Uncategorized

More research that shows the value of fuels treatments, and especially treatments that are strategically placed. Text of press release is below. The paper cited is here ($).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Fighting fires before they spark

UNM research could impact forest management around the world

By Aaron Hilf October 17, 2017

With warm, dry summers comes a deadly caveat for the western United States: wildfires. Scientists say the hot, dry climates found west of the Mississippi, along with decades of fire suppression efforts, are creating a devastating and destructive combination – leading to fires like the ones currently burning in California.

It’s a problem biologists at The University of New Mexico are looking to put a damper on. Now, new research from UNM is giving forest and fire management teams across the country the upper hand in reducing the severity of these events.

“These big fires will always happen,” said Dan Krofcheck, a post-doctoral fellow in UNM’s Department of Biology. “We’re looking at what forest managers can do to minimize the impact these wildfires have on the system.”

The issue has two main components, according to Krofcheck, both stemming from human impact to the environment. Global warming, due to human-caused carbon emissions, has worsened the already hot and dry climate in the most at-risk areas, like California. In addition, aggressive firefighting and fire suppression efforts have left a large amount of fuel, in the form of underbrush, throughout the forests. Together, these two factors lead to massive blazes with the capacity to destroy land, homes and lives.

“For a long time, there’s been this stigma that fire in the landscape is a bad thing. It makes sense, because fire is a destructive process,” says Krofcheck. “But, it’s also an integral part of how these ecosystems evolved and we kind of shut that down through heavy fire suppression activity. The result is that fuel that would have been consumed by frequent fire, builds up and accumulates. Subsequently, when you finally have fire move through an area, after it’s been suppressed for 30, 50, 100 years, you have these massive fires that no longer just consume the understory but they’re actually torching crowns and moving through the tree canopy.”

To combat this, forest managers employ two primary treatment practices. Mechanical thinning is the process of physically removing the thick underbrush with machinery or by hand – a method that is effective but also very expensive. Managers also use prescribed burns to clear areas – using fire, under very strict environmental conditions, to consume excess brush.

The UNM research, ‘Prioritizing forest fuels treatments based on the probability of high-severity fire restores adaptive capacity in Sierran forests,’ recently published in Global Change Biology, examines how to most efficiently use these two methods.

Krofcheck, along with his advisor, UNM Associate Professor Matthew Hurteau, and colleagues from North Carolina State University and the USDA Forest Service, ran forecast simulations using projected climate data in the Dinkey Creek Collaborative Landscape Forest Restoration Project area in California’s Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. In Scenario A, researchers mechanically thinned the entire area that is operationally and legally available – an unrealistically expensive endeavor in practice. Scenario B employed an optimized approach, thinning only the most at-risk portions of land, about two-thirds less than in Scenario A.

“We wanted to find a way to apply these expensive thinning treatments in such a way that we could put as few on the landscape as possible and achieve some comparable outcome, relative to a case where we thinned everything,” said Krofcheck.

After nearly a thousand simulations, the results show that both scenarios reduced the mean fire-severity by as much as 60 percent.

“Even though we thinned about two-thirds less of the forest, we saw the exact same treatment outcomes,” said Krofcheck.

“This research and way of thinking about optimally using your resources, in terms of where you thin, could go a long way in helping these organizations use their dollars most efficiently to achieve their desired outcomes, which is less severe fires,” Hurteau said.

Along with mechanical thinning, both scenarios also heavily depended on fire, either naturally occurring or through prescribed burning, being present in the ecosystem. Researchers say it’s another big takeaway: without fire, no amount of treatment will successfully do the job. It’s something they hope those who live in forested areas will begin to appreciate as a mechanism for stopping devastating wildfire before it breaks out.

Hispanic Heritage Month began on September 15 and ended yesterday. Or so says the U.S. Forest Service’s homepage. However, unlike the other four banner ads, which click through to provide information on Fall Colors, wildfires, and the like, the Hispanic Heritage Month banner ad links to nothing. The Wayback Machine says that the Forest Service’s Hispanic Heritage dead link first showed up on its homepage on October 10, five days before the month-long observance’s end. For those who wish to know about National Hispanic Heritage Month, click on this link.

