New Wildfire Funding Pot?

I saw this one on the web, perhaps someone has a more complete story?

“On Monday, President Obama will lay out a new plan for wildfire funding in the US, treating the fires in much the same way as the government treats hurricanes and tornados and their associated costs. Basically, when the president declares a disaster, FEMA is authorized to tap into a special disaster account, the amount of which is updated according to a “10 year average cost of responding to such events,” according to The New York Times. Obama’s forthcoming budget proposal would grant similar authority to the Interior and Agriculture Departments, the parent agencies of the Forest Service and BLM.”

Here’s the link..

Power Fire 2014

We’ve seen pictures of the Power Fire, on the Eldorado National Forest, before. I worked on salvage sales until Chad Hanson won in the Ninth Circuit Court, with issues about the black-backed woodpecker. The court decided that the issue needed more analysis, as well as deciding that the Forest Service’s brand new mortality guidelines were “confusing”. From these pictures, it is very clear to see that those mortality guidelines were way more conservative than they maybe should have been.

P9262156-web

As you can see, in this finished unit(s), there were ample snags available for birds to use, despite multiple cuttings, due to the increased bark beetle activity, during the logging. No one can say that they didn’t leave enough snags, (other than the Appeals Court). These pictures are very recent, shot last month.

P9262142-web

This picture amused me, as I put this sign up back in 2005. Plastic signs last much longer than the old cardboard ones.

P9262128-web

Here is another view of the area, chock full of snags, well beyond what the salvage plans asked for, to devote to woodpeckers and other organisms that use snags. People like Chad Hanson want more high-intensity wildfires, and more dead old growth. It is no wonder that the Sierra Club decided he was too radical, even for them.

Edit: Here is the link to a previous posting from almost 2 years ago, with pictures. https://forestpolicypub.com/2012/05/28/the-power-fire-six-years-later/

Colorado Legislature Fiddles While State Burns: Denver Post

Who should pay for protective fuel mitigation treatments?
Who should pay for protective fuel mitigation treatments?

I try not to be too judgmental about these things, but it appears that based on this bill, the rest of the state (we are talking farmers in the Eastern Plains as well as urbanites) are going to pay for mitigation through tax credits rather than require homeowners to do it.  This whole approach strikes me as 1) not honoring the work of the task force, 2) not being willing to really address the problem and 3) not likely to be very effective. For Coloradans, we might want to write our legislators or call and let them know how we feel.

Here’s the link and below is an excerpt:

“We considered it, but no one thought about moving anything forward,” said Sen. Matt Jones, D-Louisville, a member of the interim Wildfire Matters Review committee, about the recommendation of a fee on homeowners who choose to build in heavily wooded areas. “We want to provide incentives for people to do the right thing and keep firefighters safe.”

Some oppose fees

Developers and the real estate industry opposed fees on property owners and a state building code. If homeowners live in high-risk burn areas, they’re likely to pay higher insurance premiums, said Carole Walker, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association.

“But insurance companies consider a variety of risk factors, like building materials and distance to a fire station,” Walker said.

At a news conference Thursday to outline some of the proposed wildfire bills, Hickenlooper said issues such as fees and building codes are delegated to counties and municipalities.

While state resources are used to fight fires that often cross county lines, Hickenlooper said, “we don’t have to lean on (local governments) with a heavy shoulder.”

Hickenlooper agreed with Jones in calling for an incentives approach. Of the items outlined in the task force report, lawmakers on the interim committee did heed the suggestions of creating a tax credit for mitigation.

On Friday, perhaps the most ambitious proposal toward fighting Colorado’s wildfire epidemic is set to be unveiled by Sen. Steve King, R-Grand Junction; the measure calls for the state to fund its own aerial firefighting fleet. A bill sponsored by King last year and passed into law allowed the state to create its own fleet, but the measure had its funding stripped.

