Ten Common Questions About Adaptive Forest Management: V. Should Management be Concentrated in the WUI?

by

This is from the Ten Common Questions paper, a synthesis published in Ecological Application. I’m posting each answer separately. If you use the search box and look for Ten Common Questions, you can find them all.  My introduction to the paper is here. Please put any questions for the authors in the comments; I’ll try to get answers from them. I’d appreciate if the tone were respectful (think graduate seminar, not Twitter).

4. “Should active forest management, including forest thinning, be concentrated in the wildland urban interface (WUI)?”

A question often asked by land managers is where to locate fuel treatments to maximize their advantage while minimizing adverse impacts. The 2000 National Fire Plan (USDA and USDI 2001) and
the 2002 Healthy Forests Initiative identified the need to reduce wildfire risk to people, communities, and natural resources. The 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA, US Congress 2003) then specified that >50% of fuel reduction funding be spent on projects within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), and it reduced environmental review within 2.41 km (1.5 miles) of at-risk communities. The significant increase in homes lost and suppression dollars spent in the WUI in subsequent years (Mell et al. 2010) has catalyzed extensive research on the WUI environment and population expansion into wildlands (Radeloff et al. 2018). Subsequent studies demonstrating fuel treatment effectiveness in the WUI (Safford et al. 2009, Kennedy and Johnson 2014) and spatial methods for optimizing WUI fuel treatments (Bar Massada et al. 2011, Syphard et al. 2012) could be taken to suggest that most fuel reduction should be implemented in the WUI to protect homes and lives.

However, prioritizing the WUI-only for fuel reduction treatments is often too narrow in scope to address broader landscape-scale objectives. For example, Schoennagel et al. (2009) found that more than two-thirds of the area within a 2.5 km radius of at-risk communities was privately owned and unavailable for federally-funded fuel treatments. This finding partly elucidates why most hazard reduction fuel treatments are implemented outside of HFRA-designation. Fuel treatments on federal lands near communities may also be significantly more difficult, expensive, and risky to implement, while air quality regulations and associated risks create disincentives to treating near homes. Alternatively, agencies may be able to meet both annual prescribed burning accomplishment targets and ecological objectives in areas more distant from the WUI with fewer risks, less money, and fewer personnel (Kolden and Brown 2010, Schultz et al. 2019). Further, there is increasing evidence that treating fuels across larger spatial extents in strategically planned wildland locations, rather than immediately adjacent to WUI, can indirectly reduce risk to communities (Smith et al. 2016, Bowman et al. 2020). Benefits of this strategy include increased initial attack and short-term suppression effectiveness, reduced crown fire potential and ember production, reduced smoke impacts to communities, and increased forest resilience (Ager et al. 2010, Stevens et al. 2016).

Fuel reduction treatments can support cultural, ecological, ecosystem service, and management objectives beyond the WUI. For example, treatments that restore the ecological resilience of old growth forests and patches with large and old trees are critical to long term maintenance of wildlife habitats (Hessburg et al. 2020) of seasonally dry forests and terrestrial carbon stocks, and slowing the feedback cycle between fire and climate change (Hurteau and North 2009). Treatments in watersheds that are distant from the WUI and protect municipal and agricultural water supplies are critical to minimizing high-severity fire impacts that can jeopardize clean water delivery (Bladon 2018, Hallema et al. 2018). For example, post-fire erosion and debris flows may cause more detrimental and longer term impacts to watersheds than the wildfires themselves (Jones et al. 2018, Kolden and Henson 2019).

Finally, treated areas outside the WUI can serve as defensible positions for fire suppression personnel that can be used to establish control lines or allow for more flexible suppression strategies,
freeing up resources to protect WUI infrastructure or forests in another area (Thompson et al. 2017), or can support rapid and organized evacuation when they are implemented along evacuation routes (Kolden and Henson 2019). Across complex landscapes, it is more effective in the long-term to prioritize fuel treatments that maximize benefits across large areas and over long time frames, rather than constrain them to the WUI.

*************************

I don’t think any of this is news to TSW readers, though perhaps the citations are and may be very handy to NEPA folks.  We have heard for years the argument that the FS shouldn’t treat fuels “miles from communities”.  And yet yesterday there was a story of a California wildfire traveling up to 8 miles in a single day.  As I’ve said for many years, keeping fires out of town is generally thought to be a good thing.

Ten Common Questions About Adaptive Forest Management: IV. Can forest thinning and prescribed burning solve the problem?

by

This is from the Ten Common Questions paper, a synthesis published in Ecological Application. I’m posting each answer separately. If you use the search box and look for Ten Common Questions, you can find them all.  My introduction to the paper is here. Please put any questions for the authors in the comments; I’ll try to get answers from them. I’d appreciate if the tone were respectful (think graduate seminar, not Twitter).

Question 3: “Can forest thinning and prescribed burning solve the problem?”