This Trailer Says It All

Pretty good article (posted here as a PDF) that presents a range of research on the relationship of wildfires and climate change. The author might have added more about other factors, such as fuels management, but did add this paragraph near the end of the article:

“Additionally, wildfires, perhaps more than any other type of natural disaster, are heavily subject to the influence of human land use — the types of vegetation we plant or clear away, how often we allow it to burn, and how we choose to manage fires once they start. These types of decisions could both mitigate or exacerbate the intensity of future fire seasons, the effects of climate change notwithstanding.”

Dr. Daniel M. Leavell has extensive experience in regard to wildfires that, I imagine, few with a doctorate could claim. His qualifications to speak on this subject are summarized in this quote from his 2017 CV: “I have been involved with fire behavior and disturbance ecology since March of 1973. My experience with wildland firefighting from 1978 to 2012 included being qualified and having had experience as firefighter, squadboss, crewboss, helitac support crewmember, division group supervisor, safety officer, situation unit leader, infrared interpreter, field observer, Incident Commander Type 3, and Operations Section Chief for Type 1 and 2 incident management teams. I have been a member of several Type 1 and Type 2 incident management teams (including wildland fire use teams) for the Northern Rockies. I was responsible for all operations, tactics (short – and long – term), and personnel on fire incidents. I directly supervised all ground and air personnel, information (including advanced fire behavior predictions), and resources. I ordered and directed these resources to meet objectives in a safe and cost effective manner. I have had 30+ years of firefighting experience in complex and diverse fuel types and terrain throughout the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, Southwest, Southeast, and Alaska and have been cited for excellent leadership and the ability to strategize and direct all resources for immediate, efficient, and effective attainment of objectives. I have served on fires ranging in size from 5 to over 100,000 acres, and have managed and been directly responsible for thousands of human and mechanical resources. And after serving on over 300 fires (including several hurricane relief efforts), only two people I have been responsible for have had minor reported injuries and no fatalities. I am very glad and proud of that and have worked hard to achieve that claim.” (Italics added)

Here are some of the points he makes in regard to the value of forest management in dealing with wildfires:

1) “Dead forest vegetation has been accumulating, drying and remaining cured longer”
2) “The size of forest fuels also greatly influences fire behavior. A quarter-inch diameter twig dries sooner, ignites faster and burns quicker than a 30-inch diameter log because small-diameter wood has more surface area than larger material.”
–> Clarification: “small-diameter wood has more surface area than larger material.” should read: ‘small-diameter wood has more surface area per unit of volume than larger material.’. All else being equal, the higher the surface area per unit of volume the greater the chance of an explosive ignition from a spark (i.e. needles versus logs, shavings vs. lumber and flour vs. seed). In addition, such down wind high surface area per unit of volume materials will dry out more quickly from the heat produced by advancing flames especially if the fuel is above the ground rather than resting on or in the ground.
3) “The drier the wood with more oxygen applied (wind), the hotter it will burn”
4) “Hazards have dramatically increased and exposed our firefighters to more risks. Firefighter safety is always the primary objective and no fire is worth risking a life. For that reason, there is less direct attack on fires than before.”
5) “It has always been easier and safer to suppress fires in responsibly managed forests, where ecosystem health, fuels reduction, wildlife habitat and overall diversity are the primary objectives. This is true today.”
6) “Firefighters use the term red flag conditions to describe when lower humidity, and higher temperatures and winds reduce fuel moisture content. Anything organic can then burn hot if an ignition source starts a fire. Will removing the biomass of live and dead woody fuel affect fire intensity and severity? Of course, it can. The less fuel to burn, the lower fire intensity”
7) “Fuels management is one of the few things we can do along with suppressing fires. We are good at both. Terrain is normally out of our control, as is weather. But, we can manage forest fuels.”
8) “Managing fuels through responsible forest management reduces wildland fire risks, hazards, intensity and severity. It also improves overall forest health and wildlife habitat.”
9) “We have opportunities and choices to make. We can manage our forests responsibly by easing fire back into fire-adapted ecosystems through careful harvests, controlled burns, and various tools in our management toolboxes. Fire and resource management agencies across the West are examining various suppression strategies as an over-abundance of forest vegetation, climate change and more homes (which are fuels, too) in fire-prone areas make massive fires increasingly common and dangerous to residents and firefighters”
10) “We can use science to manage fires to increase firefighter and public safety, foster forest health, promote fire resiliency and nurture wildlife habitat — while improving economic opportunities that will bring jobs. Or, we can let it burn hot and let it go up in smoke”
11) “We can never stop all wildland fires through responsible forest management or otherwise.”
12) “responsible forest management reduces wildland fire risks and hazards. It also reduces fire intensity and severity when they burn in fire-adapted, fire-prone environments.”
–> Clarification: reduced fire intensity and severity make a fire easier/quicker/less costly to extinguish.

