Fire and Fuels

Regulating the Flood-Prone Compared to the Wildfire-Prone

by

new york after sandy

Given our discussions of people who build in fire prone areas, I thought it was interesting to compare to a blog post about building in flood prone areas. The post is by Stéphane Hallegatte, Senior Economist, Sustainable Development Network, Office of the Chief Economist, The World Bank, and is on Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog here.

Here’s a quote:

There are limits to what coastal defenses and land regulations can achieve. Some like the idea that we build in risky areas because of “wrong incentives”, namely flood insurance subsidies through the National Flood Insurance Program. According to them, removing these incentives would solve the problem.

“Wrong incentives” exist and play a role – this is obvious – but unfortunately they cannot explain the current trend in risk exposure alone. Flood losses are on the rise in almost all countries, including those that have no flood insurance system (5). And if insurance claims help pay for rebuilding, they cannot compensate for all the losses. Getting flooded is a tragedy, with or without insurance.

People move toward risky areas because this is where better jobs and higher incomes are. And they are there because growing sectors are in coastal areas – driven by harbors and global trade – and in cities – that are usually located next to rivers and coasts and thus in flood prone areas. Would financial sector professionals quit their high-wage jobs in Manhattan in the absence of flood insurance? Would their employers move their headquarters to the Great Plains? Would the beach club owner in New Jersey move her business two miles inside the country?

Better land regulations may be able to decrease flood exposure, but they cannot do so in a significant manner – in the absence of a large-scale buys-out and house destruction program that appears extremely unlikely (6).

Flood exposure will not disappear anytime soon, even if land regulations are improved and bad incentives are removed.

Clearly, people don’t move to the rural interior West for better jobs and higher incomes. Still, people tend to move or agglomerate places that are beautiful and/or near coasts. And whether low or high density, the more people, there is likely to be more potential insurance payout required. Not to speak of the tornado prone, or the earthquake prone.

Scientists synthesize best practices for fuels management in dry mixed conifer forests: New RMRS Reportt

by

rmrs_gtr292 1

Thanks to Derek for finding this new paper by Jain et al. from the Rocky Mountain Station. Here’s a link to the press release and below is an excerpt from the press release. Here is a link to the paper here.

USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station scientists along with collaborators from Humboldt State University, the University of Montana, and the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, synthesized a vast array of information on the ecology, management strategies, and effectiveness of fuel treatments within the dry mixed conifer forests of the northwestern United States. Because dry mixed conifer forests cover such a broad and diverse region of forested landmass, researchers made site-specific visits to federal, state, and tribal land management organizations to conduct over 50 interviews with resource specialists in Montana, Idaho, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Oregon, South Dakota, and California. By incorporating the most relevant scientific research and best practice approaches, scientists used this information to develop an organizational framework to support land management strategies. This collaborative effort, co-funded by the Joint Fire Sciences Program and National Fire Plan, is published in a technical report, “A Comprehensive Guide to Fuels Management Practices for Dry Mixed Conifer Forests in the Northwestern United States.”

“This synthesis is unique because it is designed to enhance cross-disciplinary communication among key stakeholders and land managers; it’s a gateway to a more robust online portal which provides an interactive literature list to access cited references in the publication,” says Dr. Terrie Jain, Research Forester, and the project’s lead scientist. “We focused on information to directly address questions and concerns presented by land managers, which can also be a useful tool for National Environmental Policy Act planning because it provides key information in one easily accessible location for planning and forecasting,” elaborated Jain.

Key sections of the report include:

A comprehensive summary of dry mixed conifer forest ecology, management, and fuel treatment effectiveness guidelines.
Options to address land management challenges developed through direct discussions with forest and fuels managers.
Various management strategies to treat fuels, including mechanical, biological, chemical, and prescribed fire alternatives to promote fire-resilient ecosystems.
U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis information to assess current conditions and economic feasibility.
Organized and simple to read layouts to enhance understanding and relevance among readers.

Dr. Jain will be presenting this scientific compilation at the upcoming 5th International Fire Ecology Management Congress in Portland, Oregon on Thursday, December 7th, 2012.

