Fire and Fuels

Fighting Western wildfires: Does Forest Service have enough air power? (+video): Christian Science Monitor

by

Here’s the link.
Here’s an excerpt:

However, notes Mr. Gabbert, the large tankers play a critical role in the initial attack on fires. “If we had more tankers, we could avoid the tens of millions of dollars spent when small fires don’t get put out and they turn into mega-fires,” he says.

A complex mix of changing weather patterns and human behavior means that the need for a more robust air-tanker response is not a temporary or merely seasonal spike, says William Sommers, a 30-year US Forest Service veteran who also served as its director of Forest Fire and Atmospheric Sciences Research.

Tactical aircraft can be used to help protect particular resources at risk, he notes, adding via e-mail, however, that “the current fleet of aging aircraft is woefully inadequate in the face of increased climate- and fuels-driven fire regimes being experienced in many places around the globe – including the interior West of the US.”

The current severe fire situation is just another instance in a building trend driven by large-scale climate change, fuel buildup from years of fire suppressions, and drought, as well as increased home-building in previously wild areas, he notes.

“The only question from year to year is what particular area is going to be hardest hit and when will that occur,” he adds.

Dominik Kulakowski, assistant professor of geography and biology at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., says that while resources may be adequate for fighting fires during more moderate climatic conditions, “they are insufficient for fighting fires during droughts that are as extreme as those we have been seeing in recent years.”

More tankers and other resources would certainly be helpful for fighting fires, but given the enormous area of forests in the Western US that could potentially burn, he says, “we should be thinking not only about how to extinguish fires after they start, but also how to address the underlying climatic conditions that are making these mega-fires possible.”

Lamont Norman, wildfire risk expert at Pitney Bowes Software, points out that this year is bringing the issue home because there is a significant additional wildfire risk caused by a large number of dead pine trees.

Western foresters are managing over 41 million acres of dead trees caused by the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation, he notes, adding via e-mail, “one of the reasons for this infestation is that years of wildfire suppression has caused growth of dense tree stands with weaker trees that cannot fight off the beetle.”

“The massive tree kill and dead tree density has turned Western wildfires into potential big fire events that can burn for weeks.”

Note from Sharon: I wonder why they picked these folks to interview for this piece. Why would you ask a professor from Worcester about western firefighting tactics? A software expert?

Two Reasonable Colorado Voices on Fires: Denver Post Sunday 6/24/12

by
The Waldo Canyon fire continues to burn northwest of Manitou Springs, Colorado today June 24th, 2012. The fire which is threatening the Cedar Heights neighborhood has already consume over 2,500 acres with 0% containment.
Helen H. Richardson, The Denver Post

What I liked about the pieces was that there was no “enemizing” no “someone is to blame and it’s the stupid homeowners, FS, enviros take your pick”. It’s more “we’re all in this, how are we going to go forward.” I don’t know where all the enemizing comes from, but op-eds are usually full of it. Especially in election season, in a fought-over state. Thank you Denver Post for resisting the temptation!

Here’s an excerpt from Problems in the wildland-urban interface by Lloyd Burton. Here’s the link.

Have an open, evidence-based conversation about proven policies for effective loss prevention from WUI wildfires. We need to have a frank discussion about changing the ratio between fire suppression and loss prevention expenditures in the WUI. We are not going to prevent all wildfires in the tinder-dry, fuels-laden red zones of the West; dry thunderstorms will see to that.

Controlled burns are smoky and sometimes risky. Mechanical thinning is an alternative on some terrain, but it’s more labor-intensive and thus more expensive. And in addition to expense, we now know that fuel load management must be a continuous process for as long as people live in the WUI. Think of it as the Forest Service mowing the national lawn, which it needs to do at regular intervals in some areas for prevention to be effective.

None of these observations should be construed as victim-blaming. Long-time WUI residents moved there well before it became so risky, and more recent ones may not have been fully apprised of the dangers before they moved in. We’re all ascending a steep learning curve together, in terms of both fire behavior science and effective policy alternatives.

I’ve lived nearly half my life somewhere in the Western WUI, but am only now coming to fully understand the risks and responsibilities that doing so includes. It’s something that all responsible stewards of the West need to do collectively. If we want to develop a safer and more sustainable relationship with nature in the WUI, we need a richer and more complete narrative to help us do so.

