This struggle is real for not-for-profit folks like us also. (from the Collaborative Creations website.
Some of you may have noticed that The Smokey Wire was down for about a day last week. I tried to upgrade the WordPress version and some plug-ins and things went awry.
Fortunately, we are ably assisted by Hillary Strawderman of Collaborative Creations Website Services , who acted swiftly to bring us back online. Just wanted to share here how much I appreciate her and her work, and give you all a chance to do the same. She is the only “behind the scenes” person at TSW, and that means she’s uniquely invisible when it comes to her contributions. Except when things go wrong.
Reminders: you can sign up anytime for free at to view the Wilder Than Wild documentary on fire and participate in the discussion here. There will be a Q&A with Stephen Most and Kevin White on August 22nd, but you don’t have to wait until then to view the film and comment. We had a pretty interesting discussion without actually seeing the documentary, based on Bevington’s thoughts here. So I’m hoping it will be even more interesting when we’ve all seen the film.
In Environmental Protection Information Center v. Carlson, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction of the Ranch Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Project on the Mendocino National Forest. The court held that under no reasonable interpretation of the language of 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(d)(4) did the project come within the CE for “repair and maintenance” of roads. (A similar issue was addressed in Earth Island Institute v. Elliott, discussed here.)
Blogger’s note: The court made an interesting observation in weighing the interests for and against an injunction:
As Forest Supervisor Carlson points out in her declaration, revenue from the Project will allow the Forest Service to pay for the felling of such trees. This is a valid and important point, but we note the obvious: A budgetary system that requires the authorization of commercial salvage logging operations in order to finance work necessary for public safety can put the Forest Service in an awkward and conflicted position in deciding whether, and under what conditions, to authorize such operations.
I guess the point is that the Forest Service set up this system so they are responsible for any harm associated with it.
The Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) received a 60-day Notice of Intent by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Bitterroot to sue the agencies regarding the Gold Butterfly Project on the Bitterroot National Forest, stating that the project area is within the habitat of the grizzly bear, wolverine, and bull trout. (A complaint has already been filed regarding non-ESA issues, as described here for Friends of the Bitterroot v. Anderson.)
The Golden State is the latest state to sign a Shared Stewardship agreement with the USFS. Interesting: “nearly half of the state dollars invested in fuels management in recent years was spent on federal land.”
The press release from Gov. Newsom’s office shown here says “The Great American Outdoors Act … will provide critical funding for the Forest Service’s work in California.” How much?
Lots of good intentions….
California, U.S. Forest Service Establish Shared Long-Term Strategy to Manage Forests and Rangelands
Published:
Agreement will improve coordination to reduce wildfire risks on federal and state lands
Funding included in the federal Great American Outdoors Act
Agreement comes as Lake Fire burns in Angeles National Forest
SACRAMENTO — In a key step to improve stewardship of California’s forests, the Newsom Administration and the U.S. Forest Service today announced a new joint state-federal initiative to reduce wildfire risks, restore watersheds, protect habitat and biological diversity, and help the state meet its climate objectives.
The Agreement for Shared Stewardship of California’s Forest and Rangelands includes a commitment by the federal government to match California’s goal of reducing wildfire risks on 500,000 acres of forest land per year. To protect public safety and ecology, experts agree that at least one million acres of California forest and wildlands must be treated annually across jurisdictions.
A historical transition toward unnaturally dense forests, a century of fire suppression and climate change resulting in warmer, hotter and drier conditions have left the majority of California’s forestland highly vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire and in need of active, science-based management. Since the federal government owns nearly 58 percent of California’s 33 million acres of forestlands, while the state owns 3 percent, joint state-federal management is crucial to California’s overall forest health and wildfire resilience.
Improved coordination also is key since nearly half of the state dollars invested in fuels management in recent years was spent on federal land.
