Fire and Fuels

Photo by Matt Stensland

I thought it was interesting that while we were discussing the 78 acres of WUI fuel treatments in roadless on the Umpqua, the Denver Post published this article this morning.

In addition, regional foresters are planning to remove dead trees from another 33,224 acres the next year, he said.

One challenge facing contractors is getting rid of the cut trees. Timber mills in Montrose and the San Luis Valley and a pellet factory in Kremmling have been hard-pressed to pay loggers enough to make that tree-removal work profitable.

Forest Service contracting officials say they pay around $1,200 per acre for selective removal of dead trees.

As firefighters on Wednesday worked to shore up lines around the wildfire west of Fraser, Town Manager Jeff Durbin said he and other local leaders are looking to meet with Forest Service officials.

Federal land managers haven’t removed enough of the beetle-kill trees that pose threats, Durbin said.

“Wildfire mitigation is really important business,” and this week’s fire heightened concerns about intense fires spreading from federal land, he said.

“You could see, from town, the flames. It was frightening.”

It seems like everyone agrees that there are many dead trees out here in the Interior West. It seems like most folks think the ones along roads and trails should be cut so they don’t fall on people (although there are more out there than we are probably capable of getting) . Most folks agree that fire breaks around communities are a good idea to give firefighters a safe place to operate, among other reasons. Many people don’t want cutting in the backcountry, but I don’t think that anyone is proposing that.

Firebreaks around communities, roads and powerlines is about all people can get funding to do, if that. If climate change causes more outbreaks and more fires, we will be lucky just to keep up with powerlines, roads and communities.

See the below article here..

Udall, Bennet want Vilsack to treat beetle kill as ‘national emergency’ in wake of wildfires By David O. Williams 10/4/10 2:28 PM
Citing last month’s wildfires near Boulder and Loveland and the ongoing Church’s Park Fire in Grand County, U.S. Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet are asking U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to treat the pine bark beetle epidemic as a national emergency.

The two Colorado Democrats in a release today said they are leading a bipartisan effort to get Vilsack to “rededicate” an additional $49 million in existing funds to help clear dead trees and perform other forest mitigation work to decrease the fire risk in the U.S. Forest Service Region 2, which includes Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas and Nebraska.

Last year Bennet and Udall got Vilsack to channel $40 million in existing funds into mitigation efforts in Region 2, of which $30 million is now being used to reduce fuel loads in Colorado’s White River, Medicine Bow/Routt and Arapaho/Roosevelt national forests.

In the wake of the costly Fourmile Canyon blaze west of Boulder last month, which consumed 166 homes, environmentalists and politicians – including Boulder’s mayor – pointed to climate change as a key contributor in the ongoing bark beetle epidemic that has killed more than 2 million acres of lodgepole pines in Colorado and Wyoming.

Scientists generally agree that warmer historical temperatures have contributed to the outbreak because there have not been enough prolonged cold snaps to kill beetle larvae during the winter months. But some studies suggest forests are not any more susceptible to wildfire because of the beetle kill outbreak and that resources for clearing trees too deep into the forest should be limited.

Still, firefighters generally agree that the huge fuel loads presented by massive swaths of dead forest make battling blazes in and around communities all the more problematic, and one of the greatest concerns is clearing dead trees away from the state’s hundreds of miles of power lines that criss-cross public lands.

I also thought this article was interesting and well written. Beetle-kill epidemic a boon for Wyoming’s timber industry?

Here’s some more quotes related to the “controversy.”

Beetle-killed forests are just as susceptible to fire as green forests, and there’s little proof of the widely held fear that fires in infested stands will burn so hot they’ll sterilize the soil, said Duane Short, an ecologist with the Laramie-based Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.

Logging hasn’t stopped the spread of beetles, he said, and clearing dead timber hurts the long-term health of the forest.

“If you’re familiar with the curriculum of Forest Service schools, it’s about logging, and it’s about ways to log,” Short said. “It’s not about the natural ecology of forests. And so the folks that end up in these fields, they look for reasons to log, essentially.”

Forest officials dispute Short’s assertions.

“If we sat on our hands and did nothing, I think we’ll see some down the road, especially when we get downfall, we’ll see some large fires that are stand- or species-altering fires,” said Wyoming State Forester Bill Crapser. “I also think we’ll see a less healthy forest in the interface.”