Fire has been a tool that has been actively used for millennia. Indigenous burning practices maintained prairies, oak and pine savannas, riparian areas, mixed-conifer, hardwood, and dry forests,
and high mountain huckleberry and beargrass assemblages for food, medicine, basketry and other resources (Trauernicht et al. 2015, Roos et al. 2021). Following prolonged fire exclusion, many
seasonally dry forest landscapes that were once frequently burned now are densely stocked with multi-layered canopies that often require thinning prior to restoring fire (North et al. 2012, Ryan et al. 2013). Prescribed burning on its own and in combination with mechanical thinning are essential fuel reduction treatments with demonstrated effectiveness in reducing fire severity, crown and bole scorch, and tree mortality compared to untreated forests (Safford et al. 2012, Kalies and Yocom Kent 2016).  Thinning and burning in partnership with local Indigenous knowledge and practice can support culturally-valued practices, traditions, livelihoods, and food and medicine security (Sowerwine et al. 2019).

Although the use of prescribed burning, often in combination with mechanical thinning, has been shown to be highly effective at mitigating wildfire severity and increasing forest resilience to drought, insects and disease (Hood et al. 2015), these treatments alone cannot address forest management challenges across wNA. Fuel reduction treatments are not appropriate for all conditions or forest types (DellaSala et al. 2004, Reinhardt et al. 2008, Naficy et al. 2016). In some mesic forests, for instance, mechanical treatments may increase the risk of fire by increasing sunlight exposure to the forest floor, drying surface fuels, promoting understory growth, and increasing wind speeds that leave residual trees vulnerable to wind throw (Zald and Dunn 2018, Hanan et al. 2020). Furthermore, prescribed surface fire is difficult to implement in many current mesic forests since fire readily spreads into tree crowns via abundant fuel ladders and can result in crown fires. In other forest types such as subalpine, subboreal, and boreal forests, low crown base heights, thin bark, and heavy duff and litter loads make trees vulnerable to fire at any intensity (Agee 1996, Stevens et al 2020). Fire regimes in these forests, along with lodgepole pine, are dominated by moderate- and high-severity fires, and applications of forest thinning and prescribed underburning are generally inappropriate. However, landscape burning and maintenance of high elevation forests and meadows is part of cultural burning, and high-intensity
crown fire is used operationally on national forests and parks within the US and Canada for landscape restoration objectives (Table 2).

Even where socially and ecologically appropriate, thinning and low-intensity prescribed burning generally require repeated treatments to meet fuel reduction objectives. For example, without prior
thinning, low-intensity prescribed fire, on its own, may not consume enough fuel or cause enough tree mortality to change forest structure and reduce crown fire hazard (e.g., Lydersen et al. 2019b). In contrast, prescribed burns in heavy slash may result in high tree mortality. The first harvest entry into fire-excluded stands often leaves high surface fuel loads and dense understories that require one or more prescribed burning treatments to reduce surface and ladder fuels (Goodwin et al. 2018, Korb et al. 2020). Thus, it often takes multiple treatments and/or fire entries, as well as ongoing maintenance, to realize resilience and adaptation goals (Agee and Skinner 2005, Stevens et al. 2014, Goodwin et al. 2020). Given the extent and variability of forest ecosystems that have experienced prolonged fire exclusion, active forest management can be only one tool to increase adaptation to climate and future fires.

Although thinning and prescribed burning have been shown to be highly effective, the current scale and pace of these treatments do not match the scale of the management challenge (Barnett et al. 2016b, Kolden 2019). Mechanical treatments are constrained by land management allocations and their enabling legislation (e.g., wilderness and roadless areas), operational constraints (e.g., steep slopes, distance to roads, costs), and administrative boundaries (e.g., riparian areas, areas managed for species of concern). In the central Sierra Nevada for example, these constraints – combined with large areas of non-productive timberland that are unsuitable for commercial treatment due to steep slopes or distance from roads – left only 28% of the landscape available for mechanical thinning and prescribed burning treatments (North et al. 2015a). In the remaining area, prescribed burning alone and/or use of managed wildfires may be suitable replacement treatments (Boisramé et al. 2017, Barros et al. 2018). However, prescribed fire-only treatments are frequently limited by cost, liability, air quality regulations, equipment availability, personnel capacity and training, and the need for ongoing maintenance treatments (Quinn-Davidson and Varner 2012, Schultz et al. 2019).

In light of these constraints, some researchers and managers have called for the expanded use of landscape-scale prescribed burns and managed wildfires in addition to fuel reduction treatments as a promising approach to expand the pace and scale of adaptive management (see below). Increasingly collaborative restoration partnerships with Indigenous cultures can increase opportunities for reinstating tribal stewardship practices (Lake et al. 2018, Long and Lake 2018). Under appropriate weather and safety conditions, and where infrastructure is not at risk, managed wildfire may serve as a useful and cost-effective tool for reintroducing wildfire to fire-excluded forests and achieve broadscale management goals.