Here’s an excerpt from Tony Cheng’s “Are Colorado forests just tinder?”. Here’s the link.

At the end of the day, even ecologically “normal,” low-intensity fires in Front Range Ponderosa pine can result in highly severe human impacts. The draft report for the Fourmile Canyon Fire that burned in September 2010 northwest of Boulder showed that most of the homes destroyed were in areas that burned with low severity. Indeed, studies by the Missoula Fire Lab show that a vast majority of homes destroyed during wildfires are not from the fire itself, but flying embers that land on shake shingle roofs, mulched garden beds, woodpiles next to the house, or pine needles in rain gutters.

Just as forest restoration seeks to develop fire-adapted ecosystems, there is a need to develop “fire-adapted communities.” A good starting point is by creating defensible space. Equally important are communication systems that allow for quick, coordinated response in the event of a fire.

Economically, the costs of actively restoring our Front Range Ponderosa pine forests and creating fire-adapted communities are probably on par with the true costs of a large wildfire. The Western Forestry Leadership Coalition conducted a case study of the Hayman Fire and found that, when all the costs are added up, the fire’s total bill is around $207 million and counting for the 138,000-acre burn. That comes to about $1,500 per acre — about the average cost to conduct forest restoration activities. If public and private funds are going to be expended on these forests, wouldn’t it make sense to use them for preventative measures that create healthy forests rather than waiting for disaster to strike?

The Ponderosa pine forests of Colorado’s Front Range are meant to burn. By combining forest restoration at a landscape scale with defensible space actions and coordinated emergency response at the community scale, we might make headway towards fostering fire-adapted ecosystems and communities.

When I got back from hiking yesterday both columns were in the Perspective session of the post. I did think it interesting that today if you went to either Cheng’s or Burton’s piece, the first story that shows up as “related” is one from May 14. More on that one later.

AP on Fire Retardant

by

Here’s the link.

Below is an excerpt.

Fire retardant doesn’t attempt to put out wildfires or even necessarily halt flames in their advance. Consisting primarily of ammonium phosphate — fertilizer, basically — fire retardant is formulated to slow down the combustion of trees, brush and grass.

The idea is to give firefighters time to mount a ground attack. The ground forces clear away flammable material in a wide line around the edges of the fire. They hem in the flames and eventually a soaking rain falls or the fire just burns itself out.

Often, even a fully contained high Rockies wildfire will smolder, sputter and flare for weeks or months, into autumn and the first significant snows.

The U.S. Forest Service spent $19 million on 23 million gallons of retardant last year, which was unusually busy for wildfires.

“We’ve observed streams for miles be sterilized of all their fish life. Tens of thousands of fish can be killed in one dump,” Stahl said.

Meanwhile, very few fish poisonings have been documented. Even Montana U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, in siding with Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics in its second lawsuit over fire retardant, pointed out in his 2010 ruling that only 14 of 128,000 retardant drops over eight years killed protected fish or plants.

Ammonia in watersheds from fire retardant is not a human health risk.

Many endangered Rocky Mountain plants are adapted to thrive in very limited habitats with poor soils. Fire retardant can encourage the growth of invasive weeds that can crowd out native plants that otherwise would have a competitive advantage, said Glen Stein, a Forest Service fire ecologist who led the effort to write the new rules for fire retardant.

Stahl said the Forest Service hasn’t proven with field studies that fire retardant helps.

“We throw it on for the air show,” Stahl said.

There’s a reason why fire retardant isn’t tested in the field, said Stein.

“The problem that I have with what Andy wants us to do, is out there in the wild, you have so many variables that are constantly changing. You’ve got slope, you’ve got aspect, you’ve got wind, you’ve got temperatures. It’s hard to know what the result of the retardant is versus some of the other variables,” he said.

Anyway, he’s seen fire retardant work in the field, such as when a DC10 tanker plane dumped thousands of gallons at a California fire a few years ago.

“Five miles long, I drove that whole road where we dropped it. There were two little spots where it went into the retardant and stopped. And the rest of it just stopped at the retardant. So I know it’s effective,” Stein said.