I sincerely hope Short’s comments about forestry education were taken out of context.. Anyway, what if we all agreed to take up the topic of the “fuels treatment in the backcountry” sometime later (when we are done with WUI, powerlines and roads) and just focus for the moment on moving forward on what we all agree on?

Just returned from vacation and saw this article in the Washington Post.

U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, a resident of Boulder County and a long time supporter of mitigation efforts, has called for a review into whether those efforts were effective, as well as whether firefighters had enough air support and other resources…

Forest managers have begun examining the charred forest to see how their mitigation efforts worked, including how the fire was moving and how it behaved when it hit cleared areas, said Owen.

“All we can do is reduce the risk,” Owen said. “It’s not fireproofing.”

Mitigation efforts in the area had included communities banding together to plan for catastrophic fires, even if it meant convincing neighbors to cut down some of their trees.

Flames got within a half mile of the Poorman neighborhood on the eastern end of the fire, where about 30 homeowners had cut down trees and collectively purchased a plot of land for a community park, which served as a staging area for firefighters.

“These huge conflagrations aren’t as likely as the relatively small ones,” said Vera Evenson, a community leader who has lived in the mountains since 1965. She said the last major fire in the area happened in 1989. “That’s how we know mitigation works.”

Over the past three years, the county and state has spent about $800,000 on fire mitigation in the area, with thousands more spent by local fire districts and homeowners. Federal figures for the area weren’t immediately available, though Udall spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm hopes that the review will help answer that question.

I thought it was mildly odd that the article cited a scientific study to determine acres of fuels treated.

Nationwide, the federal government treated 29 million fire-prone acres between 2001 and 2008, according to a study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Hopefully, we would have a more direct and less costly method of reporting acres accomplished to Congress than funding university research on accomplishments ;).

The North American perspective..

Check out this site that shows current fires in British Columbia from an earth view. Also you can read some of the comments on the articles. What is the same as down here? What is different?

Plus they have posted other wildfire info, including a photo gallery, on the BC websites.

I wonder if we had one earth view site that showed all forest fires in North America each day, would that change our perspective on the issue and what to do about it?

Note by Sharon. This is the first of two guest posts by Derek. The second focuses on Montana.

There’s an exciting new change blowing across the West these days. It bodes well for the future of forestry. “Changing public values” was a phrase the Forest Service often used to justify reducing timber harvests. I’ve read a version of the phrase in every USFS revised forest plan put out since the 90’s. Well, public values are changing back again. Across the West, the public now wants more logging.

The Mountain Pine Beetle(MPB) epidemic that’s sweeping the west and fear of wildfire are driving the change. There’s always been considerable rural support for logging, but what’s really exciting is this new attitude is coming from people who were traditionally opposed to logging. Many people who consider themselves environmentalists are now seeing logging in a positive light. Forestry is back in vogue.

Another important shift is the public’s attitude towards the so called “radical” environmentalist groups who litigate timber sales (I’m not trying to be disparaging here. I only call them “radical” to differentiate them from “moderate” groups who don’t litigate). The public doesn’t perceive them anymore as being the underdogs taking on the timber baron establishment. To the contrary, the radical enviro groups have become the establishment. How could they not be seen in that light? They won the timber wars. For twenty years the papers have been full of stories about timber sale litigation and sawmill closures. Timber harvest on National Forests has dropped by 80%. For all practical purposes, the public now perceives the radical enviro’s as controlling USFS timber harvest levels. They’re seen as the ones in charge now. The radicals are now in the position of defending the status quo.

This is a very important “role reversal” as every politician knows that policy is really based upon public perception. With every future wildfire, whether justified or not, the public won’t be blaming the Forest Service, they won’t be blaming the logger, they’ll be blaming the radical environmentalists. Being held responsible comes along with being in charge. I think a lot of radical groups in the West recognize this role reversal and are responding by halting timber sale litigation. However, there’s some groups who persist in litigating even “healthy forest” timber sales.

Another result of these changing public values is that the radicals are losing the support of the much more numerous and pragmatic “moderate environmentalists”. Those that supported them when the Lolo was clearcutting 15,000 acres/year, will desert them when they litigate a healthy forest timber sale. This isn’t lost on western Democrat politicians who have relied on the moderate environmentalist base. They can now safely take on the radicals without offending the moderates, and maybe pick up a few Republican voters as well. The radicals are becoming a political liability.