 

Sharon’s reflection: In policy studies, we always say that framing the problem is crucial. These scientists ask the question “can thinning and prescribed burning solve “the problem”?” In the abstract, the authors state “We review science-based adaptation strategies for western North American (wNA) forests that include restoring active fire regimes and fostering resilient structure and composition of forested landscapes.”..perhaps how to restore fire regimes and foster climate resilience.  If I were framing the problem I might call it “how can humans in western North America live with fire, including restoring/designing fire resilient forested landscapes.”  It’s not exactly the same thing, but perhaps the answer (thinning and PB can’t do it alone) is the same.

Ten Common Questions About Adaptive Forest Management: III. Is forest thinning alone sufficient to mitigate wildfire hazard?

by

This is from the Ten Common Questions paper, a synthesis published in Ecological Application. I’m posting each answer separately. If you use the search box and look for Ten Common Questions, you can find them all.  My introduction to the paper is here. Please put any questions for the authors in the comments; I’ll try to get answers from them. I’d appreciate if the tone were respectful (think graduate seminar, not Twitter).

Question 2: “Is forest thinning alone sufficient to mitigate wildfire hazard?”

While “thin the forest to reduce wildfire threat” is commonly cited in the popular media, the capacity for thinning alone to mitigate wildfire hazard and severity is not well supported in the
scientific literature. Thinning treatments require strategic selection of trees to target fuel ladders and fire-susceptible trees, along with a subsequent fuel reduction treatment (Jain et al. 2020).

When thinning is conducted without accompanied surface fuel reduction, short and long-term goals may not be realized.  Thinning from below reduces ladder fuels and canopy bulk density concurrently, which can reduce the potential for both passive and active crown fire behavior (Agee and Skinner 2005). For instance, Harrod et al. (2009) found that thinning treatments that reduced tree density and canopy bulk density, and increased canopy base height significantly reduced stand susceptibility to crown fire compared to untreated controls. Furthermore, large-diameter trees and snags that provide essential wildlife habitat and other ecosystem values can be retained and fuels can be deliberately removed around these structures using this approach (Lehmkuhl et al. 2015). Where wood from treatments can be marketed, revenues from thinning help to sustain broader management goals on public lands. For example, some landscape restoration collaboratives seek to reinvest profits from commercially viable thinning to off-set costs associated with more labor-intensive manual thinning and prescribed or cultural burning needs (Shultz and Jedd 2012).

Some studies show that thinning alone can mitigate wildfire severity (e.g., Pollet and Omi 2002, Prichard and Kennedy 2014, Prichard et al. 2020), but across a wide range of sites, thin and
prescribed burn treatments are most effective at reducing fire severity (see reviews by Fulé et al. 2012, Martinson and Omi 2013, Kalies and Yocom Kent 2016). On most sites, thinning alone
achieves a reduction of canopy fuels but contributes to higher surface fuel loads. If burned in a wildfire, these fuels can contribute to high-intensity surface fires and elevated levels of associated tree mortality (e.g., Stephens et al. 2009, Prichard and Kennedy 2012). When trees are felled and limbed, fine fuels from tree tops and branches (termed activity fuels) are re-distributed over the treatment area, thereby increasing surface fuel loads (Martinson and Omi 2013). Mechanical fuel reduction treatments of these activity fuels are possible, but in many locations, biomass removal and utilization (e.g., for bioenergy) after thinning treatments can be cost-prohibitive due to long hauling distances and the economic and technological challenges of building new biomass facilities (Hartsough et al. 2008). Mastication equipment is sometimes used to shred understory trees and shrubs into smaller woody fragments, which are then redistributed and left on site (Kane et al. 2009). However, following mastication, surface fuels are temporarily elevated, and masticated stands that burn in wildland fires can cause deep soil heating from smoldering combustion and elevated fire intensities (Kreye et al. 2014).

Other unintended consequences of thinning without concomitant reduction in surface fuels can occur. For instance, decreasing canopy bulk density can change site climatic conditions (Agee and Skinner 2005). Wildfire ignition potential is largely driven by fuel moisture, which can decrease on drier sites when canopy bulk density is reduced through commercial thinning (e.g., Reinhardt et al. 2006). Reduced canopy bulk density can lead to increased surface wind speed and fuel heating, which allows for increased rates of fire spread in thinned forests (Pimont et al. 2009, Parsons et al. 2018). Other studies show no effect of thinning on surface fuel moisture (Estes et al. 2012, Bigelow and North 2012), suggesting that thinning effects on surface winds and fuel moisture are complex, site specific, and likely vary across ecoregions and seasons.