“Wildfires don’t stop at jurisdictional boundaries. As we respond to wildfires in real-time this summer, improving coordination between the major stewards of California’s forested land will help us protect communities and restore forest health across California,” Governor Gavin Newsom said. “We are grateful to secure the U.S. Forest Service’s commitment to help us more effectively address the scale of California’s current wildfire crisis.”
“Collaboration between state and federal agencies on issues of forest health and resiliency is critical,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen. “The Forest Service is fortunate to collaborate on restoration projects across the state and share science and research to address issues to help care for the land and serve people. We are excited to expand our partnership with California to enhance our collaboration though this Shared Stewardship agreement with California.”
The Shared Stewardship Agreement builds on existing coordination between state and federal agencies, and outlines six core principles and nine specific actions that will drive improved state-federal collaboration:
Prioritize public safety;
Use science to guide forest management;
Coordinate land management across jurisdictions;
Increase the scale and pace of forest management projects;
Remove barriers that slow project approvals; and
Work closely with all stakeholders, including tribal communities, environmental groups, academia and timber companies.
Specifically, through this agreement California and the U.S. Forest Service commit to execute the following activities together:
Treat one million acres of forest and wildland annually to reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire (building on the state’s existing 500,000-acre annual commitment);
Develop a shared 20-year plan for forest health and vegetation treatment that establishes and coordinates priority projects;
Expand use of ecologically sustainable techniques for vegetation treatments such as prescribed fire;
Increase pace and scale of forest management by improving ecologically sustainable timber harvest in California and grow jobs by tackling structural obstacles, such as workforce and equipment shortfalls and lack of access to capital;
Prioritize co-benefits of forest health such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity, healthy watersheds and stable rural economies;
Recycle forest byproducts to avoid burning slash piles;
Improve sustainable recreation opportunities;
Enable resilient, fire-adapted communities; and
Share data and continue to invest in science.
The Great American Outdoors Act, signed by President Trump on August 4, will provide critical funding for the Forest Service’s work in California.
The Christian Science Monitor has a story on Alaska Roadless here. I’m not an Alaska expert, but my Roadless Geek antennae started quivering when I read the the below bolded statements.
Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, is the state’s senior senator. Her opposition to the Roadless Rule is “not only about timber,” she says in a phone interview. She says the rule hampers access to mineral resources and hydroelectric sites. The goal, she says, is to “make sure people can actually access the region.”
Mr. Watson, the former Craig mayor, hopes that a new mine extracting rare earth metals, elements in demand for electronics and high performance magnets, will soon open at an inaccessible site on the island, the first such mine in the U.S. But he says red tape could slow approval of a road to the location, even though the Roadless Rule permits transportation corridors in support of such nonlogging activities. “We’d like to have things happen on this island that will allow us to survive,” he said.
Eric Jorgensen, managing attorney of EarthJustice’s Alaska office and veteran of more than a dozen lawsuits countering challenges to the Roadless Rule, says Mr. Watson’s and Sen. Murkowski’s concern is “not based in reality.” He says that “even if red tape were a problem, that would not be a rationale for gutting the rule,” as the Forest Service could solve that issue without allowing new logging roads.
Since we had issues and even litigation about a linear construction zone for a pipeline under the 2001 Rule, I was surprised that the writer (or perhaps Mr. Watson?) said that the 2001 Roadless Rule “permits transportation corridors in support of such nonlogging activities.” It almost sounds as if only “logging” roads are not allowed by the 2001 Rule.
Here’s what the Rule says exactly. It’s short and simple.
§ 294.12 Prohibition on road construction and road reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas.