At the time, King, along with co-sponsor Sen. Cheri Jahn, D-Wheat Ridge, estimated it would cost Colorado about $20 million annually to support a fleet of aircraft which would be paid for through a mix of public and private funds, advertising and a new state lottery game.

“This provides a solution to help save land, structures and Colorado drinking water. Fires are a clear danger,” King, a member of the interim committee, said this week. “Enough with the talk. Let’s pass this serious bill and get it funded and protect Colorado.”

If You Live in the Wildland Fire Zone, Repeat After Me: Defensible Space is Essential

Here is a link to an article by Char Miller.. below is an excerpt.

These are not random queries. In a 2007 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report that assessed the fire-sparking nature of housing in the wildand-urban interface, its authors concluded that since “houses are much more flammable per square yard than forests, homes that erupt in flames can propel forest fires to a critical intensity threshold much more quickly.”

This lesson too easily can be applied to the 2007 megafires that ripped through neighborhoods from San Diego north through the San Gabriels and to the Tea Fire, which in November 2008 consumed more than 200 high-end homes in Montecito.

“The message here is that fireproofing homes not only preserves structures, but limits the size of forest fires,” the NAS report asserted, protecting the people who live in these homes and “their neighbors and ultimately the forests.”

Cleaning up the “home ignition zone,” a term employed in a just-released U.S. Forest Service analysis about the role burning houses play in spreading wildfires, must come coupled with a resolute fireproofing of the surrounding landscape.

How many trees and plants crowd up against your home? How much open space extends from your foundation to the property line, to wherever the Manzanita, Chaparral or cactus, oaks or pine start to thicken? Statewide building codes that California adopted in 2007 require a cleared swath running out at least 100 feet. CAL FIRE calls this “fuels modification,” the purpose of which is “to create a defensible space for firefighters and to protect…homes from wildfires.”

Had such space been cleared around homes in the fire-ravaged Yarnell Hill subdivisions, the Granite Mountain Hotshots might not have been placed in such immediate danger (and a recent investigation directly blames the Arizona Division of Forestry for sending these men, already exhausted from their exertions battling other fires across the west, into this fatal fight).

Yet too few of the homes the crew was sent to protect had been fireproofed or had the requisite defensible space. In a post-fire accounting, the Pacific Biodiversity Institute found that “89 percent of the homes and other structures appeared to be in direct contact with trees or shrubs,” and 30 percent of these burned. Of the small number of those dwellings that had been made defensible, only five percent were consumed.

The conclusion was easy to draw: “The contrast between these two structure survival rates is substantial and illustrates that simple and inexpensive measures, like keeping flammable vegetation away from homes, can have a real impact on the ability of a home to survive a wildfire.”

Because no one wants another Yarnell Hill disaster on their conscience, now is the time to evaluate our place in this inflammable place, to admit our inescapable responsibility for those firefighters and other first-responders who someday might hustle uphill to defend our bodies and homes. The first step in this process is to make a close inspection of our home grounds and neighborhoods, a simple life-saving act that could have profound ramifications for a safer new year.

My only thought is that I think almost all residents have heard this and thought about it, but some do not want to do it. I know there are many sociology papers out there about that. So we know it, we understand people’s motivations. We all agree that the behavior needs to be changed, but for some reason are hesitant to use the power of law.

I also don’t know about the Yarnell equivalency because I don’t know the details. But it seems to me you would still dispatch people to a subdivision, even if all the homes were treated. Or maybe the fire wouldn’t have grown so big to be worried about if other people had treated? It’s not clear to me.

Forest Coalition Lauds New Emergency Fire Funding Bill in Senate

Would Mirror Funding Response to other Natural Disasters

December 19, 2013 (Arlington, Virginia) — A group of conservation, timber, tribal, recreation, sportsmen and employer groups praised Senators Wyden (D-OR) and Crapo (R-ID) for introducing the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2013 that would create an emergency funding process for fire response. This funding structure would simulate existing federal funding mechanisms for response to other natural disasters, and prevent “borrowing” from other USDA Forest Service (USFS) and Department of the Interior (DOI) programs. Since 2000 these agencies have run out of money to fight emergency fires eight times.