In summary, although the efficacy of thinning alone as a fuel reduction treatment is questionable and site dependent, there exists widespread agreement that combined effects of thinning plus prescribed burning consistently reduces the potential for severe wildfire across a broad range of forest types and conditions (Fig. 3, Fulé et al. 2012, Kalies and Yocom Kent 2016, Stephens et al. 2021). Given this broad consensus in the scientific literature, some authors suggest that forest thinning should be considered in the context of wildfire hazard abatement, ecological restoration and adaptation, and revitalization of cultural burning (Lehmkuhl et al. 2007, Hessburg et al. 2015, Huffman et al. 2020). Where restoring resilient forest composition and structure and reducing future wildfire hazard are goals of management (Koontz etal. 2020), combined thinning and burning approaches will provide ecological and wildfire-risk reduction benefits (Knapp et al. 2017).

From Sharon: I didn’t find anything surprising here, did you?

Out of the Ashes: Landscape Recovery in the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region

by

This is a very interesting, eye-catching, and technologically splendid (IMHO) presentation by Region 5 on what they are doing post-fire. As an old person who worked at Placerville Nursery during its heyday (at a genetics lab then located in the seed extractory, to be specific) I’m not surprised to see that the spiral of learning has circled back to the need to plant trees. This spiral tends to recur almost predictably when everyone with expensively obtained experience has retired, and the infrastructure dispersed (remember Region 6 tree coolers?). And so it goes..

There’s many possible discussion topics but these caught my eye..

Critical Reforestation Needs

Over half the landscape burned at moderate to high severity.
500,000 acres prioritized for reforestation.
Estimated cost of 2020 of revegetation/site prep is over $585M.

Strategic Reforestation Investment
Long term reforestation strategy.
Modernizing our nursery.
Adapting tree species and revegetation to climate change.
~$2M Placerville CIP request.
$3.5M in grants, proposals and match.

Wildfires necessitate long-term repairs to trails, roads & streams.

Trail restoration – 1,600 mi
Estimated costs $9M
Road restoration & bridge reconstruction – 5,894 mi
Estimated costs $874M
Approved ERFO $10M
Watershed Restoration & improvement – 8,600 miles
Estimated costs $138M

Facility Replacement

Additional infrastructure recovery accounts for admin sites, recreation facilities, and bridges.
Estimated costs administrative sites – $15M
Estimated costs recreation sites – $19M
Estimated costs infrastructure design & contract admin – $298M


Strength Through Partnership

Trillion Trees & Expansion of Placerville Nursery.
CalTrans agreement for roadside salvage.
Matching dollars from NFWF, CAL FIRE, BLM.
State proposing $2B for wildfire and forest resilience.

And where there is fire and trees (and markets), there is salvage (both public and private, although private does not seem to be controversial).

Burned Timber

Burned timber from 2020 wildfires – 20x more than R5’s timber target.

Not all can be salvaged due to access and terrain
Mill & biomass facility capacity is limited and variable
Potential for saturated salvage market

Carbon in the Atmosphere

More than 112M metric tons of CO2 were emitted into the atmosphere due to 2020 wildfires.
25% more CO2 than the average annual fossil fuel emissions.

*********************
I wonder whether both Oregon and California have the potential for a saturated salvage market, who will get in before saturation, and what will happen to the rest of the material. How the FS will determine priorities beyond hazard trees? What will happen to all the material that is removed but doesn’t find a market?

Anyway, great job, Region 5!

The Other Side of the Story: CNN Story on Enviva and “Helicopter Journalism”

by
Franklin Williams, Northampton County’s Economic Development Director

Matthew posted this CNN piece, and my original thoughts were “I bet there are Black people who work at Enviva and who supply wood to them.. I wonder why their perspectives are not in the story?” The headline was “marginalized communities are paying the price for green energy in Europe”, but it could also have been “marginalized communities benefit from green energy exports to Europe.” If we go to the reporter’s Twitter,  she says “how Europe’s green energy hurts Black Americans.” It almost seems as though evidence was selected that supported this (predetermined?) claim, and other evidence not examined. Is this a case of helicopter journalism, similar to “helicopter research?”

“Journalists don’t have the time to get closer and understand the communities they are reporting on. They just land somewhere, cover the big story from a distance and dash off,” he said. “They inevitably miss the details.”

The topic is not as far afield from the western US as you might think, as landowners and Enviva are making money from residuals from forest management, which is something many westerners would like to do (and is arguably better for the climate than burning wood in piles).  Enviva developed its own proprietary tracking program to make sure that the material is responsibly sourced, allowing it to trace every ton of wood back to its origin in the forest or sawmill.  And they post their sources and the site information to the public via this cool map.. Imagine if we could use a similar system for western forest residuals…

Here’s an answer to the CNN article from Enviva on forest management.  It’s not hard to understand,  but perhaps I have a leg up, as I did my post-doc at NC State. They’re private forests, and landowners do what they want to do within regulations. They have a variety of objectives, including producing timber and other forest products. According to Enviva,

It is very important to understand that Enviva’s pellets are made from low-value wood that is a byproduct of a traditional timber harvest. Enviva creates an additional market for private forest landowners to sell their low-value wood, such as “thinnings,” limbs, tops, or low-grade trees (deceased, crooked) that would otherwise go unused, and an incentive to keep their land as forests. We’re talking about material that is a relatively small source of revenue for a landowner, so it’s not driving their decision to harvest in the first place.