Can we all agree that this expert is correct in stating that these are facts (well established fire/forest science) as supported by many other posts and comments on this blog site and elsewhere which have been drawn from scientific journals of old to modern day on-line publications/reports?
If so, can we move on to a discussion of how this should drive our forest policy?

Note: The two –> clarifications are mine.

Add together the structures lost to every national forest wildland fire this year and their sum would be a rounding error compared to the more than 1,500 2,000 3,500 5,700 7,000 8,400 homes and businesses lost in the on-going Napa Valley fires.

Radical environmentalists are being blamed for the devastation: “White wine-swilling San Francisco liberal elites created the conditions that fueled these catastrophic fires,” explained a House Natural Resources committee spokesman.

Nearby federal wilderness areas remain unaffected.

[Satire alert!]

The U.S. Forest Service has just started releasing detailed soil burn severity maps for wildfires that burned in the Northern Rockies this year. Hopefully some of this information and these maps are shared by the news media and political leaders.

The Inciweb homepage is here.

Individual maps of some specific fires are here.

What’s the take home message from these soil burn severity maps? Looks like the 2017 wildfires burned in a mosaic pattern with lots of unburned, very low, and low to moderate soil burn severity.

SOME EXAMPLES FROM SPECIFIC WILDFIRES:

Only 3% of the acres burned in 45,000 acre Sapphire Complex Wildfires on Lolo National Forest had soil burn severity measured as “High.” Meanwhile, 78% of acres in Sapphire Complex Wildfires on the Lolo NF had soil burn severity measured as “Unburned” “Very Low” or “Low.”

The vast majority of the lightening-caused Park Creek fire was either unburned, or burned at low to moderate severity. Senator Daines, Rep Gianforte and the Montana timber industry – especially Ed Regan, resource manager for RY Timber – blamed this wildfire on a lawsuit by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. The soil burn severity map for the Park Creek fire is below. Ed Regan complained that the wildfire was going to “destroy” the forest and wildlife habitat. Sorry to disappoint you Ed, but it doesn’t look that way!

Meanwhile, when Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue, Rep Gianforte and Senator Steve Daines toured the Lolo Creek Fire on the Lolo and Bitterroot National Forest – they blamed wildfires on “environmental extremists.” This was despite the fact that there was NEVER ANY lawsuit filed to stop any logging project near the Lolo Peak Fire. Turns out that 66% of the Lolo Peak Fire acres had “unburned” “very low” or “low” soil burn severity, while only 9% had “high.”

More fire severity maps will be posted by the U.S. Forest Service as they become available, so make sure to check back at this link.

Also, two weeks ago I contacted U.S. Forest Service Burned Area Reflectance Classification (BARC) data-producing team to get a satellite-derived data layer of post-fire vegetation condition for Montana wildfires. I was told the U.S. Forest Service no longer releases initial BARC data to the public for “political reasons.” So we will have to patiently wait for that information.

In Eastern Oregon some have the impression that “a breath of fresh air is blowing across the landscape of forestry issues in Eastern Oregon”

Some Key Points from the Wallowa County Chieftain:

1) ““I don’t think Oregonians want their forests destroyed by runaway fires every summer and their air-sheds choked to the point that they can’t breathe,” Walden said. “I think we have real momentum to do good public policy.””

2) “Commissioners have long been frustrated when agreements reached with the U.S. Forest Service are discarded by other agencies that were not present when discussions took place.”