Judge Malloy’s Brief Summary of Decision on Colt Summit

by

Thanks to my heroine of the day…

TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part [30]Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part [36] Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. A separate Opinion will be entered in this case, however for the benefit of the parties and their planning I am denying most of the plaintiff’s claims, save one, and granting most of the defendant’s assertions, save one. The Project complies with Standards VEG S6 and ALL S1, which relate to lynx and lynx critical habitat. The project also complies with the Inland Native Fish Strategy standards governing streamside and wetland buffers. The Forest Service adequately analyzed the Project’s effects on lynx and grizzlies and did not violate Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, the Service did not improperly exclude the Summit Salvage Project Area from its analysis. The shortcoming of the Service, and the question on which the plaintiff’s prevail is in one aspect of the NEPA evaluation. The Service violated NEPA by failing to adequately analyze the Project’s cummulative effects on lynx. Consequently on this issue plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the cummulative effects analysis on lynx is remanded to the Forest Service for further consideration and analysis. In all other respects the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED and defendant’s motion for summary judgement is GRANTED. A written order with my reasoning will follow. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 6/20/2012. (Molloy, Donald)

All sides claim victory in logging lawsuit ruling: AP story on Colt Summit

by

Above are the details of the disputed project.

Thanks, JZ for this AP story in the Helena IR.

Link here.
Excerpt below.

Lolo National Forest Supervisor Debbie Austin said the one-paragraph order does not address the status of the project, so both sides must wait for the full order to determine the effect of Molloy’s ruling. But Austin declared it a win for the project, saying the judge ruled with the Forest Service on most of the claims brought against it.

“We won on 11 of the 12 counts, and most importantly, we did show that we provided adequate analysis and are providing adequate protections for lynx, grizzly bears and bull trout,” Austin said. “We’re just waiting for the full opinion and we’re looking forward to strengthening the cumulative effects analysis and moving forward.”

The Wilderness Society also called the ruling a victory for the project because Molloy upheld “their most significant argument,” that the project would not harm lynx, grizzly bears and bull trout.

Assessing the long-term cumulative effects on lynx habitat won’t present a major obstacle because the judge has already agreed the project won’t harm lynx, the organization said.

Garrity said that when the Colt Summit Project is put into the context of other logging projects on private land and in the neighboring Flathead National Forest, there is a real threat to lynx habitat.

“I don’t think that’s something they can paper over,” Garrity said. “It’s a real issue.”

Austin said contracts for part of the project that are not being contested, such as roadwork and culvert repairs, already have been awarded and work could begin as early as July 1. A contract for the logging portion of the project has not yet been awarded, and advertising the timber sale has been pushed back to later in the summer because of other priorities, she said.

But the important thing, Austin said, is that the judge’s ruling is a good sign of the strength of the collaborative process and the Forest Service will be working to develop more projects using that method.

“The design and development is much better and I think that is shown in the judge’s decision,” she said.

Note from Sharon: It should be interesting to see what kind of cumulative effects analysis is “enough.” Apparently, the bull trout and grizzly bear cumulative effects were “enough,” so we’ll be able to tell what Judge Molloy thought was missing. PS If anyone has a copy of the order please send to [email protected].

Judge Molloy on Colt Summit- E&E News

by

Here’s a link.

Here’s an excerpt:

In a brief order that will be followed by a lengthier written opinion, Molloy granted the Forest Service’s motion for summary judgment on several points. Among other things, he concluded that the Forest Service had adequately reviewed the potential direct impact of the proposal on lynx and grizzly bears.

But he ruled that the analysis of the project’s cumulative impact on lynx as required by the National Environmental Policy Act was not sufficient.

The Forest Service will now have to conduct that analysis before the plan can go ahead.

Megan Birzell of the Wilderness Society, a supporter of the plan, said Molloy’s finding was not a major setback because of the judge’s concurrent finding that the project passed muster under the Endangered Species Act.

“The judge said it won’t have an impact on lynx, but the Forest Service needs to beef up their analysis to better document that,” she said.

It will be interesting to see exactly what the documentation didn’t have that the judge was looking for.

Environmental laws are essential: U.S. government needs to follow the guidelines, requirements it has established: op-ed in Missoulian

by

JZ contributed this link in a previous comment, it seemed worthy of its own post. This is an op-ed by Mike Garrity and Carole King (is she a member of Mike’s group?)