Good biomass, like the one we source at Enviva, does not drive harvests. It is crucial to understand that forests are not being harvested for biomass. The value is too low. Harvest decisions are driven by how trees are sorted, purchased, and used according to their quality and value. A forest owner can obtain as much as 8 or 9 times the price for high-value wood versus the wood Enviva uses for wood pellets. It doesn’t make economic or business sense to use a high-quality tree for wood pellets or any other low-value product. As long as we source fiber from the bottom of that value scale, regardless if it’s a whole tree or parts of a tree, then we know we’re operating sustainably and delivering tangible benefits for the climate.
..
Enviva consults with independent academic and environmental organizations, who assist in identifying environmentally sensitive forest ecosystems that have high conservation value (HCV). We do not accept wood from sensitive forest ecosystems and we do not harvest, nor accept wood, from old growth forests or independently designated high conservation value sites.

We would like to reinforce that at Enviva, we only source from land that will be returned to forest. We require replanting of tracts with forests under the purchase contracts and per our Responsible Sourcing Policy.

On the human side, here’s a July 2021 Op-Ed “Elevating Equity and Inclusion in North Carolina” that describes some of the work Enviva does in communities, including:

“For years, we have assisted truckers in paying for their rigs as well as helping loggers finance chippers and skidders. We are looking to partner with more small businesses to create real opportunity and wealth for our neighbors.

Finally, North Carolina’s Black families have been mistreated and their wealth devalued by outmoded heirs property laws. Enviva has long assisted Black families who seek to create forest management plans that will secure their property, obtain the applicable tax benefits, and begin to restore the land’s value. We want to do more to support heirs’ property and Black land retention, and we want to hear from neighbors who need help with this.

Not helicoptering in, a local reporter (Holly Taylor of the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald) wrote two stories to get “the other side of the story.” In the first, she quoted a letter from the Chair of Northampton Economic Development (photo above), Franklin Williams.

“As a leader in Northampton County, North Carolina, I am extremely disappointed to read a recent CNN article entitled ‘How marginalized communities in the South are paying the price for “green energy” in Europe.’ The article portrays our county, and one of the industries operating in it, in an incredibly negative light – contrary to the truth on the ground.

“Yes, our county has challenges – all communities do – but the article neglects to mention the great work that has been happening locally and depicts one of our proud local businesses – Enviva – as reckless and inconsiderate of its neighbors.

“Northampton County has made great strides in recent years – we have a long way to go to get where we want to but each day, each week, the lives of county residents are getting incrementally better. Attracting businesses is vitally important to our work and growth.

“Your recent article portrayed Enviva as a negative part of our community and one intent on doing harm. First, Enviva is well respected in Northampton County. They work with all segments of the community to support the needs of their neighbors. Second, the forest products industry is a vibrant part of our economy – your article failed to recognize this and the very important role Enviva plays by purchasing excess or low-grade wood fiber. Third, the State of North Carolina has installed air monitors in the vicinity of Enviva and those monitors demonstrate that contrary to your story the air in Northampton County is healthy. Publishing a story leading your readers to believe our air is unhealthy could be detrimental to our long-term growth and efforts to improve our county.

“Your recent story left out many of the facts and replaced them with opinions from just a few individuals. Northampton County has a great story to tell – it’s unfortunate that you decided not to tell it.

In the second, Taylor reached out to Enviva and printed their response to the claims in the CNN article.

Conservation groups call for more thinning, biomass removal and prescribed burning in national forests

by
This photo shows well-spaced, large pines with smaller, younger trees six years ago in the Stanislaus National Forest near Smoothwire Creek, north of the Middle Fork Stanislaus River.
Courtesy photo / CSERC

From the Union Democrat of Mother Lode (Sonora) country in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California.

The Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center in Twain Harte and 14 other conservation groups are urging Randy Moore, the former Pacific Southwest regional forester who is now chief of the U.S. Forest Service, to increase prescribed burning, thinning of surface and ladder fuels, and biomass removal in the face of unnaturally severe megablazes and climate change.

…
“Dear Randy,” the Aug. 2 letter begins, “As many of us have already communicated to you on behalf of our conservation organizations, we applaud your selection as the new Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Over the 14 years that you served as Regional Forester in Region 5, our groups worked closely with you on a broad range of issues.

