Talkfest about “Large Wildland Fires”

This conference is going on this week in Missoula.  With this many events and speakers I would like to think that someone would talk about the legal and administrative framework for making decisions about fire prevention and management on national forest lands.  That would be the National Forest Management Act and land management plans.  Specifically the law’s requirement that “resource plans” (fire plans) and projects (fuel treatments and fire suppression actions) “shall be consistent with the land management plans.”   The new planning rule also requires that development of plan components consider “wildland fire and opportunities to restore fire adapted ecosystems.”  Someone should maybe be thinking and talking about how revised forest plans should plan for fire (where we want what on a national forest).

Does anyone in the fire profession care about this?  Apparently the ‘counter-culture’ does – Professor Richard Hutto will talk about “It’s Time to Integrate the Ecological Benefits and Necessity of Severe Fire in National Fire and Forest Management Plans.”  There’s also one (1) presentation by Forest Service fire staff that sounds like it could talk about the decision-making process on national forests: “Integrating Fuel Treatments in Land Management Planning and Wildfire Incident Response.”  I hope that someone who knows something about the Forest Service planning process has been involved.

Vilsack: Forest Service needs to key on insects, adds to air fleet

Cochetopa area, spruce beetle infestation, August 2013. Photo courtesy of GMUG NF.
Cochetopa area, spruce beetle infestation, August 2013. Photo courtesy of GMUG NF.
Below are some excerpts from a Denver Post story here today:

(the Denver Post has good stories on our topics but the website is THE MOST ANNOYING of any in the ones we link to, IMHO). Also, I get the print edition and there was a map and a table about insects that don’t show up online(??).

National Forest overseers on Tuesday targeted 45 million acres in 35 states — 9.6 million acres in Colorado — for accelerated work dealing with insects and disease that are weakening forests and raising wildfire risks.

But the challenge is growing in Colorado as epidemic ravaging by one bug, the mountain pine beetle, leads to a rapidly expanding outbreak of another, the spruce beetle, which has infested 1.14 million acres across southwestern Colorado.

and

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on Tuesday announced the designation of the national forest land for accelerated projects to combat insect infestations and disease. Forest overseers are embarking on a streamlined review process for projects aimed at controlling epidemics and restoring balance.

“More needs to be done,” Vilsack said, noting the role of forests as the source of water, as recreation havens that draw 166 million visitors and as generators of 200,000 jobs.

Accelerating the battle against insects and disease dovetails with budgeting changes — pushed by Colorado Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall — to prevent the raiding of forest health funds for wildfire suppression when fires become catastrophic.

Vilsack has requested the creation of a $954 million disaster fund for the worst 2 percent of wildfires, ensuring Forest Service funds for work to combat insect epidemics, disease and restoration of overly dense forests.

Vilsack also announced the addition of four firefighting aircraft, bringing the total to 21 large tankers and about 113 helicopters as drought across the Southwest and California leads to heavy wildfires. Firefighting aircraft, if deployed early, can be effective in snuffing potential mega-fires.

“The breathing room is only going to come when we don’t have to rob Peter to pay Paul,” Vilsack said in an interview with The Denver Post. “It’s a return to days gone by when you had a budget where a substantial percentage was going to restoration efforts and a small percentage was going to fire suppression. That’s been flipped on its head now. You’ve got 40 percent of your money going toward fighting fires. And because you are robbing money from restoration, that percentage is just going to continue to increase.

“The only way you deal with it is you reduce the risk. The only way to reduce the risk is by doing a better job of restoring and making your forests more resilient. And you can’t do that unless you have the resources.”

I hope Bruce Finley, the author, put in the “restoring balance” part, although I don’t think the “balance” idea should even still be out there in the public. That goes back to Botkin’s book (see sidebar).

While I think “restoration” has some conceptual issues, I do think “making forests more resilient” is a great way of talking about it. Yay, public affairs folks!

Anyway, attached is more detailed information that USDA is sending around the effort. Andy, note that airplanes are part of the response ;).
AcresDesignatedByStateForestAndCongressionDistrict-may16

Healthy_Forest_Restoration_Act_Designations_NationalMap_May162014

Insect and Disease Communications and Rollout Package FINAL

And here’s a Rocky Barker story that shows the relationship to the Farm Bill (as does the USDA press release):

The new Farm Bill amends the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 to allow the Forest Service to more quickly plan projects for insect and disease treatments within designated areas, in an effort to increase the pace and scale of restoration across the National Forest System. Using the new tools in the Farm Bill, restoration projects in these designated areas have to be developed in collaboration with a diverse group of stakeholders and must meet environmental safeguards.