(a) A road may not be constructed or reconstructed in inventoried roadless areas of the National Forest System, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Notwithstanding the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section, a road may be constructed or reconstructed in an inventoried roadless area if the Responsible Official determines that one of the following circumstances exists:
(1) A road is needed to protect public health and safety in cases of an imminent threat of flood, fire, or other catastrophic event that, without intervention, would cause the loss of life or property;
(2) A road is needed to conduct a response action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or to conduct a natural resource restoration action under CERCLA, Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, or the Oil Pollution Act;
(3) A road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as provided for by statute or treaty;
(4) Road realignment is needed to prevent irreparable resource damage that arises from the design, location, use, or deterioration of a classified road and that cannot be mitigated by road maintenance. Road realignment may occur under this paragraph only if the road is deemed essential for public or private access, natural resource management, or public health and safety;
(5) Road reconstruction is needed to implement a road safety improvement project on a classified road determined to be hazardous on the basis of accident experience or accident potential on that road;
(6) The Secretary of Agriculture determines that a Federal Aid Highway project, authorized pursuant to Title 23 of the United States Code, is in the public interest or is consistent with the purposes for which the land was reserved or acquired and no other reasonable and prudent alternative exists; or
(7) A road is needed in conjunction with the continuation, extension, or renewal of a mineral lease on lands that are under lease by the Secretary of the Interior as of January 12, 2001 or for a new lease issued immediately upon expiration of an existing lease. Such road construction or reconstruction must be conducted in a manner that minimizes effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary or unreasonable surface disturbance, and complies with all applicable lease requirements, land and resource management plan direction, regulations, and laws. Roads constructed or reconstructed pursuant to this paragraph must be obliterated when no longer needed for the purposes of the lease or upon termination or expiration of the lease, whichever is sooner.
(c) Maintenance of classified roads is permissible in inventoried roadless areas
In Colorado, we didn’t see any exceptions for dams (except when their condition is “imminent threat” of flooding)- we had quite a discussion about how this might be defined (!) and addressed in the state-specific Rule. Perhaps the mine under discussion is a patented claim so there would be access? The Forest Service has been litigated successfully for approving road building for patented mining claims (in this case, within the Frank Church Wilderness) and made the Forest Service do extra analysis (not sure what’s happening with this now.)
It seems reasonable to me to question whether the 2001 would allow roads for new hydroelectric facilities or mines. Conceivably, rare earth mines and hydropower are new uses that have increased in importance since 2001 and are also positive in terms of carbon mitigation. Perhaps a mine could be accessed by water. Does anyone have more information on this?
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue gathered up the “good ole boys” at the Missoula airport on June 12 to unveil the Trump administration’s “Modernization Blueprint” for more logging, mining, drilling and grazing on national forests. Photo by Missoulian (https://missoulian.com/news/local/trump-official-visits-missoula-directs-forest-service-to-expedite-environmental-reviews/article_2cb9e2f7-fb8d-5e06-babe-2d1433845ea1.html)
Oh boy, the Trump administration apologists and U.S. Forest Service fans are going to have a tough time spinning this one, I think. If you are one of the seven current Forest Service Regional Foresters who sees your current position advertised as vacant on USAJobs.gov how would that make you feel? Why some people think we should continue to ignore everything the Trump administration is doing to dismantle and undermine key public institutions like the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and U.S. Postal Service is a real mystery to me.
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue has asked regional foresters to step up efforts to implement his “vision” for forestland management at the same time the Forest Service is posting a call for applications for their jobs.
Two regional forester positions — in the Intermountain region and the Southwest — are actually vacant due to retirements, the Forest Service told E&E News. But all nine are currently advertised as vacant on USAJobs.gov.
The other seven are being advertised through Aug. 27 in an effort to “be prepared with a pool of candidates for consideration if other critical leadership positions become vacant in the near future,” the service said. The posting on USAJobs.gov — posted a week ago today — remains open to applicants for up to a year, following Office of Personnel Management guidelines, the Forest Service said.
Officials advertised the vacancies four days before Perdue sent each of the nine regional foresters a memorandum prodding them to do more to pursue the administration’s “vision,” which includes increased forest thinning, more timber production, more grazing of livestock and shorter environmental reviews on land the Forest Service oversees.
An agency spokesperson said the memo and the job postings aren’t related, but it prompted some worries in the ranks that the secretary was getting ready to clean house.
Perdue’s memo also comes as the Forest Service falls short of timber harvesting goals, despite directives from the Trump administration and some members of Congress to increase sales from national forests.