This language creates a budget cap adjustment for a 30% portion of wildfire disaster funding for USFS and DOI, a structure similar to what the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) uses for other natural disaster response. This would significantly minimize the need to transfer funds from non-suppression accounts when suppression funds are depleted. For years, the practice of transferring and high suppression costs have negatively impacted agencies’ ability to implement forest management activities.

The additional funding would be separated from other USFS and DOI funding, and could free up as much as $412 million in discretionary funds for forest treatments that help to reduce fire risk and costs, such as Hazardous Fuels removal.

“This leadership from Senators Wyden and Crapo can establish a long-term solution for fire suppression funding that will finally end the senseless series of fire transfers and guarantee firefighters adequate resources to protect our communities and lands,” said Darrel L. Kenops, Executive Director of National Association of Forest Service Retirees.

“We need an approach to fire suppression funding which lets Forest Service manage the Forests, instead of constantly moving funding to emergency suppression needs. Wildfire costs and fire borrowing disrupts forest management and other key programs”, said Bill Imbergamo, Executive Director of the Federal Forest Resources Coalition, “This bipartisan bill will help put the Forest Service back in the woods doing what they do best. We appreciate Senator Wyden’s leadership on this issue. He’s done yeoman’s work in developing this approach to fire budgeting. Anyone who cares about our National Forests should get behind this bill.”

“Important USDA Forest Service programs can be and are significantly impacted by fire transfers, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund, urban and community forestry, roads and trail maintenance, wildlife, recreation” said Rebecca Turner, Senior Director of Programs and Policy of American Forests, “including the very programs that would reduce wildfire risk, like State Fire Assistance and restoration. This new proposed mechanism will help stop this from happening.”

Many factors contribute to the increase in wildfire frequency and severity, including changes in climate, build-up of hazardous fuels, and increasing populations in the wildland urban interface. This past decade fires have burned 57% more land than in the previous four decades; the fire season has expanded by two months; and the average size of fires has increased by a factor of five since the 1970s. The frequency and severity of these wildfires need to be matched by significant levels of funding to protect people, water, and wildlife.

“We’re asking House and Senate appropriators to adopt the language in the Wyden/Crapo bill as they work to fund the remainder of FY2014”, said Cecilia Clavet, Senior Policy Advisor on Fire and Forest Restoration of The Nature Conservancy, “we cannot afford another year of inadequate funding levels that force agencies to take away from already constrained programs, including the very ones that would decrease fire risk and costs like restoration.”

“In passing the FLAME Act, Congress intended to fully fund the USFS and DOI’s suppression accounts while eliminating the need to transfer monies from other agency programs to fund emergency wildfire suppression,” said Chris Maisch, Alaska State Forester and President of the National Association of State Foresters, “the practice of transferring funds from non-fire programs has undermined the agencies’ ability to help sustainably manage the nation’s forests that are essential in delivering products, jobs, and many important services including clean air and water, wildlife habitat and other benefits that people value.”

Members of the Fire Suppression Funding Coalition provided a letter to appropriators requesting they adopt language from the Wildfire Disaster Funding bill in the FY2014 appropriations bill.

Members of the Fire Suppression Funding Solutions Partner Caucus include:

1. American Forest Foundation

2. American Forests

3. Federal Forest Resource Coalition

4. Intertribal Timber Council

5. National Association of Forest Service Retirees

6. National Association of State Foresters

7. National Ski Areas Association

8. National Wild Turkey Federation

9. Society of American Foresters

10. Sustainable Northwest

11. The Nature Conservancy

12. The Wilderness Society

USFS Retirees Call National Forest Management “Unsustainable”

nafsr logo

Here’s the press release from NAFSR..

Leaders of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees met with U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell in Washington D.C. today to present him with their concerns and recommendations to improve the current fire management situation in the America’s National Forests.