3) “the last few weeks have seen an abrupt change in the attitude of forest managers. Commissioners reported that in August, Penya was uninterested in their issues and let them know that conversations were over and USFS was moving forward with forest plans re-written by agencies.
Just two weeks later, commissioners reported, Penya seemed in the mood to negotiate.
“He called me and asked me about my opinion on how to do things,” said McClure. “He asked me — that’s a real change in status. He is really concerned about moving this thing forward. I brought up the issue on grazing. I was going to ask him for half a billion board feet for Boise Cascade before it was over … he was pushing hard to see that something got done.””

4) USFS Chief ““Tooke is all about getting in after these fires and all about trying make these systems work,””

5) ““It’s a different attitude now (with agencies, such as USFS, NIMS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife). It’s about how can we help. I feel like for the first time there is a new opportunity to really have an impact with these agencies.””

Only time will tell.

How cool is this? I’ve been meaning to post this for the past week.

From the comfort of your own computer screen you can take a flyover of the 191,000 acre Chetco Bar Fire in southwestern Oregon with the National incident Team!

The thing that strikes me right away is the very clear mosaic pattern of the burned area. In fact, it appears that large chunks of the 191,000 acre fire were completely, 100% un-burned. I’ve always wondered about that dynamic over the past 20 years that I’ve paid close attention to wildfires. If, let’s say 20% of the area within a fire perimeter was totally unburned shouldn’t all that acreage be subtracted from the total burn area? Seems reasonable. Also seems like it never happens, we just continue to add up all the acres within the fire perimeter and say that the wildfire destroyed, or ravaged, or burned all those acres.

CLICK HERE for a “Narrated Flyover of the Chetco Bar Fire from Chetco River to Emily Ridge: September 26th, 2017”

CLICK HERE for a “Flyover of the North Point of the Chetco Bar Fire: Illinois River Corridor & Dead Man’s Bar.”

CLICK HERE for a “Indigo Fire Flyover: September 26th, 2017 by Operations Chiefs Reggie Bray & Barry Schullanberger.” This fly-over includes a good discussion about fire management decisions related to ensuring fire-fighter safety. The Indigo Fire was just north of the main Chetco Bar Fire.

Last night on Montana Public Radio and Yellowstone Public Radio there was a story about Senator Tester’s and Senator Daines’ effort to overturn a U.S. Federal District Court ruling (which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court also refused to rehear the case) that they don’t like.

Here’s more information about Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service.

The Tester/Daines public lands logging bill (S.605) has been called “just another cynical attack to weaken a key provision of the Endangered Species Act” by the Center for Biological Diversity.

On statewide Montana Public Radio Senator Tester said this:

“But Tester says a new forest management plan can take decades to write. So in the meantime:

‘Everything stops. All the recreational opportunities stop, the tree cuts stop, trail maintenance stops while they redo this forest plan.’”

The public must know that this statement from Senator Tester is 100% not true and doesn’t even contain an ounce of truth.

The truth is that all National Forests in Montana, and across America, are required by the National Forest Management Act to go through a Forest Plan Revision process every 15 years. At NO POINT during that Forest Plan Revision process does “Everything stop.”

At NO point during the Forest Plan Revision process does “All the recreational opportunities stop, the tree cuts stop, trail maintenance stops while they redo this forest plan,” as Senator Tester told Montana citizens.

I appreciate the fact that the reporter talked to someone at the Lewis and Clark National Forest who said revising a forest plan doesn’t stop work. But revising a forest management plan also doesn’t “hamper” it either, as the Forest Service employee apparently claimed.

This isn’t the first time Senator Tester has taken to Montana Public Radio and Yellowstone Public Radio and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of National Forest Management.

In February 2015 Senator Tester said on Montana Public Radio: “Unfortunately, every logging sale in Montana right now is under litigation. Every one of them.”

That statement was so entirely not true that the Washington Post’s official Fact-Checker (Glenn Kessler) investigated the statement and gave Senator Tester “4 Pinocchios” for telling “a whopper.”

This time, Senator Jon Tester has just told Montana citizens on statewide radio a huge lie about a very basic public lands management process.

Perhaps it was just a mistake, but regardless, Senator Tester’s statement is 100%, entirely not true and his office should immediately issue a correction so that Montana citizens don’t go around thinking that every time the U.S. Forest Service goes through a forest plan revision process that “Everything stops. All the recreational opportunities stop, the tree cuts stop, trail maintenance stops while they redo this forest plan.”