“With this letter, we urge you — as the new Chief — to apply your leadership so that the Forest Service ramps up the pace and scale of needed actions to effectively address the pressing challenges of high-severity wildfires, climate change, and loss of biodiversity.”
…

“We look forward to working with the Forest Service, national and state policymakers, tribes, and diverse stakeholder interests to ensure that taxpayer-funded investments are applied so that agency actions are carefully prioritized and science-based and provide beneficial social and ecological outcomes,” the open letter states. “By focusing on ecological restoration and science-based actions, the Forest Service can continue building trust so that individual national forests can ramp up the scale of forest treatments while minimizing controversy.”

Asked Tuesday to quantify how much conservationists want to see prescribed burning to increase, Jamie Ervin with Sierra Forest Legacy said, “The Forest Service and the state have set a goal of ramping up pace and scale forest restoration including prescribed burning to a million acres a year. That would be a good start. The actual fire regime — calls for more than that.”

Fire regime refers to the kind of fire and how much fire a particular ecosystem experiences historically, before European settlers arrived, Ervin said.

“Our best estimate is California would have had about 4.5 million acres burning annually,” Ervin said. “From lightning strikes and indigenous people burning intentionally for forest clearing and hunting.”

Prescribed burning right now is about 100,000 acres a year statewide, Ervin said, speaking from Nevada City, about 125 miles north of Sonora. It varies every year. An estimate of prescribed-burn acreage statewide so far this year was not available. Eighteen months ago, the California Air Resources Board reported there were 125,000 acres of prescribed burns statewide in 2019.

Fire is natural in California, and we need fire in the forests, Ervin emphasized. The issue right now is we’re experiencing unnaturally severe fires due to the fact we have suppressed fires for over a hundred years. Conservationists want more forest management, especially significant investment in federal and state prescribed fire programs.

….
With their letter to Moore, the conservation groups share their collective agreement that it’s essential to significantly ramp up all three kinds of forest treatments — science-based thinning logging in appropriate areas; carefully planned prescribed burning during mild weather times of year; and the removal where economically possible of excess biomass fuels, Buckley said.

“This letter is a relatively unique sharing by a variety of conservation groups,” he said. “While our local organizations have been broadly supportive of those treatments, this is a strong sharing of agreement by groups that normally don’t emphasize endorsement of logging or biomass removal.”

Other groups that signed the letter with CSERC and Sierra Forest Legacy were the California Wilderness Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife, the Foothill Conservancy, Friends of the Inyo, the Training and Watershed Center, California Native Plant Society, Sierra Nevada Alliance, the Nature Conservancy, South Yuba River Citizens League, Sierra Business Council, the Tuolumne River Trust, American Rivers, and the Fire Restoration Group.

(my bold)

“Career Person for BLM Director” Op-ed in Colorado Springs Gazette

by

For those interested, here’s my op-ed on the topic from the Colorado Springs Gazette. I won’t belabor it here as some of its the same as the “open letter” yesterday. I encourage folks who feel the same to submit their views to their own outlets. In case there’s a paywall I can’t see (being a subscriber), I copied it below.

Select a seasoned, career employee for BLM director

This summer has challenged wildland firefighters due to megafires, dealing with COVID, fuel shortages and a host of other difficulties. Unfortunately, one of the main agencies involved in wildland firefighting is without a director. The Biden administration nominated Tracy Stone-manning, who comes with long-term ideological questions (her role in tree-spiking) and more recent ethical questions (her misstatements before Congress and questionable loans while serving as a Senate staffer). Hence her confirmation has been delayed.

Due to these issues, the promised “early summer” review of the oil and gas program has not materialized, leaving states like Colorado, oil and gas workers, and probably federal court judges wondering what’s up and what’s next.

There’s also the need for political horse-trading to get the nomination through. The current stalemate makes no sense to many current employees and retirees. On Secretary Deb Haaland‘s recent trip to Colorado, as reported by Colorado Politics, she said “My first priority is to avoid doing any more harm to the BLM’S dedicated employees. We owe them that.” To accomplish that goal, there’s a simple solution: pick another nominee, preferably a tested career employee and allow them to get to work.

Just because a BLM director can be a political appointee from outside the agency doesn’t mean that they have to be. Successful directors in the past have come from the ranks.

Indeed, because of the challenges of COVID, wildfires and climate change, it might be time to turn the partisan dial down and the workhorse dial up. I suggest taking a page out of the Forest Service book and immediately nominating a seasoned and respected career natural resource professional as director.

At the Forest Service, just such a transition quietly occurred in the midst of a global pandemic and this catastrophic summer of wildfire. There were absolutely no internal or external ripples; it was a quiet handoff from one seasoned and admired career chief to another.

There are several high-quality career candidates in the wings who could be nominated as BLM director and would be likely to be immediately approved. A list could be developed in a matter of days, including candidates who would add to the diversity of the Interior leadership team. These individuals have worked in a variety of states, states with a greater BLM presence and diversity of programs and issues than Montana. They will have worked directly with wildfire and restoration.

