Fire and Fuels

Lawsuit will question fuel breaks

by

The Los Padres National Forest has proposed the Santa Barbara Mountain Communities Defense Zone Project.

“The desired condition for chaparral is to establish a diversity of shrub age classes in key areas near communities to improve the effectiveness of fire suppression operations. Adequate defensible space around communities could greatly reduce the risk of structure loss, as well as improve safety for residents. Thus, at the urban interface there will be a management emphasis on direct community protection. This could be accomplished in at least two ways: (1) by removing or heavily modifying shrublands immediately adjacent to populated areas (Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zones); and (2) by strategically creating blocks of young, less flammable vegetation near the interface areas. Both types of fuels modification could slow or even halt the rate of fire spread into urban areas.”

Two conservation organizations have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court “to protect fragile habitat and rare species in the path of a massive, remote fuel break recently approved in the Los Padres National Forest.”  According to this article, “The suit is also an effort to encourage the Los Padres National Forest to focus on reducing fire risk where it matters most, directly in and around communities.”   Interestingly, the Forest Service used a categorical exclusion from NEPA, which suggests that they think there is no scientific controversy about the effects of fire breaks that are beyond the area needed for defensible space.  I’d like to see a court weigh in on this, and how far away “near” and “remote” are, but it might just decide that a CE for “timber stand improvement” can’t be used where there is no timber.

Women in Fire- Still Plugging Away After 40 Years

by

 

Despite the rain, participants in the first female wildfire training program gather outside to take a group photo at a Whiskeytown training camp on Oct. 27. (Tauhid Chappell/The Washington Post)
Despite the rain, participants in the first female wildfire training program gather outside to take a group photo at a Whiskeytown training camp on Oct. 27. (Tauhid Chappell/The Washington Post)

Interesting article here in the Washington Post about women in fire..with video.

“ I know a lot of women who have left fire because they did not feel supported or felt there was no room for them to grow,” Sauerbrey said. “It’s sad for me to see women who have that desire who don’t continue because of the culture. It’s hard to describe the passion people have for this job. There’s no other job I’d rather be in.”

WTREX, or Women-in-Fire Training Exchange, electrified female firefighters when it was announced. Ninety people from the United States and abroad applied for the 10-day training, and fewer than half were accepted for lack of space.

In firefighting, every bit of training is essential. It’s the path to the certifications needed to move up in rank and pay. In fire crews throughout the country, where two women are often the maximum, they are often overlooked by the men who lead them. Many are so intimidated, they don’t ask questions because guys sometimes mock them, so they don’t advance.

“This is a safe space,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, a University of California Cooperative Extension adviser who planned the event. “There are no wrong questions. Women feel more comfortable in this environment.”

Thanks to TNC Fire Learning Network and the supporters of women in fire..

As to the numbers, while I was still working I noticed the numbers of women going down and mentioned this to our Civil Rights folks.  The math is that if you are going for Diverse People ethnic/racially and Veterans, the proportions of women interested in fire in those groups are not 1:1  (nor are they 1:1 among non-diverse people). I feel great empathy for people who are hiring with the goal of implementing all of these divergent hiring goals(all of which I support) in the workforce at the same time. Here’s to those facing those hiring challenges and to the women and Employee Relations folks who have to deal with people continuing to do the wrong thing…decade after decade.

Post-Election Thoughts About Our Forests?

by

With a new Republican President and a Republican-controlled Congress, how will this affect the Forest Service and the BLM?

crown-fire-panorama-web

Regarding the picture: I did some processing with a High Dynamic Range (HDR) program to get this artsy view. It is interesting that it enhanced the flames better than in the original scan, from a Kodachrome slide. I shot this while filling in on an engine, on the Lassen NF, back in 1988.

What’s Up with the Lack of a Link Between CO2 and Global Temperatures

by

How does all of this affect current forest policy?

Here are two worthwhile reads regarding the role of forests in global warming / carbon sequestration. In addition, item “C)” raises and supports the question: ‘if there is no long term correlation between temperatures and CO2 then how can CO2 be the largest factor contributing to Global Warming?’. Everything we do is predicated on that one big “IF” yet, most refuse to acknowledge the lack of a direct correlation.

A) Pacific Northwest forests: Carbon sink or carbon source?