In the memo, Perdue reminded the foresters of his June directive in which the secretary outlined those goals (E&E News PM, June 12).
Perdue — bypassing Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen — asked the regional foresters to answer a series of questions about how they intend to meet the goals and added, “I want to hear from you directly on how you are progressing in implementing the vision.”
The regional foresters have until Aug. 31 to reply.
“The advertisement is in anticipation of normal agency attrition and has no connection to the Secretary’s memo,” the Forest Service told E&E News.
But current and former Forest Service officials said the concurrent timing led to speculation that jobs might be on the line and that a pool of potential candidates would be in place if regional foresters’ answers don’t satisfy the secretary.
One senior Forest Service official who spoke to E&E News on the condition of anonymity called the memo “very brutal,” though Perdue took a congenial tone and thanked the regional managers for their efforts to date.
A letter from the secretary of Agriculture to regional forest managers is unusual, former Forest Service officials said.
But Perdue has expressed a personal interest in many of the related issues, and President Trump has taken up forest policy in speeches and in an executive order.
Among the top questions Perdue said he wants answered:
“What actions have you taken in your region” since June “to implement the direction laid out in the memo?”
“What future actions will you be taking to implement the vision and direction” outlined in the June directive? “Specifically, I want to hear your timeline and key milestones for implementation.”
“What more can be done by the Forest Service, the Department or our external partners to support implementation of the memo?”
Regional foresters are not political appointees but senior executive level employees who can be moved into new positions at the administration’s discretion. All “SES” employees sign a statement acknowledging that.
A shuffle of senior executive positions wouldn’t be unprecedented with a potential change of administration coming in January, former Forest Service employees said.
A Forest Service spokesperson said the agency has used a similar approach in the past for leadership positions such as forest supervisors, though people who work with the Forest Service said they’ve rarely seen regional forester positions posted publicly. Regional foresters are paid between $175,501 and $186,500 a year, according to the job posting.
Regional foresters are a key piece of the Department of Agriculture’s management of the national forest system’s 193 million acres of wildlands. They bring the administration’s forest policies to the field and are a point of contact for state and local officials. They also hire and fire the foresters for each national forest.
Some oversee as many as a dozen national forests at once, making decisions that affect forest ecology across vast areas — and they develop working relationships with state forestry departments.
“I’ve always considered it to be a really important position,” said Laura McCarthy, New Mexico state forester. New Mexico is in Region 3, home to one of the job vacancies.
In that region, McCarthy said, the regional forester has managed negotiations with environmentalists suing to protect the Mexican spotted owl, for instance. “We’ve been kind of a region in crisis.”
Missing the targets
The vision Perdue laid out in June has run into the realities of tough international market conditions for wood products, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. The Forest Service is on track to miss its timber targets as a result, according to industry and agency sources.
Through the first three-quarters of fiscal 2020, the Forest Service has sold 1.194 billion board feet of timber, less than in any of the four previous years, the agency reported.
In the Pacific Northwest region, the agency has attained just 58% of its timber target with two months to go in the fiscal year, said Dan Shively, the region’s natural resources director, in an Aug. 3 memo to forest supervisors.
“It’s clear that all of you are working extra hard this year under our COVID-19 challenges delivering not only the timber program but also a broad portfolio of integrated restoration activities and other work that remains critically important to our partner agencies, NGOs, communities, and the public we serve,” Shively said. A recent upturn in market conditions could help, he said.
Perdue, who told lawmakers two years ago that he wants USDA to be “the most customer-focused department in the entire federal government,” reiterated that priority in his memo, saying the department’s “customers” want a Forest Service that’s accessible, responsive and solutions-oriented.
He inquired what each regional forester is doing “to ensure a culture of customer service extends through every level of your operation.”
He also asked them to identify “the key stakeholders in your region,” and to answer, “what are you doing to improve your staff’s, your region’s and your personal relationships with them?”