Local Views and Local News: Fuel Treatments in Jefferson County, Colorado

EVERGREEN, CO - MAY 7: A worker moves recently cut trees into a pile at Birch Hill Park on May 7, 2014, in Evergreen, Colorado. A crew made up of Denver Mountain Parks employees and volunteers, with the help of Jefferson County workers, have been clearing out the dense parts of the area to improve forest health and help mitigate potential fire hazards. (Photo by Anya Semenoff/The Denver Post)
EVERGREEN, CO – MAY 7: A worker moves recently cut trees into a pile at Birch Hill Park on May 7, 2014, in Evergreen, Colorado. A crew made up of Denver Mountain Parks employees and volunteers, with the help of Jefferson County workers, have been clearing out the dense parts of the area to improve forest health and help mitigate potential fire hazards. (Photo by Anya Semenoff/The Denver Post)

I continue to be fascinated by the difference between “fuels treatments on NFS land” (controversial! scientifically questionable! excuses for rampant logging!) and “fuels treatments on anyone else’s land” (wish we could do more! protects communities!). To that end, the difference between national, regional and local coverage is interesting. Here’s about as local as you can get.. YourHub of the Denver Post in Jefferson County, CO.

Wildfire mitigation in Jefferson County foothills is a joint effort
By Josie Klemaier
YourHub Reporter

EVERGREEN —Last year, Dave Flanagan’s insurance provider threatened to drop fire insurance for his Evergreen-area property due to poor fire mitigation around his property.

“I had to point out to them I was doing everything per the standards,” he said, but he couldn’t say the same about his neighbor, one of the parks in the Denver Mountain Parks system.

Denver Mountain Parks, owned by the city of Denver, occupy 14,000 acres of land and 10,000 of those acres are forested, said Andy Perri, Denver Mountain Parks’ forestry program manager.

Denver hired Perri in 2010 to focus on fire mitigation efforts and overall forest health.

Since then, Denver Mountain Parks has received $1 million to go toward mitigation efforts on 800 acres of parkland. It expects to receive $500,000 more in 2014, according to an April 30 release.

“Denver Mountain Parks is somewhat limited as far as what we do,” Perri said, referring to the cost of going into sometimes hard-to-access forest to remove dead and downed trees, reduce fuel on the ground and thin trees. He said the cost of such efforts can cost from $500 to $2,200 an acre or more.

Perri admits the numbers seem like a drop in a bucket, but he said a lot of other factors go into the decision of where to put resources, including, but not limited to, wildland-urban interface.

“Of course I want to treat right behind everyone’s house,” he said. “But you also have to look at strategic placement of these projects.”

Perri said he takes calls from concerned residents, goes to the land that is of concern and adds it to his endless project list.

This was the case with Birch Hill Park near North Turkey Creek in south Evergreen. A forest management plan for the area was written, which was used to get a grant for the project. Denver Mountain Parks hired the Jefferson County Sheriff’s fire mitigation program to do the work.

Though it does such work for hire, the Jeffco Sheriff’s program doesn’t have any funds set aside specifically for mitigation work — its main focus is response management, such as creating fuel breaks in the path of active fires, said Mark Gutke, director of critical incident response for the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office. For preventive mitigation, it helps communities find grants for wildfire protection plans.

It comes down to the property owner, Gutke said.

“The problem is the funding to attack (the acreage) and the desire from property owners, whether it’s the government or private,” he said.

Denver Mountain Parks and Jefferson County Open Space have programs to allow residents to mitigate park property bordering their private property through permit processes. However, like community wildfire protection plans, that requires an investment on the landowner’s part.

Keith Bol is a natural resource team leader for Jefferson County Open Space, which manages more than 53,000 acres of parkland. He said Jeffco Open Space’s efforts focus on healthy forest management, which often includes mitigation.