“Active forest management in dry forest ecosystems plays a critical role in reducing fuel loads, conserving functionality and biodiversity, and returning forests to a natural, resilient condition that is capable of responding to wildfire in a more socially desirable and ecologically beneficial way”

IMHO regardless of whatever role CO2 plays, healthy forests require, at a minimum, forest management as needed for the safety of society. The above quote simply illustrates that a “hands off” policy does not fit the needs of all forest ecosystems nor does it fit at all times within the need to maintain a specific forest ecosystem in order to support species dependent on the sustainability of a particular forest ecosystem niche. This in turn leads to the need for landscape level forest planning for all federal forest holdings.

B) Carbon storage in WA state forests is too small and too risky to play a serious role as a climate change mitigation tool

– 1) “the single biggest contributor to climate change is CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Indeed, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel emissions in recent years have been roughly ten times higher than emissions from the next largest global source, land use change, including deforestation”
—> See “C” below about the “inconvenient truth” that there is no proven long term relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures. This does not rule out the possibility that, as yet, undetermined interactions with other variables could have an impact on the role of CO2 in global warming.

– 2) “there are many excellent reasons to support planting trees in WA state … However, mitigating the threat of climate change is not among those reasons, based on the available science.”

– 3) “Thus, the management of forests to accumulate carbon must not delay or dilute the phasing-out fossil fuel use.”

—> agree – but not because of CO2 emissions:

—- a) Health – pollution dictates a reduction in the use of hydrocarbons and an increase in the use of alternative fuels to replace the extraction of below ground hydrocarbons and an increase in the use of sound, sustainable forest management to reduce the risk of Catastrophic fires.

—- b) Geologic ramifications of hydrocarbon extraction and hydraulic pumping include surface subsidence and earthquakes.

C) The Question as to the pertinence of CO2 to Global Warming

We must consider the inconvenient truth that ice cores from Greenland and Vostok, Russia show that over the last ~ 100,000 years, temps have been significantly higher than today by more than 2 degrees centigrade when CO2 was 2/3rds of what it is now. So is CO2 really the cause of global warming?

Greenland Data – Mankind has lived in significantly warmer climates than current temps over the last 11,000 years with CO2 levels at 2/3rds of the present levels (current CO2 levels corroborates their extrapolation of CO2 levels to the present).

Global Mean Temperature Anomaly – 1880 – Present – Note 2000 – 2016 only shows a 0.3 degree centigrade increase versus the Greenland and Vostok Data and corroborates their extrapolations to 2000.

Vostok Data – Mankind has lived in significantly warmer climates than current temps over the last 140,000 years.

 

So the question is: how does all of this affect current forest policy?

Fixing Water By Fixing (Managing) Forests

by

Preserving Drinking Water is just one of the many reasons that Landscape Level Sound Sustainable Forest Management Is Needed everywhere including our National Forests. This doesn’t preclude hands off management nor does it preclude tailored management to provide for the desires of society when it fits within acceptable parameters as dictated by:

  • The safety of society and the assets of the populace.
  • Landscape level long range planning providing for forest succession in order to insure sustainable habitat niches for the species of interest which depend on the availability of a continuum over time of forest types at all stages of type succession within the landscape.

The following are quotes from various synopses of related articles:

A) Fixing Water By Fixing Forests

  1. “Moreover, healthy forests reduce the amount of funds cities need to treat their water to ensure it’s safe to drink. According to the report, seven US cities saved between $725,000 and $300 million in annual water treatment through investments in nature.“
  2. “Denver’s program, which involves a partnership with the US Forest Service, has resulted in nearly 40,000 acres treated to reduce wildfire risk and restore burned acres in critical watersheds. And the programs that followed in other cities are modeled after Denver’s and involve the same network of practitioners.”
  3. “Plus, the private sector appears to be stepping up – albeit slowly. Ecosystem Marketplace’s report from 2014 on watershed investments found companies such as Coca Cola and SAB Miller going the extra mile to protect their water supply by engaging with other users in a watershed and using it sustainably.”