Do these groups agree with the timber industry’s demands? If the “collaborative” groups believe we should eliminate the public appeals process and exempt many Montana timber sales from judicial review, they should say so openly to their members and the general public so everyone knows exactly where they stand. If their goal is to protect land and wildlife in a meaningful way, they should speak up in defense of maintaining full public involvement and judicial review in public lands management.

The mission of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies is “to secure ecological integrity of the Wild Rockies bioregion through citizen empowerment and the application of conservation biology, sustainable economic models and environmental law.” Enforcing the environmental laws of the United States that apply to public lands management is critical to maintaining ecological integrity.

When our government doesn’t follow the requirements of those laws, the Alliance turns to the courts to force federal agencies to follow the law. Our record is clear. Our success in the vast majority of our lawsuits proves beyond a doubt that our claims have merit.

“It’s easy to see how a climate of silence from the “collaborative” groups might encourage the Forest Service to believe it can avoid full compliance with environmental laws. It’s more difficult to understand why, when a citizen group steps forward to see that our nation’s laws are enforced, the “collaborative” conservation groups go on a well-financed public relations campaign and their industry “partners” launch statewide attack ads against that group.”

It’s clear that corporations want subsidized access to public lands unencumbered by environmental laws. When the government follows the law, the Alliance supports its actions. When it doesn’t, we go to court. That’s how democracy works, and that’s where we stand.

Sharon – It’s not clear to me that “corporations” want “subsidized access” “unencumbered by environmental laws”. Overstatements make me lose confidence in people; they seem to make newspaper editors want to publish op-eds, though.

Denver Post Coverage of High Park Fire

by
over the High Park Fire west of Fort Collins, CO. Eric Lutzens, The Denver Post

Check out the stories, videos and photos in the Post today. Including “getting more tankers is needed” here,
and “slurry is bad for the environment but continues to be used” here by Bruce Finley.

So far this fire season, air tankers called to suppress wildfires have been dropping the fire retardants (the mix is called LC95A) at a record pace. As of Friday, more than 401,450 gallons had been dropped on Colorado forests this year, including 320,553 gallons on the lightning-sparked High Park wildfire west of Fort Collins, according to Forest Service records.

As it burns along the Cache la Poudre River — designated a Wild and Scenic River by the Forest Service — the High Park fire could overlap habitat for several species of sensitive fish.

Massive fish kills have been documented after fires were put out in northwestern states. A legal challenge by Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics compelled an environmental impact study. Federal biologists concluded that fire retardants alone will not cause extinctions. But the lawsuit led to issuance of the rules this year to minimize harm.

Laye said pilots and ground crews working west of Fort Collins are complying with the rules.

Forest Service fire managers this week acknowledged concerns about toxic fire retardants degrading habitat and watersheds.

Yet the agency also relies increasingly on slurry bombers to protect houses and firefighters from potentially catastrophic wildfires, Forest Service spokesman Steve Segin said.

“Many wildfires burn in remote, rugged areas, and the application of fire retardant can slow the spread of a fire until ground forces can reach the area and begin construction of a fireline,” Segin said. “You can put it on homes. It works better on the ground. It slows the advance of a fire so that ground crews can get in there.”

Firefighters reaching mountain houses also spray chemical foams and wrap smaller structures with “fire shelter” material designed to repel flames. If there are ponds nearby, water pumps are set up to douse flames.

Some homeowners have rigged sprinkler systems. Firefighters also often haul away firewood and trim surrounding trees, rushing to create “defensible spaces.”

The federal government push to make more air tankers available to suppress western wildfires is likely to mean more use of fire-retardant chemicals.

Federal data show that, since 2007, air tankers have dropped an average of 486,385 gallons of fire retardant a year while suppressing wildfires in Colorado, where drought and overly dense forests favor large wildfires.

The Forest Service has been using retardant since the 1950s. These chemicals don’t douse flames as water does. Instead, the retardants cool and coat fuels, depleting fire of oxygen and slowing combustion as retardant salts change how fuels burn. Air tankers target houses and power grids.

This week, fire commanders loaded fire retardants into helicopters, which normally drop up to 900 gallons of water. A layer of retardant can slow fire for about two hours.