Are We Ready for 12-15 Million Per Year? The Chief Speaks in Boise

by

From the Idaho Statesman here.

If you think fires have gotten big in the past few years, hold on.

U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said Friday that the blazes will only get bigger and that the cost of fighting them could nearly double. But the agency that manages 193 million acres of national forest — including 20 million in Idaho — plans to increase timber sales by 20 percent in the next two years as part of a restoration effort to make communities safer and watersheds more resilient.

Wildfires have burned in excess of 8 million acres six times since 2004, a dramatic increase over the yearly totals seen in the past five decades. But Tidwell told the City Club of Boise that as many as 12 million to 15 million acres will burn annually now because of warming temperatures and drier years.

This comes even as state, tribal and federal agencies put out 98 percent of all the fires that start, Tidwell said. Firefighters jump on those blazes as aggressively as they can, he said.

“It’s that 2 percent that become very large very quickly,” Tidwell said.

Today’s fires are often so ferocious that managers won’t risk putting crews in their path. The thousands of homes that have been built in and on the edges of the national forests have forced managers to shift resources and prompted firefighters to protect communities and lives.

“It has drastically changed the way we fight those fires,” said Tidwell, a forester who grew up in Boise.

Also

Federal budget cuts will make money more scarce, but communities are increasingly taking responsibility, he said. Flagstaff, Ariz., passed a $10 million bond to do forest restoration on private and federal land there.

Experiences in Idaho this year show that fuel-reduction works. On the 340,000-acre Mustang Complex Fire north of Salmon, a logging project in Hughes Creek helped firefighters turn the blaze away from U.S. 93, a critical economic corridor.

“There is no question our restoration work can make a difference,” Tidwell said.

Questions from the audience suggested that many believe the agency is still hindered by lawsuits aimed at stopping timber and salvage sales. But Tidwell said lawsuits are less of a problem today because of collaborative efforts such as the Clearwater Basin Collaborative in north-central Idaho.

Two Stewardship Contracts in Colorado- Including Wood for Energy

by

Here’s a link and below is an excerpt.

“Not only will these contracts help us alleviate the impacts of the mountain pine beetle infestation and reduce the threats of catastrophic wildfire, but they also will offer a supply of woody biomass that will be used to produce low-cost heat and a clean, renewable source of electricity,” said Harris Sherman, under secretary of the Department of Agriculture.

Scott Fitzwilliams, supervisor of the White River National Forest, said the work will help restore the landscape as well as produce wood products for everything from lumber to wood pellets to power plant fuel.

West Range Reclamation will remove lodgepole and ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, Engleman spruce and aspen and other tree species susceptible to insect and disease infestations.

The contract is the latest for a forest management company that has completed more than 300 contracts and 70,000 acres of range and forest projects on public and private land in five western states.

“The continued stability of the 10-year project will allow West Range to provide well-paying, steady, year-round work for our current employees and the ability to hire more skilled operators,” said Pam Motley of West Range Reclamation.

“We also intend to do our part to help strengthen local economies by purchasing products and services — such as fuel, food, housing, tools, parts, supplies, rentals and repair services — from local businesses,” Motley added.

Part of the wood removed during the treatments will provide fuel for a 11.5-megawatt power plant planned for Gypsum.

Eagle Valley Clean Energy plans to build the woody biomass plant to supply electricity to Holy Cross Energy and, in turn, an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 homes in Western Colorado.

Heat generated at the power plant will support the operation of an adjacent wallboard factory.

The USDA Rural Utilities Service announced in October a $40 million loan guarantee to help finance the plant.

Eagle Valley Clean Energy estimates the plant will create 107 construction jobs and 41 permanent jobs.

Confluence Energy will remove beetle-killed trees. Where commercially practical, the wood will be used for lumber, wood pellets and other products. The company will pay for those materials to offset the cost of the removal project.

And from another article here..