B) U.S. Cities Go to the Source to Protect Drinking Water

  1. “In 2002, a catastrophic wildfire that burned 138,000 acres of forest made Denver’s drinking water supply run black with ash and soil. Cleanup of infrastructure damage, debris and erosion cost more than $25 million, while the fire-ravaged landscape caused increased flooding that wreaked havoc on water infrastructure and roads for years.“
  2. “To lessen wildfire risks, Denver Water and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) started a watershed investment program to improve management of source water forests, together dedicating a total of $32 million to forest restoration over five years. Starting in 2011, Denver Water has invested in forest restoration and improved forest management to reduce the risk of wildfires, and USFS shares costs and implements those restoration activities.”

C) Forest Trends: “State of Watershed Investment 2014”

  1. “Last year, governments and companies invested $12.3 billion (B) in initiatives implementing nature-based solutions to sustain the world’s clean water supplies. According to a new report from Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace, this funding – which supports healthy watersheds that naturally filter water, absorb storm surge, and perform other critical functions – flowed to more than seven million households and restored and protected a total of 365 million hectares (ha) of land, an area larger than India. Up from $8.2B in investment tracked in 2011,”

D) Report: Protecting Drinking Water At Its Source

  1. THE SOURCE DOCUMENT = 140 pages of maps, graphs and details

Should the Forest Service intervene on the side of environmental groups?

by

“Public interest groups filed a lawsuit Thursday, Sept. 15, challenging the city of Highland’s approval of the high-density Harmony development. The development sits at the confluence of Mill Creek and the Santa Ana River and is directly adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest lands and will bring more than 3,600 houses to 1,657 acres of land acquired by Orange County Flood Control in the Seven Oaks Dam project that are currently home to numerous endangered species, rare habitats, wetlands and crucial wildlife connectivity corridors, according to the suit.”

“The lawsuit was brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society and the Greenspot Residents Association, who are represented by the law firm Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger. It argues the city of Highland’s City Council’s August approval of the project violates the California Environmental Quality Act.”

It sounds like potentially illegal local government actions could adversely affect national forest resources.  Shouldn’t the Forest Service be trying to protect those resources?  (Not to mention what this would add to fire management costs.)

http://www.highlandnews.net/news/political/lawsuit-challenges-high-density-harmony-housing-development/article_f36e5c3e-7cfd-11e6-845e-2bf853763e42.html

Natural Range of Variation in the southern Sierra national forests

by

So what did the Sierra, Sequoia and Inyo do to apply this planning rule requirement to terrestrial ecosystems?  I’ve just reviewed the draft plan and DEIS, and I don’t think I’ve got a good answer.  They don’t directly say what NRV is or how they determined it (at least in the places I’ve looked).

The Bio-Regional Assessment says this (p. 39):  “NRV only was not used because at this time conditions are far removed from them in terms of fire regime, and even a modest shift toward that level of resiliency would benefit ecological integrity and is more feasible in a short period of time. The planning rule specifically provides for using ecological integrity based on measures other than NRV where this is the case.”

This view is supported by the Planning Handbook (1909.12 FSH 12.14b) (but again, the Handbook does not appear to be supported by the Planning Rule): “In some situations, there is not enough information to understand the natural range of variation under past disturbance regimes for selected key ecosystem characteristics or the system is no longer capable of sustaining key ecosystem characteristics identified as common in the past based upon likely future environmental conditions. In these cases, the Interdisciplinary Team should establish an alternative ecological reference model for context for assessing for integrity by identifying the conditions that would sustain these key ecosystem characteristics.”  However no “alternative ecological reference model” was documented.

For terrestrial vegetation the Bio-Regional Assessment then apparently ignores itself (p. 98):  “Under the 2012 Planning Rule, “natural range of variability” is a key means for gauging ecological integrity. Ecosystem sustainability is more likely if ecosystems are within the bounds of natural variation, rather than targeting fixed conditions from some point in the past (Wiens et al. 2012, Safford et al. 2012). Safford et al. (2013a) compiled comprehensive, scientific literature reviews on natural range of variability, and these are the primary basis for the summary below.”  The summaries conclude whether ecosystems are within or outside of NRV, but they don’t say what NRV is.