However, it was helicopters dropping water on flare-ups this week that saved two homes in the thick of the High Park fire, Segin said. “Like a military operation, it’s a combination of ground and air power coming together at a single point to suppress the fire.”

The maps designating sensitive terrain around Colorado apparently prioritize habitat for greenback cutthroats and the butterflies that live in riparian corridors — two species deemed most vulnerable to the fire-retardant chemicals.

Federal biologists would welcome development of better chemical mixes that could be less harmful and also meet firefighters’ needs, Laye said. “You obviously could use water anytime you would like.”

Here’s my favorite equine interest story.

Note from Sharon: I invite you to browse the Denver Post site and check the coverage. As I’ve said before, I bet fire policy seems different if you are in a part of the country that experiences it. It’s interesting to consider if there would be a difference if this was coverage by the NY Times or LA Times or Washington Post, and if local people there were breathing the smoke and having bad air days (to be sure, that does happen in LA, but national policy is not made there). At church today, there were prayers for the firefighters and evacuees but also the folks who are having trouble breathing in Fort Collins. I guess what I’m trying to convey is that my work world only vaguely interfaces with the people I deal with outside of work (when are campgrounds open) but fire here is as omnipresent as the air we breath. That makes reactions to policies as visceral as (we often debate here) cerebral.

On another topic, no one seems to be saying that aerial tactics are “immoral”; in fact, the concern is quite the opposite- that we don’t have enough capacity for this fire season.

Finally, I see a pattern in “environment” reporting- some technology (solar panels, fire retardant) has environmental impacts (as do all technologies, and pretty much all human and non-human actions), so people are interviewed who point out the problems. One wonders whether any technology would have an appropriate level of impact based on the values of some. Further, I think it’s interesting that we seem to have articles discussing these impacts at different frequencies for different technologies. For example, having read may pieces recently about cool new technologies in health care, I seldom see a companion piece on the environmental effects. It’s something to perhaps become more aware of.

Time for litigating forest restoration projects has ended : Editorial from Az Daily Sun

by

Here’s a link. Below is an excerpt.

The Forest Service helped its cause by finally releasing its rationale for picking the Montana company for the initial 300,000-acre contract.

— Pioneer would hire about 500 people,

— It could get started just seven to eight months after contracts were signed

— It would make a variety of products (furniture parts, molding, flooring mimicking hardwoods) that would be diversified enough to sell consistently during recessions.

— It would have the advantage of stable fuel costs in turning branches and fine matter into biofuel as proposed.

That didn’t convince Pascal Berlioux of AZFRP, who sent out a three-page single-spaced email on the day that administrative appeals were due listing the reasons he thought his company would be a better choice. Whether it was price, risk, technical expertise or marketability, Berlioux insisted his was the better proposal. Personally, he noted, he had put six years of his life into the project, and some of his fellow board members had put up their life savings.

But in the end, Berlioux did not appeal, saying the Forest Service had made a nebulous “best value” judgment that it was unlikely to overturn. For the forest’s sake and the health of its host communities, Berlioux did the right thing by not appealing, and we in northern Arizona owe him a big thanks.

That still doesn’t rule out possible legal appeals by the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust and others with objections to the contract. Their main concerns appeared to be a fear that Pioneer would not be as collaborative a partner as AZFRP (it didn’t offer to pay for monitoring) and that it lacked relevant local experience. Also, its plan to convert biomass into cellulostic biodiesel fuel was untested, they said.

Those objections, however, amount to speculation. The reality is that both companies would have been good choices, but only one could win — there isn’t enough wood to support two wood processing mills over the next 20 to 30 years.

Each year of delay is another year that catastrophic crown fires could wipe out much of the forest resource and devastate local ecosystems. As it is, the Pioneer mill won’t be up and running for at least a year or more. There are no more legitimate excuses for delay, and we urge conservation groups to stay in the 4FRI process and see it through to a successful conclusion.

Note from Sharon: So what interested me was this statement: “The reality is that both companies would have been good choices, but only one could win — there isn’t enough wood to support two wood processing mills over the next 20 to 30 years.” Maybe not around Flag, but lots of other places there is. This seems to be one of the few places where there is more capacity than material.