“We try to tie in our forest management activities into these fuel breaks or fire mitigation work,” he said. “We try to look at a larger area. A lot of it we try to identify by the health of the forest already. By making it healthier, we’re probably going to make it more fire-resistant.”

When it comes to projects focused on mitigation, it’s about proactive community involvement. He said work is more likely to happen where there is private property work nearby.

“We start to look at communities that are working together, willing to do something in an entire development,” Bol said. “We will work on our property if they are doing work on their property.”

DellaSala on Fire

Just received this press release from Dominick DellaSala’s Geos Institute. The presentation is here. I agree with DellaSalla that fire is a vital element of forest ecosystems, but do not support his call to “allow more large fire to burn unimpeded” in the back country. If such large fires are needed, would he support starting them to obtain the ecological benefits he assigns them? The public, as well as many land managers, would be dubious, to say the least about letting nature take its course in this way, whether ignitions are natural or not.

One of the photos listed comes with this caption: “2013 Rim Fire in California’s Sierra Nevada produced an ecologically beneficial mosaic of fire severities.” So more Rim Fires are in order?

Active Wildfire Season in Western U.S. Offers Many Ecological Benefits, According to Geos Institute
ASHLAND, Ore., May 13, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Fire scientists are releasing a new synthesis of the ecological benefits of large wildfires, including those that kill most vegetation in fire-adapted forests, grasslands, and shrub lands of the western U.S.
These benefits are described in a Prezi presentation, “Fireside Chat: Lessons from Fire Ecology and Post-fire Landscapes,” which can be viewed at:
http://www.geosinstitute.org/banking-on-forests/public-forests/1139-fireside-chat.html
The online Fireside Chat presents the latest science on wildfire’s ecosystem benefits, with (a) nine key findings, (b) information on the landscape impacts from climate change, post-fire logging, and fire suppression, and (c) ways to help homeowners prepare for fires.
It also includes links to fire videos and contact information for wildfire researchers.
Its purpose is to serve as an information tool for the press, decision makers, and land managers interested in the ecosystem benefits of large fires, which have been under-appreciated.
Dominick DellaSala, Chief Scientist of Geos Institute, stated “Contrary to popular belief, most large wildfires are not catastrophes of nature, as many plant and wildlife species depend on them to restore habitat in short supply and to replenish soil nutrients.”
DellaSala continued, “We can co-exist with wildfires by thinning vegetation nearest to homes and in fire-prone tree plantations, and by allowing large fires to burn unimpeded in the backcountry under safe conditions.”
According to the National Interagency Fire Center (www.nifc.gov), California, southern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, southern Alaska, and Oregon could experience large fires this year, given the dry conditions. However dry, fire-adapted regions generally have experienced substantially less fires, compared to historical times, due to ongoing fire suppression.
Suppression costs in some years have approached $5 billion on public lands, with limited effects on slowing large fires that are mostly driven by weather events. The Forest Service already has signaled that it is likely to run out of wildfire suppression funds long before the end of the fire season.
Related CounterPunch article on the ecological benefits of large wildfires:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/30/why-large-fires-are-an-ecological-necessity/
Contact:
Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph.D., President and Chief Scientist
Geos Institute
541.482.4459 x302 (office); 541.621.7223 (cell)
Email
www.geosinstitute.org

 

More on Montana Lands Designated as Restoration Priorities

Interesting op-ed by by Julia Altemus, Exec. VP of the Montana Wood Products Association (Don’t be fooled by false claims about Bullock’s forest priorities) and comments on it, including a long one by our fellow NCFP blogger, Matt Koehler. The op-ed is in response to an April 16 article, “Conservation groups criticize governor over forest restoration,” and comments on it.

Protest of Jazz Timber Sale

I had the pleasure of observing a protest of the Mt. Hood National Forest’s Jazz timber sale yesterday at the S.O. in Sandy, Oregon. Photo here. The group Bark organized the protest. Maybe 50 people were there (the USFS folks locked the S.O. doors and stayed inside). Bark’s video is here. For “street theater” they brought in a small wading pool, added water, let some kids splash in it, and then dumped in a few buckets of soil to illustrate how the local streams would look after the harvesting (the kids loved playing in the mud). A young woman in a salmon costume writhed in simulated pain and then “died.”

Portland TV station KGW covered the event; its video had a reporter at the protest and “on location” at a river a mile from the sale.

