Fire and Fuels

Here is an interesting article, with great graphics from Mother Jones Magazine. I just have a small extract here so you can get a flavor, but check out the links and graphics in the original.

Indeed, firefighting expenditures have consistently outpaced fire preparation expenditures, even as experts like Covington and Douglas insist that, like the adage says, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Since 2002, the average dollar spent on firefighting has been matched by only 80 cents in preparatory spending on things like clearing away hazardous fuels and putting firefighting resources in place:

Wyden’s bill, which he calls “arguably one of the first bipartisan efforts that could make a real dent in climate change,” is still in committee, and the House version has already taken heat from fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). In any case, it wouldn’t take effect until next year. But Covington argues that the government needs to approach wildfires as natural disasters on par with hurricanes and earthquakes, and that we should plan for a future that is much more severe than the past.

“Earlier in the century, if they saw what’s been going on since the ’90s, it’s just inconceivable,” he says. “It alarms me that people don’t realize how much is being lost.”

Some thoughts..

1)There are many sources of increased costs, as we have discussed here before. More rules, better equipment, etc.

2) I like that the article says “they are able to extinguish most fires when they are relatively small.” I wonder how that tracks with various let-burn policies, though.. as in “we are able to extinguish them, but we don’t.” And if they don’t, how many of the larger fires does that explain? If we let some fires burn on purpose, wouldn’t acreage increase over the time we didn’t?

3) I thought this was interesting… “In 2006, Westerling counted instances of fires greater than 1,000 acres in Western states; the study, published in Science, found that “large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s.” But CO2 I don’t think increased “suddenly” so I wonder if there is another explanation?

4) I found this quote intriguing, if you think about it..
“Environmental change is complicating the work of fire managers who already had their work cut out for them restoring forests from the decades-long practice of suppressing all fires, which led to an unhealthy buildup of fuel that can turn a small fire into a megafire.”

Well, fire managers planned to “restore” forests that have an “unhealthy” buildup of fuels. It seems like there are only two ways of doing it..mechanical treatments and prescribed burns or some combination, if, in fact, we are talking about forests that have “unhealthy buildups.” Since it is really hard to do either one (litigation on mechanical, safety and health on prescribed burns) the idea that this will happen across all acres in the west, even with unlimited bucks, seems unrealistic to me. Maybe we need some more realistic ideas like “climate change has made fires unpredictable and scarier. Therefore we should do more mechanical fuel treatments.. enough to make a difference and protect communities, and be very very careful with prescribed burns and fire use.” Climate change makes things worse, but just makes us want more money, not change our approach?

5. I like that this article says that “80 cents in preparatory spending on things like clearing away hazardous fuels and putting firefighting resources in place” so hazardous fuel treatment is a good thing, yet as we have seen in the pages of this blog, those projects can be hung up for years in some cases due to the way appeals and litigation works.

6. In this Mother Jones article, people who argue for fuels treatment projects are Democrats (Wyden) and those against, Republican (because of the bucks). For those of us who have sat through House and Senate hearings, it’s a fascinating take.

7. Finally, if you’re in the west, and you’re thinking “but we don’t have a drought, here, it’s been raining all spring and summer” you can find yourself in the helpful map below. Here is a link for more info.

Nancy Freeman sent me this link to a Move-On Petition she started with regard to wildfires:

Please mandate that Forest Service and Department of Interior agencies designate our tax money for emergency measures to prevent wildfires now. The drought in the West makes the situation urgent. According to the National Interagency Coordination Center, there are 7 uncontained and 3 new wildfires on public lands on May 31, 2014.

The Government must act now to accomplish:
1) Stopping any industrial activities in the forests that contribute to wildfire danger.
2) Clearing of excess fuel: underbrush and ladder brush
3) Creating fire lines with environmentally friendly mechanical mulches
4) Instituting fire safety education and inspections in communities located in potential wildfire areas.

See http://www.g-a-l.info/ForestFireReport.htm for detailed information.

Here’s her argument:

The major causes of forest fires are nature, lightning, and human: campfires and cigarettes; however, faulty electrical wiring, sparks from vehicles and sparks from welding machinery are common, plus flames produced by hazardous waste spills from truck accidents on public lands. An overheated BLM vehicle caused the Chariot Fire that burned 7,000 acres in the San Diego Forest in July 2013. http://wildfiretoday.com/2013/07/08/california-chariot-fire]

Since industrial projects, especially mining operations, bring all but one of these “human cause” risks to the National Forest, it is clear that an increase of mining industry in our National Forests increases the fire risk. We have two examples in the region I live in Arizona.