NAFSR Board Chair Jim Golden and Fire Committee leader Al West stated that “we believe that the current fire management situation in many of our National Forests is unsustainable,
from the standpoint of natural resources, community welfare, economics and general stewardship. In addition, it is a significant threat to all Forest Service programs, both fire
and non-fire related as well as the statutory responsibilities in all mission areas.” NAFSR leaders also told the Chief that the linkage between poor forest health and fire size and
intensity is undeniable.

NAFSR Executive Director Darrel Kenops added that “we take this position and make these recommendations at a very critical time for the U.S. Forest Service, for affected communities and for our Nation. There is a growing understanding the current situation is unsustainable and now it’s time for enacting significant fire policy improvements if we are to save our
National Forests and National Grasslands. We join with many who realize this situation is unsustainable and recognize the need for improvement and action.”

Here’s the link to the position paper.

IT IS THE POSITION OF NAFSR THAT THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS ARE NEEDED TO CLARIFY AND IMPROVE THE CURRENT FIRE POLICY SITUATION AND NAFSR WILL WORK ACTIVELY WITH OTHER PARTNERS TO IMPLEMENT THEM:

1. There is a need to gain recognition and broad support that the National Forests and National Grasslands must be actively managed to restore them to a healthy and sustainable condition for future generations to benefit from and enjoy.

2. Seek ways to increase funding to improve forest health and reduce fuel loading through management that includes the use of prescribed fire and silvicultural treatments, both at
National Forest boundaries and in the interior. Sustainable utilization of biomass and forest products could finance significant forest restoration.

3. Past fire management reviews need to be revisited, including the Yellowstone Evaluation Report following the 1988 fires. They should be updated, revisions made where necessary and reissued as policy for wide understanding.

4. Recent Fire Policy Statements should be clarified to ensure there is understanding of the different types of fires. It is essential that personnel understand and implement rapid aggressive initial attack in all areas and situations where there is no pre-approved and clearly defined plan
that calls for another approach.

5. Line Officers and Fire leadership must receive adequate training, and with help, gain experience in implementing National Fire Policy. Assistance of local knowledgeable personnel and others should be a requirement until experience is obtained.

6. “Hot” fire review of the majority of controversial, costly and damaging fires should be carried out. Follow-up reviews should be independently made with recommendations on accountability.

7. There is a need to continue to pursue realistic fire suppression funding that is adequate so that other general appropriations shall not be used or taken to support fire suppression. The intent of the Flame Act of 2009 has not been realized.

8. Develop a policy statement emphasizing all employees can have and are encouraged to have a role during fire emergencies, regardless of duty location and personal limitation.

9. Emphasis on preparing fire management and leadership succession planning should have high priority. As experienced trained fire-qualified personnel retire, it is critical to step up planning and implementation of training, including practical experience, in accordance with a long term plan.

10. There is a need to actively pursue support for reducing existing legislation conflicts and exposure to frivolous appeals and litigation that hamper proposed management projects, and help to streamline environmental planning to make it more effective and less costly.

The National Association of Forest Service Retirees stands ready to provide assistance

I’d be interested in which numbers people agree and don’t agree with and why.

“Forests to Faucets”: 10,000 Piles in 10 Days with Video

controlled-burn-pkg-copy-01

Check out this video with burning piles in Colorado..from CBS 4 News. Worth having to endure the annoying ad, IMHO.

One of my media interests is comparing how stories are reported in local news compared to national news. My hypothesis is because they speak to people working with projects, the coverage tends to be more pragmatic and less ideological. Listening to this reporting, it is hard to find anyone against it. Because it’s not Timber Industry, it’s Denver Water.

“We have a lot of people glad to see us getting this done,” Armstrong said.

Up to 4,000 tree piles per day may be burned this year under a special state smoke permit, compared to the usual limit of 250. In the end the mountains and metro Denver should benefit.