The sale is to be a thinning of old harvest units. USFS documents here, including Bark’s lawsuit and the district court’s decision in favor of the USFS. The decision notice describes the sale: “The Forest proposes a thinning project of approximately 2,053 acres of plantations ranging in age from 30 to 60 years old. The average tree size in plantations is 12 inches diameter. Variable density thinning is proposed to remove the smaller trees while creating skips and gaps.”

(Skips and gaps — a phrase used (coined?) by Jerry Franklin and Norm Johnson in describing t heir “ecological forestry.”)

Bark’s main concerns are that the USFS would recommission 12 miles of decommissioned roads, leading to potential erosion. The group’s leader conceded that 9 acres in the sale area are suitable for logging. Bark announced that it will file an appeal with the 9th Circuit.

My take: The stands need thinning. The agency plans to take great care around streams. This is about as benign as logging gets.

More on Wildfire and Sound Forest Management

These links are from a USFS Quarterly List of Recent Forestry Related Publications

FUEL REDUCTION EFFECTIVENESS:

– “Fuel Treatments and Fire Severity: A Meta-Analysis” – “Thinning treatments have demonstrated the greatest reductions in wildfire severity, but only by those treatments that produce substantial changes to canopy fuels, shift the diameter distribution towards larger trees, and are followed by broadcast burning or other means of removal. Until the residual activity fuels are disposed, they will largely offset much of the hazard reduction benefit achieved from opening the canopy. … Modifications in fire behavior achieved within a single treated stand, however significant, are unlikely to change the total area burned by a large wildfire, aid fire control efforts, or impact the distribution of severities across a landscape (Finney and others 2003). Fuel treatment effectiveness ultimately depends on the cumulative impact of a treatment regime applied across landscapes and maintained through time.

–> Note: This cessation of treatments is what resulted from the 80-90% reduction in NF harvest levels. This cessation is a primary factor in the increase in wildfire (documented repeatedly in other posts on NCFP) acres burned since the harvest reduction policy was instituted after 1990 at the behest of those opposed to sound forest management – it’s called shooting yourself in the intestines.
–> Note: This is a combined statistical analysis of various controlled experiments wherein the model referred to is the normal statistical model used to test a hypothesis for significance of the independent variables.

INCIDENT LEVEL WILDFIRE DECISION MAKING PROCESS:

– USFS – “Decision Making for Wildfires: A Guide for Applying a Risk Management Process at the Incident Level

So-called “Truthometer” Gets Simple Things Wrong

rulings_tom-mostlyfalse

If you purport to be a “Truth” ometer, shouldn’t you check your facts?


Here’s
the link.

OK, we know that this question (separating all these factors that have occurred together to make wildfires more troublesome than in the past) is very complicated… still.. “SAF, a trade association for the people who harvest timber”, really?

Now what would it have taken to look that up..oh, one click away from the SAF main screen, we can find here the mission statement.

The Society of American Foresters (SAF) is the national scientific and educational organization representing the forestry profession in the United States. Founded in 1900 by Gifford Pinchot, it is the largest professional society for foresters in the world.

OK, I get it, it’s hard to look things up. But hey, they found “consensus” about this tough question.

Where we found broad consensus is that decades of aggressively putting out every fire as quickly as possible, and the use of land for grazing, created circumstances where the forests are brimming with fuel. That in conjunction with extended dry periods have turned them into tinderboxes.

It seems to me that putting out fires means fuels won’t burn up in these fires and hence continue on the landscape, for later burning or removal, while “not removing fuels” also would lead to more fuels on the landscape. And I am curious about how cows eating grass might lead to more forest fuel. So, logic would tell us that “not removing fuels” and “not letting fuels burn” would both lead to “more fuels.”

Anyway, at least they interviewed Ann Camp who has experience in this area, so I guess that’s good.