The Sierra Assessment says this (p. 17):  “Comprehensive, scientific literature reviews on natural range of variability were compiled. The following is an overview. Consistent with trends across the entire assessment area, terrestrial ecosystems in the Sierra NF are predominantly outside the natural range of variability (NRV) for key indicators of ecological function, structure, and composition. First, nearly half (44 percent) of the area of the Sierra NF dominated by woody vegetation (or 76 percent of montane coniferous forests) is in a highly departed condition with respect to the historic fire return interval, burning at frequencies that are significantly longer than pre-settlement fire regimes (Safford and van de Water 2013). The Sierra NF has missed an average of three to four fire return intervals across all vegetation types dominated by trees or shrubs (Safford and van de Water 2013). Subalpine forests are the exception, burning at intervals that within one or two fire return intervals.”

The Bio-Regional Assessment describes fire history on p. 33, and the Sierra Assessment appears to use historic fire intervals as a reference, but what are the vegetation conditions that would produce the desired fire intervals (which would be the NRV for vegetation)?  I didn’t find a document that says what what vegetation NRV is or how it was determined, or even what the “key indicators” are.  The draft plan does have desired conditions for vegetation, and the DEIS says those are or are based on NRV.  The quickest way to get a feel for these DC=NRV is Tables 1-7 in the draft revised forest plan.

What is NRV for vegetation characteristics?  Are they based on the best available science? Did they properly use historic reference conditions?  What was the reference period? Did they consider climate change?  Are these sustainable desired conditions?  Do they comply with the requirement for ecological integrity?   Do they provide conditions needed for at-risk species? You’d think the answers to these important questions would be easier to find, but I’m out of time.  Maybe someone else can find some answers on the revision website somewhere.

Patience vs. Pulaskis : Beaver Creek Fire by Denver Post

by
Jeremiah Zamora, left, a district ranger with the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, and Aaron Voos, a public affairs officer with the U.S. Forest Service, look at downed and burned trees inside the perimeter of the Beaver Creek fire on Tuesday. Helen H. Richardson, The Denver Post
Jeremiah Zamora, left, a district ranger with the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, and Aaron Voos, a public affairs officer with the U.S. Forest Service, look at downed and burned trees inside the perimeter of the Beaver Creek fire on Tuesday.
Helen H. Richardson, The Denver Post

I’m hoping this difficult to capture article comes through via this link. If not, make a comment and I will try to fix it…

Science consistency review on the southern Sierra national forests

by

The draft revised Sierra, Sequoia and Inyo national forest plans include aggressive restoration programs across the forest, including logging areas of existing old forest structure to protect old forests and associated wildlife species.  The Forest Service has asked (unidentified) reviewers to look at the draft forest plans and draft EIS and address these questions in the first science consistency review conducted under the 2012 planning rule (it is an optional process under associated agency policy):

1. Has applicable and available scientific information been considered?

2. Is the scientific information interpreted reasonably and accurately?

3. Are the uncertainties associated with the scientific information acknowledged and documented?

4. Have the relevant management consequences, including risks and uncertainties, been identified and documented?

Here are some of the topics being addressed:

• Vegetation: Forest Resilience, Seral stage distribution, Effects of post-disturbance harvest, and Impacts on native vegetation.

• Fire and Fuels: Fuels management and community protection, Current fuel loading, Current and future wildfire trends, Effectiveness of treatments for fuel reduction.

• Wildlife and Habitat: Impacts to wildlife and their habitats, terrestrial and aquatic, Protection of old forest and associated species, Threatened and endangered species habitat requirements and availability, Species of Conservation Concern habitat requirements and availability.

• Climate Change: Current and projected trends, Effects on wildlife habitats and populations, Effects on carbon sequestration and carrying capacity

Given the debate on this blog surrounding these issues, the results should be interesting.  However there is no commitment here to any public release or discussion of the results.  The comment period on the draft EIS closes August 25th.  The results of this review were scheduled to be available in August.  “The technical experts (on the planning team) will review the report, consult and address any concerns from the review team, and incorporate any recommendations that would benefit the final EIS.” 

Given the debate on this blog surrounding these issues, the results should be interesting.  However there is no commitment here to any public release or discussion of the results.  The comment period on the draft EIS closes August 25th.  The results of this review where scheduled to be done in August.  “The technical experts (on the planning team) will review the report, consult and address any concerns from the review team, and incorporate any recommendations that would benefit the final EIS.”

Here is the revision website.