“The stewardship contracts are especially exciting because it will add to Colorado’s balance of clean, renewable energy by supporting biomass energy — electricity and heat for Eagle Valley Clean Energy in Gypsum and wood pellets for clean and efficient heating at Confluence Energy in Kremmling,” Udall said in the release.

and

“Active management of our multiple use national forest acreage in Colorado is vital as we confront the bark beetle epidemic and grow our forest products industries,” said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., in a news release. “After a summer of devastating wildfires, there’s an even greater urgency to ensure that our forests are healthy and resilient.

Our elected officials and political appointees in the Department seem to agree this is a good thing to have jobs. to reduce the use of fossil fuels, to reduce the costs of fuel treatments, and to use natural resources in a sustainable way..any nay-sayers out there?

For those who follow the coal mine litigation (could coal be the “new timber”? ) wars, Holy Cross Energy is also the one who partnered with Aspen Ski Co to use methane that would otherwise be vented from coal mines (Elk Creek). Here’s a link with more information. Meanwhile, since at least 2007, methane has been vented while some people worked on litigation and some potential legislative fixes. You gotta applaud people who “just do it.” Props to you Holy Cross and Aspen Skico. Here’s a link and below is an excerpt.

Holy Cross’s challenge, as the power purchaser, was to arrange transmission from the mine. “The electricity had to be wheeled over medium-voltage distribution lines to a TriState [Generation and Transmission Association] substation, then across Western and Xcel Energy transmission lines,” said Hildred. “We weren’t sure in what order we needed to talk to people. DMEA [Delta Montrose Energy Association], the owner of the line that supplies power to the mine, had never dealt with anything like this before.”

All of the parties proved cooperative, so Holy Cross was able to sort out the distribution without encountering too many barriers. The utility signed the power purchase agreement and DMEA built a substation with a short extension to the 44-kV line.

Of course, no project happens without funding, and the developer was fortunate in finding an “angel” with an interest in alternative energy. Randy Udall, a sustainable energy advocate and former executive director of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency, happened to be at Vessels’s first meeting with Holy Cross Energy. “Afterward, Randy asked me if we were seeking partners and gave me the number of the sustainability director for Aspen Skiing Company,” Vessels recalled.

The innovative project appealed to the ski resort owner with its long history of supporting environmental causes, and the company put up the bulk of the funding to build the Elk Creek facility. “Aspen Skiing Company and Holy Cross Energy deserve accolades for seeing beyond the end of their noses,” declared Vessels.

I wonder what other issues would benefit from the “just do it” approach as opposed to years of litigation or unsuccessful federal legislation attempts?

Forest to Faucet Partnership- Denver Water

by

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this one…
Here’s the link.

By Jim Lochhead
and Dan Jirón
Guest Commentary

National Forest lands serve as the primary source of water that sustains cities and farmlands up and down the Front Range. This summer’s tragic wildfire season, fueled by heat and drought, once again demonstrated that catastrophic wildfires can wreak havoc on our watersheds and have devastating impact on life and property.

Fires impact water supply and water quality by increasing flows of sediment, debris and ash into streams and rivers, requiring emergency measures at treatment plants and millions of dollars to repair damage to habitat, reservoirs and facilities. Today, Colorado Springs and communities in the Fort Collins area are facing the immediate and long-term impacts from the Waldo Canyon and High Park Fires on their water supplies.

More than 10 years ago, the Buffalo Creek and Hayman fires brought to the forefront the need to work more closely together to tackle the impact of wildfires on Denver’s most critical water supply. We learned that our water infrastructure is more than pipes and dams. For Denver Water, our infrastructure encompasses more than 2 million acres of forested land in eight counties. Our investment in these watersheds is a long-term commitment to keeping them healthy decades from now.

We can’t prevent fire from occurring, but healthy forests can reduce the threat of catastrophic fire, like we experienced this year. Denver Water and the U.S. Forest Service have for decades worked side-by-side to care for the watersheds that provide water to Colorado citizens and Denver Water’s customers. Two years ago we forged a partnership — called “From Forests to Faucets” — to work in high-priority watersheds to accelerate forest health treatments that promote healthier, more resilient forests, reduce wildfire risks, restore burned areas and lessen erosion into reservoirs.