Timber companies, state forestry officials and some conservationists cheer Perdue’s emphasis on more intensive forest management, which they say could prevent catastrophic wildfires and protect watersheds, among other benefits.
Environmental groups oppose those moves.
The secretary’s memo looks like “pure intimidation,” said Randi Spivak, public lands director for the Center for Biological Diversity. “Any regional forester who doesn’t dramatically increase logging or curry favor with the livestock industry better polish up their resume.”
Now in California, and other parts of the USA, in the wake of catastrophic wildfire, there is an increased openness to the need to actively manage forest resources. One example is the fire mitigation work spear-headed by the Pepperwood Foundation in Sonoma County. Pepperwood had been actively reducing fuels on-site at its 3200-acre research reserve via forest thinning, including removing Douglas Fir trees that invade oak woodlands in the absence of fire, to achieve both ecological benefits and fuels reductions. Their grassland management also actively reduced fires hazards and enhanced ecological function via conservation grazing and prescribed fire, similar to methods advanced by Williams and others decades ago.
Pepperwood has the distinction of being one of the rare sites twice-burned in recent wildfire seasons, including the 2017 Tubbs Fire which burned the entire property and the 2019 Kincade Fire, which thanks to CAL FIRE and first responders, impacted only 60% of the property. In 2017, Pepperwood’s prescribed burn treatment area was the only the only portion of the preserve NOT burned by the uncontrollable Tubbs Fire. In 2019, first responders found that land management on the reserve seemed to help slow the Kincade Fire and thus allow CAL FIRE to secure the fire perimeter, preventing it from spreading into nearby Wildfire Urban Interface communities.
We’ve discussed Botkin’s work here in the past. Sharon had a Virtual Book Club series of posts on Botkins The Moon in the Nautilus Shell, such as here and here.
Recent posts in this blog have advocated cessation or reduction of logging as a cure for poor water quality, erosion and other problems that may occur with timber harvesting. The three decade nationwide decline in timber harvesting on our national forests has been a long-term test of the validity of this proposal. This de facto experiment has revealed the critical need for more active management of the timber resource.
While this 30 year decline occurred nationwide, the impacts have been most severe in the West.
Figure 1 graphically depicts the changes that occurred on western forests during this period of limited harvest.
In the west in the early 1990s the United States Forest Service was cutting about 40% of the growth while 30% died.
In 2016 the USFS in the west cut 7% of the growth while 75% died.
Fig. 1
Figure 1 tells its story clearly and succinctly. On a more localized scale, Figure 2 reveals the recent condition of the timber resources in the Northern Region of the U.S. Forest Service (R-1). It is an example of the how this involuntary virtual shut-down of logging is playing out in the real world.
The results are clear: a tiny cut, massive mortality, and negative net growth.
The enormous economic and social impacts of this operational shift have been documented extensively elsewhere.
However, the effect of widespread tree mortality on climate change often is overlooked. The large reduction in oxygen producing leaf area plus the addition of a huge volume of decomposing (CO2 generating) dead trees only can accelerate this unfolding global calamity.
The solution to these problems is not less management but better management: the universal use of Better Management Practices and the corrections of the many causes of management impotence.
Among the most frequently cited of these causes are:
under-funding
over-regulation (a tangle of shifting, restrictive, unclear, and often conflicting laws, regulations, executive orders, written and unwritten policies, and judicial mandates)
serial litigation
over planning and analysis (appeal-proofing proposals and reports)
A combined effort by timber interests, the environmental community and the USFS aimed at removing these impediments could be a productive strategy moving towards prudent husbandry of our public lands.
Logging opponents are urged to study the charts and consider their implications. Comments would be welcomed.
Vince Bzdek of the Colorado Springs Gazette wrote a piece on Sunday that described a Knight poll:
I’ve observed this myself:
“Recent studies have suggested the loss of local news coverage in many areas may be a factor in Americans’ current level of political polarization,” the Knight study concludes, “as national news outlets tend to focus more on issues that have a partisan angle or include partisan conflict.”