“Catastrophic wildfire can have devastating impacts on our water supply, and so by treating the forest properly we can help prevent that and reduce costs in the future,” Chesney said.

The Forest Service hopes to burn more than half of the 20,000 tree piles in just 7 to 10 days. In the meantime, spending millions should help keep the drinking water clean.

That’s a lot of GHG’s, and why many Coloradans think that alternatives to burning piles could be good for the economy and the environment.

Largest “Dealbreaker” Ever?!?

This may shock some readers but, I am actually against HR 3188. I don’t support any logging in Yosemite National Park, or in the Emigrant Wilderness, other than hazard tree projects. What is also pretty amazing is that others in the House have signed on to this bill. It seems like political “suicide” to go on record, being in favor of this bill. However, I am in favor of exempting regular Forest Service lands, within the Rim Fire, from legal actions, as long as they display “due diligence” in addressing endangered species, and other environmental issues. Did McClintock not think that expedited Yosemite National Park logging would be, maybe, the largest “dealbreaker” in history?

Here is McClintock’s presentation:

 HR 3188 – Timber Fire Salvage

October 3, 2013
Mr. Chairman:
I want to thank you for holding this hearing today and for the speedy consideration of HR 3188.
It is estimated that up to one billion board feet of fire-killed timber can still be salvaged out of the forests devastated by the Yosemite Rim fire, but it requires immediate action.  As time passes, the value of this dead timber declines until after a year or so it becomes unsalvageable.
The Reading Fire in Lassen occurred more than one year ago.  The Forest Service has just gotten around to selling salvage rights last month.  In the year the Forest Service has taken to plow through endless environmental reviews, all of the trees under 18” in diameter – which is most of them – have become worthless.
After a year’s delay for bureaucratic paperwork, extreme environmental groups will often file suits to run out the clock, and the 9th Circuit Court of appeals has become infamous for blocking salvage operations.
We have no time to waste in the aftermath of the Yosemite Rim Fire, which destroyed more than 400 square miles of forest in the Stanislaus National Forest and the Yosemite National Park — the largest fire ever recorded in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The situation is particularly urgent because of the early infestation of bark beetles which have already been observed attacking the dead trees.  As they do so, the commercial value of those trees drops by half.
Four hundred miles of roads are now in jeopardy.  If nearby trees are not removed before winter, we can expect dead trees to begin toppling, risking lives and closing access.  Although the Forest Service has expedited a salvage sale on road and utility rights of way as part of the immediate emergency measures, current law otherwise only allows a categorical exemption for just 250 acres – enough to protect just 10 miles of road.
By the time the normal environmental review of salvage operations has been completed in a year, what was once forest land will have already begun converting to brush land, and by the following year reforestation will become infinitely more difficult and expensive – especially if access has been lost due to impassibility of roads.  By that time, only trees over 30 inches in diameter will be salvageable.
Within two years, five to eight feet of brush will have built up and the big trees will begin toppling on this tinder.  You could not possibly build a more perfect fire than that.
If we want to stop the conversion of this forestland to brush land, the dead timber has to come out.  If we take it out now, we can actually sell salvage rights, providing revenue to the treasury that could then be used for reforestation.  If we go through the normal environmental reviews and litigation, the timber will be worthless, and instead of someone paying US to remove the timber, WE will have to pay someone else to do so.  The price tag for that will be breathtaking.   We will then have to remove the accumulated brush to give seedlings a chance to survive – another very expensive proposition.
This legislation simply waives the environmental review process for salvage operations on land where the environment has already been incinerated, and allows the government to be paid for the removal of already dead timber, rather than having the government pay someone else.
There is a radical body of opinion that says, just leave it alone and the forest will grow back.
Indeed, it will, but not in our lifetimes.  Nature gives brush first claim to the land – and it will be decades before the forest is able to fight its way back to reclaim that land.
This measure has bi-partisan precedent.  It is the same approach as offered by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle a few years ago to allow salvage of beetle-killed timber in the Black Hills National Forest.
Finally, salvaging this timber would also throw an economic lifeline to communities already devastated by this fire as local mills can be brought to full employment for the first time in many years.
Time is not our friend.  We can act now and restore the forest, or we can dawdle until restoration will become cost prohibitive.