Last week, Denver Water and the U.S. Forest Service signed the third annual commitment of funds in support of this partnership. Together, we are focused on treating and restoring 38,000 acres of National Forest System lands in five priority watersheds including the Upper South Platte, South Platte headwaters, Colorado River headwaters, St. Vrain and Blue River. Since the From Forests to Faucets partnership began in 2010, we are currently treating nearly 17,000 acres.

In the Indian Creek drainage near the Rampart recreation area on the Pike National Forest, crews have treated more than 600 acres by removing ground fuels and thinning trees and reducing the threat and impacts of wildfire in the area. Near Dillon Reservoir, which is part of the Blue River Watershed on the White River National Forest, we’ve treated 600 acres, and 1,400 acres will be treated in 2013. Treatments include removing bark beetle-affected trees around the reservoir, while leaving the cut trees on the ground to support the next generation of forest.

The critical work done in these priority watersheds means improved water quality for Denver Water customers and millions of downstream water users, and healthier ecosystems, which benefit forest visitors and wildlife. While our current agreement focuses on reaching specific goals by 2015, we recognize that we’ll be working together for decades to come.

We are extremely proud of the work accomplished to date to protect our National Forest lands. The outcome of pulling our resources together, prioritizing work within critical watersheds, and putting people to work on the ground to improve water quality and quantity makes a real difference for Denver Water customers, forest visitors, and the ecosystem. We feel strongly that this partnership is a replicable example for future opportunities to approach critical watershed and forest restoration with partners that can only gain from what each can bring to the table.

Jim Lochhead is CEO and manager of Denver Water. Dan Jirón is a regional forester with the U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

I wonder why this water partnerships like this are a New Mexico/Colorado phenomenon and not a California/Montana phenomenon? Maybe I just don’t know about them elsewhere? Maybe the lack of a forest industry means that these things can happen without the timber wars ghosts? Ideas?

Update From the Fremont-Winema NF

by

(One of my pictures from the Biscuit Fire)

From Greg Walden’s Facebook posting:

I just got off the phone with Kent Connaughton, the Forest Service’s Regional Forester for Oregon. In September, I brought Kent to Lakeview to meet with landowners who suffered horrible losses of timber and livestock during the Barry Point fire. These landowners are very concerned with how the Forest Service fought the fire and are trying to figure out how to cope with the losses they’ve suffered

.Kent gave me a status update tonight, and here is what I learned:

1) The Forest Service is conducting an independent review of its own operations during the Barry Point fire. It is still in the works, but Kent believes it raises a number of unanswered questions, and he has asked for a more formal review by the states of Oregon and California. He will share a copy of the report once it is completed next month, and I look forward to getting to the bottom of these unanswered questions.

2) Kent has sent a special team into the Fremont-Winema National Forest to ensure there is no disruption in timber supply due to the fires. The Forest Service has also announced it will make 30 million board feet of timber available for each of the next two years, double the current production.

3) Kent also gave me an update on the Forest Service’s work with affected ranchers and landowners on recovery and repair to fences and property damaged during the fire. The Forest Service is putting $100,000 into the repair of fences destroyed during firefighting, and an additional $350,000 for materials to repair fences destroyed by the fire. Additionally, the Farm Services Administration is making $196,000 available to landowners for use in repairs.

It is good news that this fire recovery work continues, but we need to see it through to the finish. I will continue to work with citizens recovering from these wildfire disasters and make sure that all levels of government are helping with recovery as quickly as possible.

Following Up with the Fire Modelling Discussion

by

I received an answer from Brandon Collins, one of the authors of the paper we discussed here. At comment #14 here, I said that I would ask the author how they selected 5,000. It was a while back so thought I’d start a new post.

Here’s the answer from Brandon Collins, one of the authors of the paper.