New Report: Regional effectiveness of wildfire mitigation treatments in the US

The Joint Fire Sciences has just released the final report on its study “Fuel Treatment Effectiveness in the United States,” and it confirms what many of us have been stating on this blog: in most forested areas of North America, the effects and extent of wildfire can be significantly reduced with a combination of stand thinnings and prescribed fire. Other benefits, of course, include fuels and construction materials for people, stable and productive environments for wildlife, and aesthetically pleasing locations for recreation and employment.
The “Key Points” of the report are listed below. Here is a link to the complete report: https://www.firescience.gov/projects/06-3-3-11/project/06-3-3-11_final_report.pdf
Here is a link to the article, published in the International Journal of Wildland Firehttps://www.firescience.gov/projects/06-3-3-11/project/06-3-3-11_06-3-3-11_cochrane_etal_IJWF_2012.pdf
K E Y   P O I N T S

Fuel treatments can be effective for reducing both local severity and fire extent. However, the effectiveness varies by ecoprovince, treatment type, and treatment age.
NORTHERN ROCKIES –  prescribed fires as a stand-alone treatment do not mimic wildfire and is ineffective for dependable fire severity reduction and may offset the effects of thinning for the 6-10 year interval if the treatments are combined.  Stand-alone thinning treatments were the most reliably effective and effectiveness lasted longer (>10 years) than wildfire (> 5 years).

SOUTHERN ROCKIES– prescribed burning with or without thinning reduces fire severity for > 10 years after treatment. Prescribed burns were more reliable and longer lasting in their effectiveness when applied as stand-alone treatments without previous thinning. Thinning alone is ineffective for reducing fire severity and should be discouraged as a fuel treatment.

PACIFIC NORTHWEST – wildfires only reduce subsequent fire severity for <10 years after the initial fire. Prescribed fire was ineffective unless combined with thinning treatments. Thinning as a stand-alone treatment was the most consistent treatment for reducing fire severity with treatment effectiveness lasting longer than 10 years after implementation.

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA – prescribed burning provides similar reductions in fire severity as wildfire; neither shows significant value beyond 10 years. Thinning reduces fire severity for more than 10 years but only after >5 years since implementation. The combination of thinning and burning may capture the short- and long-term effects, but this requires further study. Mastication/site prep is ineffective and possibly detrimental for reducing fire severity in the short term (2-5 years).

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA – previous wildfires reduce subsequent fire severity for < 10 years while prescribed burning is most reliably effective at > 10 years after implementation and highly variable in effectiveness for the first 10 years. Both thinning and mastication are apparently effective for at least 5 years, with thinning having somewhat greater effects, but more study is needed to verify this finding.

SOUTHEAST – previous wildfires have little impact on fire severity of subsequent wildfires. In contrast, prescribed burning, although somewhat variable in its impacts, is the most effective treatment for reducing subsequent fire severity, with greater and more reliable effectiveness >5 years after implementation.Mastication/site prep is ineffective for fire severity reduction after the first 5 years, with enhanced fire severity apparent 10 years after treatment.

INTERIOR BROADLEAF ecoprovince –  prescribed burning is uniquely reliable and effective at reducing fire severity for at least 10 years after implementation. All other fuels treatments appear to be ineffective or detrimental to reducing wildfire severity. The combination of thinning and burning has particularly lethal results. However, more study of fuel treatment effectiveness in needed in these systems.

SEMI-DESERT ecoprovince – prescribed burning appears ineffective until >10 years, but may have greater effectiveness than wildfire after that point. However, few fuel treatments were available for study in this province.

GREAT LAKES ecoprovinces – prescribed fire may be effective, but more study is needed to confirm this finding.

Rim fire salvage logging wins support?

Modesto Bee article today: Rim fire salvage logging wins support.

“Several environmental groups pledged Tuesday to support the salvage logging proposed for parts of the Rim fire area.

“They joined timber industry and other leaders in Tuolumne County in a letter urging the U.S. Forest Service to approve the logging, which is proposed for about a tenth of the 257,314-acre fire zone.

“The letter was from a coalition called Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions, which was working on forest issues even before last year’s fire charred parts of the Stanislaus National Forest, Yosemite National Park and private land.”

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2014/04/22/3304927/rim-fire-salvage-logging-wins.html#storylink=cpy

Nothing about this on Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions, which is a CFLRP group.

“Among the signers are the Tuolumne County Farm Bureau, American Forest Resource Council, Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and Environment, Central Sierra Aududon Society, Tuolumne Group of the Sierra Club, Tuolumne River Trust, California Forestry Association, Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians and an off-road motorcycle club named Merced Dirt Riders.”