Fire Prevention Plans: “Almost impossible unless we have a different mindset”

Huge kudos to Missoulian/Ravalli Republic reporter David Erickson for one of the best, factual and most candid looks at the issue of home/community wildfire protection, which appeared in today’s paper. Honestly, I have to believe that one of the reasons this article is so complete and interesting is because the reporter must have taped the entire conversation. So instead of a garbled collection of one sentence sound bites, the public gets huge chucks of information from Montana DNRC and U.S. Forest Service fire experts, spoken in their own words.

From my perspective, the heart of the article is the simple fact that way, way too many homeowners living in the Wildland-Urban Interface simply don’t take responsibility for conducting proven and effective FireWise measures, which need to occur on a pretty regular basis, and certainly long before a wildfire is cresting the ridge. Remember, on the Lolo Creek Complex fire professional “firefighters [from as far away as North Carolina] had been relegated to raking pine needles from yards while others cleared brush and limbed up trees surrounding homes.”  Yet,  many times (as the article points out) these are the same people who complain the loudest when U.S. Forest Service, state DNRC and even local volunteer fire department crews aren’t able to save their house during a wildfire.

The article really cuts to the heart of the issue regarding some of the politics in Montana, including what can best be described as simply anti-government sentiments.

The situation described by US Forest Service and Montana DNRC fire experts also seems to contradict one of the common refrains I hear all the time in Montana, and also on this blog when we talk about wildfire in places like Colorado’s Front Range. Basically, while some people want to give the impression that homeowners, neighborhood associations and communities have done absolutely everything possible to get FireWise and prepare for the wildfire, and all that’s left to do is increase “fuel reduction” efforts on public Forest Service lands, the experts in this article paint a much different picture. Perhaps this is just the situation and mindset in Montana, so I’m curious to see what others have experienced.

Finally, I also must highlight that the point made by Montana State Forester Harrington regarding the fact that “thinning and pre-treating forests” really doesn’t work when you have single-digit humidity, 95+ temperatures and high winds is basically the same exact point that environmentalists have been trying to make for the better part of two decades now. Reader’s may recall George Wuerthner’s piece “Wind Drives All Large Blazes,” posted on this blog as the Lolo Creek Complex fire was burning.

Please do read David Erickson’s entire article. Below are some highlight snips:

LOLO – How do you reconcile the fact that many private landowners in Montana are resistant to the government and local fire managers telling them what to do with their land when those same private landowners become outraged after a wildfire burns their property that wasn’t properly taken care of beforehand?

That’s the question a group of state legislators grappled with when they met with Bitterroot Valley fire managers and Montana Department of Natural Resources forestry officials on Thursday to tour the remains of the 11,000-acre Lolo Complex fire that ripped through the Highway 12 corridor west of Lolo this past August….

State Sen. Cliff Larson of Frenchtown, who represents Senate District 50, said he lives near where the Black Cat fire torched 12,000 acres in 2007.

“I know the Frenchtown Fire Department tried to work with local landowners on fuel reduction programs and protecting against fire hazards,” he recalled. “People said, ‘Just get off my property, don’t tell me what to do.’ And there are two people that I know of personally that were outraged when the fire department didn’t come there right away and because they had 15 cords of wood stacked behind their house they had to hose them down to protect their house.

“And they are outraged that they didn’t get that attention, even though the fire department went there in advance and warned them that they have some serious fire hazards right there on their property. And those two families are still complaining. So how do we force people to cooperate with the DNRC and the fire departments and the Forest Service? It’s frustrating.”