I looked at your blog and the discussion around the issue of modeling fuel treatment tradeoffs is good. There are several valid points brought up. With regard to our choice to use 5000 randomly placed ignitions, the point of was to saturate the landscape with fire so that you essentially remove the influence of fire origin. By doing this you can get dominant fire spread patterns across the landscape, independent of assumptions about where fires may start. In our case we focused on how planned treatments (which now are being implemented) changed the occurrence of more problematic fire (flame lengths > 2m) across the landscape. By using the fire spread algorithm within RANDIG you can get at both on-site (within treated areas) and off-site (outside treatment areas) effects of fuel treatments. You cannot quantify the off-site effects of treatments if you don’t use a fire spread algorithm (e.g., stand-level modeling). This approach generates estimates of “conditional” burn probability, meaning the probability of a particular area (e.g., pixel) burning during a specified duration, given that a fire ignites in the analysis area. This is not an estimate of actual burn probability.

With regard to arguments that fuel treatment benefits (e.g., reduced fire behavior and effects) may not be realized when you take into account the actual probability of fire occurring in a particular area, we wrote this in a recent article published in Ecosphere 3(5):Article 38 (can be downloaded from http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/stephens-lab/Articles.htm )

“The fact that we do not explicitly incorporate the probability of such an event occurring emphasizes that our analysis is not an actual risk assessment, i.e., expected loss multiplied by the probability of occurrence (Finney 2005). Rather, our assessment is more similar to a hazard analysis. While recent studies have included probability estimates of wildfire occurrence, and in particular occurrence of more severe fire in their assessments of fuel treatment impacts on C stocks (Ager et al. 2010, Campbell et al. 2011), there are several factors associated with the estimation of wildfire occurrence that lead to considerable uncertainty in results. First, the use of actual wildfire occurrence over the last two to three decades to derive annual burn probabilities (Campbell et al. 2011) reflects neither the historical (pre-Euro-American) occurrence of fire in frequently burned forest types (Stephens et al. 2007, Van de Water and Safford 2011), nor the projected changes in fire occurrence due to climate change in the future (McKenzie et al. 2004, Westerling et al. 2011). Second, changes in fire sizes resulting from fuel treatment implementation, particularly when considering the increased fire suppression efficacy associated with fuel treatments (e.g., Moghaddas and Craggs 2007), are not evaluated. This could lead to considerable over-estimation of fire occurrence in “treated” landscapes relative to “untreated” landscapes. A third source of uncertainty in the calculation of burn probabilities is related to the potential feedbacks associated with severe fires. In many dry forest types in the western US shrubs dominate for several decades following high-severity fire (McGinnis et al. 2010), and for that period of shrub-dominance the likelihood of reburning at high severity relative to intact forests is increased (van Wagtendonk et al. 2011). This feedback would affect calculations of high severity burn probabilities over time, particularly for “untreated” landscapes where more high severity fire would be expected.”

AWR: The Rest of the Story on the Little Belts Lawsuit

by
The Little Belt Mountain Range on the Lewis and Clark National Forest in central Montana as seen from overhead on this Google image. As anyone can clearly see, nearly the entire mountain range has been heavily roaded, clearcut and mined. Ask yourself: is this tremendous fragmentation good for native wildlife or native fish?

The following opinion editorial is written by Mike Garrity, Alliance for Wild Rockies. It appeared in today’s Great Falls Tribune:

The Tribune’s article on Nov. 18 about the Lewis and Clark National Forest left out some important details and readers deserve to know why the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council went to court to protect the Little Belt Mountains from the proposed “Hazardous Trees Reduction Project.”

First, it is important to bring some perspective to the scope of the project. Logging will take place on a whopping 575 miles of roads. If you were to jump on I-15 and head south, you’d have to go all the way to Salt Lake City to cover that many miles. But remember, all those miles of road to be logged are not spread out through three states from Great Falls to Salt Lake — they’re located in just one Montana mountain range.

The project would change those small roads and two-tracks to look like landing strips since all the roadside trees would be cut down for hundreds of feet. As a result, any elk that cross roads won’t be quickly sneaking across two-tracks, they’ll be fully exposed in an open area as long as a football field. That the project includes this kind of logging in wilderness study areas, research natural areas, inventoried roadless areas, and old growth also deserves explanation by the Forest Service, not obfuscation.