Such a person would sail through confirmation, leaving political capital on the table for more important administration priorities. The employees could breathe a sigh of relief, and soon administration work would be churned out in a timely way with a minimum of “new appointee” tension. That would benefit all of us.

It’s the administration’s choice: choose someone seen as experienced and capable to an array of pols and employees, simply moving on to do the work — or engaging in needless political drama for an unknown period, to no imaginably better ultimate end. I think it’s an easy call.

Sharon Friedman is a Forest service retiree and the editor of the smokey Wire. the smokey Wire is a community sourced and supported news and opinion site that fosters civil discussion and mutual learning among people with different views on federal lands and forest policy.

I suspect the unique capitalization of The Smokey Wire is due to some editing algorithm.

Open Letter to Interior Secretary Haaland- Please Pick a Career Person for BLM Director- ASAP

by

Some of you may remember a while back I posted that to reduce political drama, the Admin could pick an experienced, respected (and possible diverse in desirable categories) career person for BLM Director and sail through confirmation hearings. Well, I collected submitted names of specific people, hence this open letter.

Dear Secretary Haaland,

People are talking about your promised “early summer” oil and gas leasing review being held up due to concerns about the nomination hearings for Tracy Stone-Manning. Others have heard that some political horse-trading is going on with Republicans in exchange for their support on the nomination.

For the sake of our public lands and the employees, for the workers in the oil and gas industry, and for the people of the States like your native New Mexico, I ask that you select a different person for BLM Director. This will both expedite getting the review out and directly moving forward with Administration goals for our federal lands. When you recently visited my home state, Colorado, you expressed concern for BLM employees; Colorado Politics quoted you as saying “My first priority is to avoid doing any more harm to the BLM’s dedicated employees. We owe them that.”

As a former federal employee, I am less concerned with Ms. Stone-Manning’s ideologies of the past and more concerned with her ethics of the present. Specifically, my concerns are her recent statement to Congress on whether she had ever been investigated, and possible ethics violations on a loan to her during her time on a Senate staff. Making misstatements to Congress, and not checking carefully on ethics rules, are not the kinds of actions I’d like to see in an agency Director. It doesn’t build confidence among stakeholders nor employees.

Instead, I suggest taking a page out of the Forest Service book and immediately nominating a seasoned and respected career natural resource professional as Director. At the Forest Service, a transition just quietly occurred in the midst of a global pandemic and yet another catastrophic summer of wildfire. There were absolutely no internal or external ripples; it was a quiet handoff from one seasoned and admired career Chief to another. It was also a first in terms of diversity; Chief Moore is the first Black Forest Service Chief.

There are several high-quality career candidates in the wings who could be nominated as BLM Director and would be likely to be immediately approved. The below potential nominees are only a small sample of people who are out there. While I do not know their diversity status, it is likely that some could also add to the diversity of your leadership team. I know that that is an important consideration for the Biden Administration.

All four of these candidates came up through the field ranks in both the BLM and Forest Service, are successful and respected leaders, and have Washington, D.C. headquarters experience. All but one served in Congressional Fellow assignments on Capitol Hill. All four have extensive wildfire and landscape restoration experience, across the diverse states with large BLM presence and programs. Without a professional background check, as you are able to do, I can’t be sure, but as far as I can tell they are ethically spotless.

1. Kristin Bail, Former BLM Assistant Director and current Forest Supervisor of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Her educational background is in hydrology.
2, Jerry Perez, former BLM State Director in Oregon and California. Currently Forest Supervisor on the Angeles National Forest. Jerry has a B.S. in Forestry and a Law Degree.
3. Jose Linares, recently retired and served as acting Oregon/Washington BLM State Director and Siuslaw National Forest Supervisor. Jose’s educational background is in Forest engineering.
4. Jon Raby, current Nevada State BLM Director and former Montana State Director. He is a fish and wildlife biologist by training.

Secretary Haaland, please consider a pathway to bipartisan peace and goodwill, support for your employees, conservation of political capital, and the real ability to hit the ground running for your Administration goals by nominating a career professional for BLM Director!

Respectfully,

Sharon Friedman,
Editor, The Smokey Wire
Forest Service Retiree

**********************************
TSW readers: if you agree with this point of view, I also have an “op-ed” form of the same ideas without the specific names, but it’s available to you as background for any you might write for your own op-eds. Just email me for a copy.. it’s in submission right now.

Going Slow to Go Fast with Prescribed Fire: the Colorado State Experience

by
Michael Elizabeth Sakas/CPR News
A harvester operator piles dead lodgepole pine on Gould Mountain that’s been cut down to reduce wildfire fuel. This project is a partnership between a private logger and the Colorado State Forest Service. Dec. 30, 2020.