Bob Harrington, the Montana DNRC state forester, said that community wildfire prevention plans are really good in some counties but not great in others.

“We in the fire service have been at it for 15 to 20 years now, really intensely trying to impress on those homeowners that live in the wildland/urban interface to treat their property,” he explained. “We do public media, we do workshops, and there are individual consultations that the fire departments do, that our folks do. A lot of the landowners do it and take advantage of it. But we have a lot folks that that isn’t enough of an incentive yet. Whether it’s pressure from insurance, pressure from banking or peer pressure from their neighbors. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn’t. Unfortunately, sometimes we as Americans, there’s a lot of us that don’t respond unless it hits us in the wallet.”…

The fire managers agreed that the Lolo Complex’s main blowup was the type of fire behavior that is not easily controlled….

Harrington said a variety of factors contributed to the fire’s wild blowup.

“That’s a part of the public dialogue that we’ve been having since this fire happened,” he said. “We have folks on one side who are saying, ‘See, forest management doesn’t do anything to stop forest fires,’ because there was so much Plum Creek land that had been managed, and that also burned. The reality is, when we are talking about thinning and pre-treating forest, we’re not talking about fires like this. This was one of the most extreme fire days that you are going to see in western Montana. Single-digit humidity, close to triple-digit temperatures, and then winds 20, 30 and 40 miles per hour.

“The analogy I always give is that we still give flu shots even though we have influenza outbreaks because we are trying to minimize the effect of that, so we’re still treating forests. Reducing fire risk and prioritizing some sections in the wildland urban interface, and it gets a little bit trickier on private land and industrial forest land, which the majority of this fire happened on, areas that had been intensively managed in the past. A lot of what carried the fire was second-growth trees. Everything was burning, grass and downed logs, everything.”

Harrington said he has noticed that some landowners take advantage of educational programs and cost-sharing programs to prepare their land for fire danger, but others do not….

“So the innovators that understand where they live, they’ve taken advantage of it. But even then, like these guys saw managing this fire, we had a lot of folks in Sleeman Gulch where we had firefighters out there doing that work at the last minute.”….

Ehli said that in his experience, telling property owners what they need to do on their land to mitigate fire danger isn’t going to work.

“When we start talking about a wildfire prevention plan, I was the chief of the Hamilton Volunteer Fire Department when that came through and there was a huge pushback,” he said. “Oh my God, the resistance you got from county personnel, county commissioners and huge, huge pushback. So when you start talking about a community wildfire prevention plan, it’s not as simple as drawing lines on a map. Not only because of the enormous amount of property you have to think about, but also the political aspect as well.

“So we have got to be honest with ourselves when we start talking about prevention plans, I’m going to say it, it’s almost impossible unless we have a different mindset put in. And maybe we’re going to get there someday within the state of Montana and get people on board and get property owners on board about what we need to do, but we’ve really got to talk about the near impossibility of getting something like this in play, mostly from the political standpoint.”….

Liane said that he hopes a fire like the Lolo Complex will convince people to listen to local fire departments about taking steps to protect their property during the winter.

“Those of us who have served in natural resources committees would love to hear more about how do you convince those individuals who are knotheads to take the firewood off their back porch?” he said. “We need to build a plan that encourages people through local service activities, and the fire department in Frenchtown is very proactive. They have the same problem that Lolo does. People are sitting ducks when a fire like this comes through.”

Hansen said not a lot has changed since the big fires of 2000 rolled through the Bitterroot Valley.

“It’s the short-term memory thing that kills us,” he said. “I mean, if you had come down here last winter knocking on doors to sell people on the idea of fuel treatment, they would have told you to pound sand. Now the next three years, they’ll be begging for it. And three years from now they’ll have forgotten how bad the fire was. And we’ve seen it happen since the fires of 2000. You know, two years after the fire, they are back to not wanting anybody to tell them what to do.”

“Until the fire comes knocking at their door,” Ehli added.