In May 2011, two mining companies caused fires in the Coronado National Forest with welding projects. At the time, the “Fire Danger” was at Level 1: campfires and cigarettes are prohibited; yet in both cases the miners were out-of-doors welding in May. May and June are the hottest, driest months in the Southwest, which forest fire data confirms. A further complication is that industrial sites are surrounded by 10 ft. high chain-link fences for security reasons, making it impossible for fire fighting equipment to enter multiple acres of National Forest public land, except at a main gate.

Considering there are 170 mining operations being permitted in 44 National Forests in the West [www.mining-law-reform.info/proposed-mining-projects.htm], the fire danger from industrial mining needs to be addressed. National Forest Service record of mining project on the National Forest: FSOperations Records.

Sharon- I guess my problem with this (only having worked on forestry, grazing, oil and gas, underground and aboveground coal projects, powerlines, ski areas) is that while folks out there may cause some fires, they also put them out (their own and campers’, hunters’, and so-called “natural” ignitions). I don’t know the ratio of “start” to “put out”, but I’m not sure anyone else does, either.

I am curious about the problem with gates and firefighting, not sure I’ve heard about this before.

Thanks to Bob Berwyn for this one..

Below are some excerpts:

FRISCO — U.S. Forest Service officials said they’ve had to defer reviews of ski area projects, delay trail improvements and forest restoration work because of the high cost of fighting wildfires. This year, the agency projects a $470 million gap that ripples through the entire Forest Service budget.

More than a dozen important projects in Colorado were on the hit list, according to a new report released this week by the Department of Agriculture. Some of the projects were canceled altogether because their funding has been diverted to fighting wildfires.

In Colorado, the following projects have been affected:

*Recreation Special Use permits for outfitter guides were deferred and ski area applications for four season use improvements were deferred.
*Emergency repairs on the Pike-San Isabel National Forests and Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands were reduced to only critical repairs.
*A project to replace boundary signs that were destroyed in the High Park fire was canceled.
*Over 25,000 acres of ecosystem assessments, part of forest-wide inventories, were not accomplished.
*The Aquatic Nuisance Program (invasive species) with the State of Colorado was not funded.
*The Beaver Brookland acquisition project on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest wasn’t funded.
*A $72,000 project to clear downfall and conduct related trail maintenance in areas affected by the bark beetle was deferred.
*Facilities improvement projects at the Lottis Creek Kiosks and the Crested Butte Forest Service housing were not completed.
*Abandoned mine mitigation work on the Akron Mine and Mill Site in Gunnison National Forest was deferred.
*Over $400,000 in watershed projects was deferred.
*Over $300,000 in wildlife management projects were delayed, deferred, or canceled.

A version of this article showed up in my “paper” Denver Post this morning. It’s an article on the Western Govs meeting. It might be interesting to compare with other western states’ press.

Here’s the quote about planes:

President Barack Obama on Monday spoke with the governors via telephone to discuss new funding strategies to fight wildfires — a persistent problem that is expected to worsen in Colorado in the decades to come, officials say. Colorado this year set aside about $20 million to contract for an aerial fleet to fight wildfires.

Hickenlooper, a Democrat, joked that the other governors on the panel will now want to borrow Colorado’s aircraft and that the state “will be generous” with helping out.

Bullock, a Democrat, said Montana each year sets aside money to fight wildfires, which he said “are almost always certain.” Sandoval, a Republican, noted that about 80 percent of Nevada is federal land.

“Because of that, there has to be proportional contribution from the federal government,” said Sandoval. “We can’t afford to buy planes to put out fires on federal land.”

It seems that the western govs think that planes (and therefore retardant) can be helpful at firefighting. Not just the Forest Service (this relates to previous discussions here and elsewhere).

Somewhat Related Note: if you read this article, you will note that Governor Hickenlooper mentions the Maureen Dowd op-ed on her eating of marijuana edibles. I think it’s interesting that the views of one op-ed writer for the Times becomes fodder for the Governor of a state to discuss. And if you’re curious, here’s a rejoinder by Vincent Carroll on some background to her piece (yes, we have an online section of the Post called “The Cannabist.”).

Person writes misleading op-ed. Governor ends up dealing with it. Would that have happened if the op-ed had been, say, in the Idaho Statesman? What kind of power does this kind of national media have, and are they using it wisely? How many people will read her op-ed, compared to those who read both hers and Carroll’s piece?