management projects.

In contrast to all of our state efforts, the U.S. Forest Service has seen its budget cut by more than $2 billion since 2016.

Our significant state-level efforts will not be as effective without a similar commitment to increased wildland management by you, our federal partners. Since 2017, fires on federally owned lands burned a significantly larger footprint than fires on state-owned lands in California and Oregon. The same is true in Washington, where over 500 fires on federal lands burned more than 150,000 acres during the 2018 fire season.

The stark reality we now face is a longer fire season, driven by multi-year droughts and higher than average temperatures, creating extreme tinderbox conditions across the West Coast. While the up-front costs of responsible lands management create budget pressures, they pale in comparison to the longer-term human and financial costs of doing too little.

Mr. President, public safety is our most important shared responsibility. We hope that the next several months will demonstrate that our governments, in cooperation with federal agencies, can ma rially improve safety conditions for our residents as the threat of wildfire continues to increase.

<< END >>

Trump issues orders to the Forest Service

by

In case you missed it, on December 21, President Trump issued an executive order: “EO on Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and other Federal Lands to Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk.”  This should answer all of our questions about what the agency’s priorities are for the duration of his administration.  It’s a short read, but here’s my take.

The problem: ” For decades, dense trees and undergrowth have amassed in these lands, fueling catastrophic wildfires.”   (No mention of climate change of course.)

The cause:  “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements. In addition, land designations and policies can reduce emergency responder access to Federal land and restrict management practices that can promote wildfire-resistant landscapes.”  (In other words, the laws and the public.)

The solution:  “Post-fire assessments show that reducing vegetation through hazardous fuel management and strategic forest health treatments is effective in reducing wildfire severity and loss.” “To protect communities and watersheds, to better prevent catastrophic wildfires, and to improve the health of America’s forests, rangelands, and other Federal lands, the Secretaries shall each develop goals and implementation plans for wildfire prevention activities and programs in their respective departments.”  This includes, “Reducing vegetation giving rise to wildfire conditions through forest health treatments by increasing health treatments as part of USDA’s offering for sale at least 3.8 billion board feet of timber from USDA FS lands…,” and, “the Secretaries shall identify salvage and log recovery options from lands damaged by fire during the 2017 and 2018 fire seasons, insects, or disease.”  (I’m looking forward to a definition of “health treatments” so that we can tell if they are increasing that share of the volume targets.)

The EO “promotes” this solution by calling for the kind of coordination, streamlining and speeding up the legally required processes that has been ongoing in the agency, and for a new “wildfire strategy” by the end of the Trump Administration.  For the most part it sounds to me like the traditional charge of “cut corners to get the cut out” “consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.” That last part usually doesn’t seem to get the same priority, which typically leads to more litigation.  Interesting that there is no mention of the wildland urban interface (which is where pretty much everyone agrees should be the priority).

Producing the wildfire strategy does include a requirement to “Review land designations and policies that may limit active forest management and increase the risk of catastrophic wildfires…”  That seems to implicate forest plans, but it doesn’t suggest changing them, and if there are such limits they are probably there for a good, publicly supported reason.

Oh, and no mention of science.

Zinke.. Why Such a Lightning Rod?: Or, Sometimes He’s Not Quite Wrong I.

by
Former Interior Secretary Zinke

I think former Interior Secretary Zinke was definitely a lightning rod for many folks. We don’t know why, nor if the new Secretary be equally controversial. Looking back, we can ask questions like “why him? and why not Secretary Perdue?”. Part of it may well be his personality (which I don’t actually know), but plenty of politicians can be irritating.  My biases and personal experience would tend to be along the lines of “Congressfolk aren’t necessarily good at governing, more at playing partisan football.”

So let’s talk about four things he’s said that people disagree with (two in this post):

  1. Fires and Climate

From a story in The Hill here: “It doesn’t matter whether you believe or don’t believe in climate change. What is important is we manage our forests,” Zinke told reporters while visiting the Whisteytown National Recreation Area on Sunday. “This is not a debate about climate change. There’s no doubt the [fire] season is getting longer, the temperatures are getting hotter.” (I think it’s Whiskeytown, but the Hill spelled it that way).

I was mildly surprised when I read this article because the top quote was “I’ve heard the climate change argument back and forth. This has nothing to do with climate change. This has to do with active forest management,” Zinke told Sacramento station KCRA.

(my italics). So in two sentences he said 1) fire season is getting longer and temps hotter so yes to climate change but 2)  framing this debate as being about climate change does not help people managing fires deal with them.

I agree with 2) . We can’t throw up our hands and say “let’s not do fuel treatments, we just need to stop putting carbon in the atmosphere”. Because we had fires before climate change, and we’ll have fires after climate change. Not only that, but as the IPCC says, it’s unlikely that we will be as successful as we would like in the short run. So we’re stuck with this problem either way. No matter how complicated pundits or academics try to make this, the records show that this is, was, and will be fire country.

So I would say, climate is part of the problem, but only part, and we honestly can’t say how big a part. What we do know is what we can do to help the wildfire problem (many things).

2. Role of Litigation

This is probably the least popular in many circles:

From CNN Politics here “lawsuit after lawsuit by, yes, the radical environmental groups that would rather burn down the entire forest than cut a single tree or thin the forest.” Remember, Zinke is from Montana, where in fact a high proportion of appeals and litigation occur. So I certainly can understand how he would get that impression (for some reason, it seems like passions run higher in Montana about the same issues that other western states deal with). According to some folks in California, not only litigation, appeals and objections, but also fear of litigation, appeals and objections have made some  FS folks less enthusiastic about doing fuel treatments or other vegetation management.  Litigation is indeed one element of not being able to do fuel treatments (in addition to lack of money and lack of trained people).

Here are more quotes from the same article,

“This is where America stands. It’s not time for finger-pointing. We know the problem: it’s been years of neglect, and in many cases, it’s been these radical environmentalists that want nature to take its course,” Zinke said in the Sunday interview. “We have dead and dying timber. We can manage it using best science, best practices. But to let this devastation go on year after year after year is unacceptable.”

Interestingly, Perdue is also quoted:

His colleague in federal land management, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, spoke instead of misguided efforts of “well-meaning environmentalists.” “If not doing anything to the forests kept them pristine, I’d be all for that. That’s the problem,” Perdue said on the call with reporters. “That’s been the theory from well-meaning environmentalists over the years, is that a forest that you did nothing to was pristine. We know that’s not to be the case.”
Zinke went on Breitbart, which conceivably he didn’t have to, and has more colorful/inflammatory language. Personality or history as Congressperson?  And perhaps oddly, the CNN story ended with a quote from Chad Hanson saying that the “science shows” that fuel treatments that involve logging don’t work. As we’ve seen, the contrary scientific evidence is vast (not to speak of practitioner evidence). The CNN article also notes that Hanson is also a Director of the Sierra Club, but it looks like this is outdated information (see here).