I’d like to share a few cases from around the West that I put forth to support what I’ve said above. Colorado is suffering a massive pine beetle outbreak in the heart of their ski industry from Steamboat Springs to Vail. These are very pro environmentalist counties. They shut down the timber industry in the 90’s. A major sawmill closed in 2003 for lack of USFS timber. And now they complain the Forest Service isn’t moving fast enough to remove the dead trees. It’s amazing to me how peoples environmental idealism goes out the window when their property values are threatened by pine beetle and wildfire. Nothing explains a clearcut better than a MPB epidemic or a wildfire. The city of Frisco clearcut 40 acres of park land, and the Mayor told me he had only one complaint. The USFS is now proposing to do clearcut 5,000 acres around Breckenridge. Now every local, state and federal politician is calling for greatly fuels reduction projects, including clearcutting of dead trees, around communities.

Most timber sale litigation is based on the National Environmental Policy Act. This act created the environmental impact statement. Sen. Mark Udall, who’s consistently received a 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters, has recently sponsored legislation that would create “insect emergency areas” where NEPA review would be “expedited”. Seven years ago he proposed “taking funds from the timber sale program and reallocate it to protect fish and wildlife” in order “to protect rather that destroy our national forests”.

A part of me would like to scream hypocrisy, but a larger part admires the man for changing his mind. I’ve changed my mind about a lot of things over the years. I used to think that all MPB killed forests would burn. But researchers in Colorado forced me to acknowledge to myself that many past epidemics I could remember never burned. I didn’t like to change my mind, but I would only be lying to myself. Screams of “it’s all gonna burn” are as ridiculous as screams of “they’re gonna log it all”. I still have no doubt that it raises the fire hazard.

And there’s no more litigation from the 27 some Colorado environmental groups that I Googled. A few years ago, before the pine beetle alarm bells went off, they ended two years of litigation on a puny 600 acre salvage sale. I admire them for changing their minds in response to changing public values. Unfortunately, Colorado’s last sawmill closed a month ago. I’m sure it didn’t help that they were hauling the logs 150 miles one way.

In Lake Tahoe, the USFS didn’t log for decades in order to protect the lake’s famous water clarity. You needed a permit, which was seldom granted, to cut any tree on your own property. After the Angora fire burned up 200 homes, the 20 some agencies regulating the lakes environment declared “wildfires are now the biggest threat to water clarity” and “thinning the forest is now the highest priority”. Wow. Sen. Harry Reid recently introduced legislation that would spend $135 million dollars to thin the forest around Lake Tahoe. No more litigation. Changing public values.

In Arizona, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) shut down the timber industry in the 90’s with litigation. These guys are the big boys on the radical enviro block. They’ve filed hundreds of lawsuits against the USFS. After the 2000 Rodeo fire burned off a half million acres, a “collaborative” group called the “Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership(GFFP)” was formed. It bills itself as a group of “environmentalists and business people(they don’t even mention loggers)” and it’s goal is to thin the forests around Flagstaff AZ. This last summer Arizona’s Governor published a study calling for the USFS to thin 30,000 acres/year.

Of course, there’s no sawmills left to take that wood. As part of a proposal to build a $300 million dollar OSB plant, the CBD recently signed a “memorandum of understanding” not to oppose thinning on 30,000 acres/year. I admire them for changing their minds.

The problem is, and this illustrates a big problem that will emerge down the road, do you think there’s a bank in the world that would loan $300 million dollars to a mill dependent on National Forest timber? The CBD’s memorandum means nothing. More litigation is only another group away.

The three cases above have two things in common. The majority of the public consider themselves to be environmentalists and they destroyed their timber industry. So now you have a future cycle of more fires, followed by more public demand to log to mitigate fire hazard, followed by more public frustration because there’s no infrastructure to do it, followed by more public anger at the radical enviro’s because the public knows they’re the reason there is no infrastructure now, and they’re the reason there won’t be. The only way you’re going to get any infrastructure is to guarantee the supply by exempting timber sales from NEPA litigation.

Oh it might take ten years. It might take another million acres burned in Arizona, another few million burned in California, a million burned in Colorado. But it’s inevitable. Congress wrote the law, Congress can fix it. I think the reason a lot of radical enviro groups are backing off litigation is they realize that wildfires are the biggest threat to NEPA. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind’s blowing.