We’ve been following the Chief’s wildland fire letter, the (some fire) scientists’ letter, and the (some retirees) letter.  Remember, here’s the Chief’s letter

At times like these, we must anchor to our core values, particularly safety. In PL 5, the reality is we are resource limited. The core tenet of the Forest Service’s fire response strategy is public and firefighter safety above all else…
At this time, for all of these reasons, managing fires for resource benefit is a strategy we will not use. In addition, until further notice, ignited prescribed fire operations will be considered only in geographic areas at or below PL 2 and only with the approval of the Regional Forester after consulting with the Chief’s Office.

What I think is missed in the fire scientists’ letter is consideration of the judgment call about what we call in collaborative work “going slow to go fast” or how building trust early on by going slow can accelerate support and movement forward in the future. Again, to my mind, that’s not a question (go slow or go fast at this point in time at this geographic scale) that fire science can tell us; in fact, I don’t think that any social science discipline can tell us one specific answer. Thought experiment: suppose economists claimed to speak for “science”? Or political ecologists? Indeed, there are more disciplines around today than you can shake a charred branch at, many of whom claim authority for their view of “science.”

Here’s the way I would ask the key question the Chief faces “Given current 2021 conditions, what is the best thing to do, with firefighter and public safety primary, to also give the FS the best chance of being able to manage WFU and PBs in the future?”. It’s ultimately a people/land/resources judgment call that we have experts and experienced people hired, trained, and selected to make. Of course, there’s a science piece to the puzzle, but it’s one of many pieces. And any particular discipline is one of many science pieces. Just in the fire sciences, there are people who study communities and prescribed fire, scientists who study firefighters, and so on. Even if you had a panel with all those disciplines represented (some kind of interdisciplinary EPA-like Science Advisory Board) you would need to include management science.. which has its own body of literature on the role of intuition in decision-making. Here’s just one review of that literature. So we can’t even pick one social science discipline that can claim unique authority to what “science” says to help address the “what to do” question.

Here’s one experience that may have influenced Coloradans. The North Fork fire was a prescribed burn that got out of control, and apparently is having a long term effect on acres treated by the State.  This story is from Colorado Public Radio (CPR).

Burning authority

In March of 2012, the Colorado State Forest Service was managing a prescribed fire southeast of Conifer. The winds picked up on a hot and dry day, which started the Lower North Fork Fire. It killed three people, and destroyed nearly two dozen homes.

Colorado State Forester Mike Lester said the event was traumatic for many — agency staffers included.

“A lot of really good people really felt like their life’s work was tarnished in some way,” Lester said. “And it was unfair because they applied the techniques at that point in time we thought were the right ways to do it.”

An independent review of the fire found no individual at fault. But victims criticized the review and wanted change. A bill was passed, which ended the state forest service’s authority to do prescribed burning. The agency’s fire unit employees were moved to the Division of Fire Prevention and Control.

Lester doesn’t think that the Colorado State Forest Service needs that authority reinstated.

“We would be happy to assist, but as far as taking the lead role again, there’s no point in that because [the Division of Fire Prevention and Control] does prescribed fire.”

 

But the division is burning a lot less. Permit data from the state shows that Fire Prevention and Control burns about an eighth of the acreage each year that the Colorado State Forest Service once did.

Mike Morgan, the division director, said drier conditions fueled by climate change, including Colorado’s persistent drought, makes burning challenging.

“And the more homes we get in the areas where we would typically consider using fire as a tool, the more risk or hazard there is associated with using fire as a tool to do that,” Morgan said.

But federal agencies, like the U.S. Forest Service, are still conducting prescribed burns. Morgan said since the land they manage is further away from homes, it makes it easier for the federal agency to use fire as a tool. And that’s why the state has turned to more manual thinning, like the logging project on Gould Mountain.

My bold. And Joe Duda’s point of view:

But former deputy state forester Joseph Duda doesn’t think that’s enough. Duda, who retired last year, wants to see the Colorado State Forest Service’s authority to burn reinstated.

“You’ve taken an important tool out of the toolbox,” Duda said. “When the tool is necessary, you’ve basically tied a hand behind their back.”

While Mike Morgan with fire prevention and control cites climate change and a growing number of people and developments crowding into wildland areas as reasons to do less burning, Duda sees those as the reasons to do more.

“How are we better off if we’re doing less management?” Duda said. “Clearly we’ve had warmer and drier, more drastic conditions. The time now isn’t to do less forestry, it’s to do more forestry.”

Duda said Colorado’s forest service is one of the only state forest services that can’t conduct prescribed burns. That also means the agency is not allowed to burn piles of thinned trees and brush for wildfire mitigation on private land.

“The state forest service is the forestry agency for private landowners, that’s a significant ownership. There’s six and a half million acres or so of private forest lands in Colorado,” Duda said.

While the State Forest Service is blocked from conducting prescribed fires, they haven’t stopped showing their support for its use. The agency’s latest Forest Action Plan calls for more of it in Colorado, which at this point is all the agency can do.