Widespread herbicide spraying is also proposed in several watersheds and streams that are already rated impaired due to sedimentation. More logging will dump even more sediment into these degraded streams, which is antithetical to state efforts to preserve Westslope cutthroat trout and keep Montana’s state fish off the Endangered Species list. The bottom line, however, is that the Forest Service is required by law to produce an environmental analysis for public review and comment.

While Forest Supervisor Bill Avey claims the agency wants more early public involvement, his attempt to use a categorical exclusion does just the opposite – it excludes the public and is the primary reason for taking the agency to court. The Forest Service has prepared an environmental analysis for all similar projects in Montana. Had this proposal been allowed to go forward, it would have set a terrible precedent not just for Montana, but nationwide.

Categorical exclusions were intended for purposes such as mowing lawns at ranger stations or painting outhouses, not logging over 17,000 acres along 575 miles of roads. Had Avey followed the law, the public would certainly have raised questions about the proposal. For instance, environmental analysis would reveal that massive infestations of noxious weeds such as thistle, knapweed, and hounds tongue already exist along these roads. The Forest Service admits it can’t control them now, but didn’t want to admit that logging will only make the situation worse.

Or how about the fact that Canada lynx, wolverine, black-backed woodpecker, Northern goshawk, Western toad, and Northern three-toed woodpecker are all known to occur in the Little Belts and that their numbers will be further reduced by these massive clear cuts? Or maybe Avey didn’t want the public to know that the Forest Service’s own studies show that logging wild lands has little effect on wildfires and that they even might make fires burn hotter because logged forests are hotter, windier, and drier than unlogged forests. Or perhaps Avey didn’t want to explain why the Forest Service wants to log these so-called hazardous trees at a cost of over $2 million to taxpayers when there isn’t a hazard.

Firewood cutters have already done a good job removing beetle-killed trees next to the roads — and they did it without a subsidy from taxpayers. And finally, the public might want to ask why Avey waited until he was sued in federal court to agree to follow the law and write an environmental analysis on this timber sale.

We explained to Avey at an appeal resolution meeting that the Forest Service was illegally excluding the public from having input on this proposal, but unfortunately, he ignored us until we sued, and then he pulled the project. We firmly believe that in America the public should have a say in the management of our public lands. It is unfortunate that we had to go to court to get it.

Forest Service withdraws controversial CE Decision Memo

by

Two months ago we had a discussion about the appropriate, or inappropriate, use of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) relating to the Lewis and Clark National Forest’s “Little Belt Mountain Hazard Tree Removal Project” in central Montana.  This followed other debates on this blog about the use of CE’s (here and here).

According to the Alliance for Wild Rockies, the use of a CE for this project – which they contend would result in logging over 17,000 acres of national forest lands, including logging in Inventoried Roadless Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Research Natural Areas, and old-growth forests – was inappropriate, so they sued.

On Thursday, Lewis and Clark National Forest Supervisor, William Avey, sent out this letter to interested parties, letting the public know he was withdrawing the CE Decision Memo and intending “to prepare an environmental assessment to provide evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact for the Little Belt Mountains Hazard Tree Removal Project.”

“Fuel Treatments Can Address Wildfire Severity”

by

The Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP) is a joint effort by the University of California, state and federal agencies, and the public formed in 2004 to assess how treatments designed by the USDA Forest Service to prevent severe wildfires affect fire risk, sensitive wildlife populations, forest health and water resources. SNAMP is in year five of an ambitious 7-year experiment to evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies to modify fire behavior across the landscape.

SNAMP has examined real-world fires and developed computer models to evaluate wildfire severity and environmental impacts in response to fuel-reduction treatments looking 30 years to the future. In its Northern Sierra project covering roughly 30,000 acres, SNAMP evaluated three different treatment scenarios. In each case, fuels were reduced across approximately one-third of the study area, and all treatments showed substantial reductions in high-intensity wildfire across the landscape, not just treated areas for 20 years after implementation.

This is from California Forests Magazine, and this issue is full of articles about severe wildfires. The whole article is here. The picture is one of mine from the Lassen National Forest’s 1987 Lost Fire.