Why We Need to Salvage and Replant the Rim Fire

Greg asked why we should bother with salvage logging on the Rim Fire, and I tried to explain how bear clover would dominate landscapes. He also seemed confused about modern salvage projects, here in California. Everything, here in California, is fuels-driven, as wildfires happen up to 13 times per century, in some places in the Sierra Nevada.

This picture shows how dense the bear clover can be, blocking some of the germination and growth of conifer species. Additionally, bear clover is extremely flammable and oily, leading to re-burns. This project also included removing unmerchantable fuels, including leaving branches attached. Yes, it was truly a “fuels reduction project”. You might also notice how many trees died, from bark beetles, after this salvage sale was completed. Certainly, blackbacked woodpeckers can live here, despite the salvage logging. Hanson and the Ninth Circuit Court stopped other salvage sales in this project, in favor of the BBW.

P9256073-web

When you combine this bear clover with a lack of fire salvage and chaparral brush, you end up with everything you need for a catastrophic, soils-damaging re-burn and enhanced erosion, which will impact long term recovery and the re-establishment of large tree forests. Actually, there has already been a re-burn within this project since salvage operations in 2006. Salvage logging greatly reduced that fire’s intensity, as it slicked-off the bear clover, but stayed on the ground. Certainly, if the area hadn’t been salvaged, those large amounts of fuels would have led to a much different outcome.

Now, if we apply these lessons to the Rim Fire, we can see how a lack of salvage in some areas within the Rim Fire will lead to enhanced future fires, and more soils damages and brushfields. When the Granite Fire was salvaged in the early 70’s, large areas were left “to recover on their own”, in favor of wildlife and other supposed “values”. When I worked on plantation thinning units there, those areas were 30 year old brushfields, with manzanita and ceanothus up to eight feet high. Those brushfields burned at moderate intensity, according to the burn severity map. Certainly, there were remnant logs left covered by those brushfields, leading to the higher burn severity. It was the exact same situation in my Yosemite Meadow Fire example, which as you could see by the pictures, did massive damage to the landscape, greatly affecting long term recovery. Here is the link to a view of one of those Rim Fire brushfields, surrounded by thinned plantations.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=37.999904,-119.948199&spn=0.003792,0.008256&t=h&z=18

I’ve been waiting to get into this area but, I expect the fire area will remain closed until next year. The plantations were thinned and I hear that some of them did have some survival, despite drought conditions and high winds, during the wildfire. In this part of California, fuels are the critical factor in wildfire severity. Indians knew this, after thousands of years of experience. They knew how to “grow” old growth forests, dedicating substantial amounts of time and energy to “manage” their fuels for their own survival, safety and prosperity. Their preferred forest included old growth pines, large oak trees, very little other understory trees, and thick bear clover. Since wildfires in our modern world are a given, burning about every 20 to 40 years, we cannot be “preserving” fuels for the next inevitable wildfire.

We need to be able to burn these forests, without causing the overstory pines to die from cambium kill, or bark beetles. That simply cannot be done when unsalvaged fuels choke the landscape. We MUST intervene in the Rim Fire, to reduce the fuels for the next inevitable wildfire that WILL come, whether it is “natural”, or human-caused. “Protected” old growth endangered species habitats may now become “protected” fuels-choked brushfields, ready for the next catastrophic wildfire, without some “snag thinning”.  We cannot just let “whatever happens”, happen, and the Rim Fire is a perfect example of “whatever happens”. Shouldn’t we be planning and acting to reduce those impacts, including the extreme costs of putting the Rim Fire out, and other significant human costs? Re-burns are a reality we cannot ignore, and doing nothing is unacceptable. Yes, much of the fire doesn’t have worthwhile salvage volumes, and that is OK but, there are less controversial salvage efforts we can and should be accomplishing.

Here is an example of salvage and bear clover, six months after logging with ground-based equipment. This looks like it will survive future wildfires. You can barely even see the stumps, today! The bear clover has covered them.

clean_salvage-06