Bzdek goes on:
But this one surprised me. More than eight in 10 Americans also believe the news media has the ability to heal such divisions.
What? you say. How? you ask.
A separate Gallup/Knight Foundation web survey conducted in December 2019 asked Americans that very question.
The No. 1 answer was ensuring reporters cover people who have views different from their own with respect and understanding (89%). That was followed closely by hiring reporters who come from a variety of different backgrounds, both ethnic and ideological (80%).
About three-quarters of Americans (74%) think hosting forums that bring people from different backgrounds together to discuss their experiences (like the Gazette’s Community Conversations) are healing.
And 66% say it would be healing if we covered more stories about people trying to engage in civil discourse on issues.
In sum, a majority of you believe that local media can help restore sorely needed social capital to our communities. With your support, healthy vibrant local media can be the Gorilla Glue that helps put this country back together
About three-quarters of Americans (74%) think hosting forums that bring people from different backgrounds together to discuss their experiences (like the Gazette’s Community Conversations) are healing.
And 66% say it would be healing if we covered more stories about people trying to engage in civil discourse on issues.
In sum, a majority of you believe that local media can help restore sorely needed social capital to our communities. With your support, healthy vibrant local media can be the Gorilla Glue that helps put this country back together.
The bolded part reflects what we do here at The Smokey Wire. Sometimes I’ve found it hard to explain why we do this, but I like the idea of it being “healing.”
I’ll just highlight two stories that I think reflect the local vs. national tendencies (and, of course, funding by national groups can affect local stories).
State Political Antics:
NOTE: THIS HAS BEEN CORRECTED, THANKS TO MATTHEW, I MISREAD THE ARTICLE IN COPO, THANKS, MATTHEW!
This one from Colorado Politics talks about Governor Polis’ appointing some fairly unusual folks to the State Wildlife and Parks Board, and even a former WEG general counsel under a slot for production agriculture (which strikes some folks as odd, including me; imagine if the Forest Service in this Administration had a FACA committee with a slot for environmental groups and selected someone from the Farm Bureau?).
We can get an idea of nuts and bolts of State Government from local news. Previously we’ve discussed an OPB story on how Oregon treats the timber industry. This Colorado Politics article talks about the nuts and bolts of appointments to the State Wildlife and Parks Board, and talks about representation from different parts of the State- or not – and did an open records search to see who was recommending folks and where they were from. The CoPo article asked the question “if the idea was to get more people on the commission from the Eastern Plains, is someone who moved there three years ago and appeared to be splitting his time appropriate (Tutchton of WEG)?”. But the fact is that Polis doesn’t have to appoint anyone from the Eastern Plains or the Western Slope to the Commission if he doesn’t want to.
But I think it’s important that someone reports on this, because otherwise we probably wouldn’t have an idea for how the State is working. Covering States is also important IMHO because that’s where governments have to get many things done, and they are the incubators for policy change. I don’t think we can get an idea of government in the US if we just focus on the Feds which of course national media tend to do. At least here in Colorado, there has been a history of working across party lines at the state level.
People Working Together To Do Good Things:
This one from this morning in the Gazette about a new conservation easement in SW Colorado-here the framing is ranches are better than subdivisions. In this framing, ranchers are partners, not enemies, of conservation and are good for wildlife and watersheds. Of course, this depends on the assumed alternatives, on federal lands it’s “no cows”; on private, it’s subdivisions and resorts.
The private ranches will remain that; the public can roam the peripheries, South San Juan Wilderness to the west, Rio Grande National Forest to the east and Continental Divide Trail to the north. The easements mean “what gets restricted and eliminated forever is subdivisions and any kind of significant development,” Quinlan said. “You’ll never see a resort in this valley.”
On Banded Peak Ranch, the easement preserves 33 miles of streams feeding a system especially critical to New Mexico. The tributaries benefit the San Juan-Chama Project, supplying drinking water for up to 90% of Albuquerque.
Along with water, conservationists had wildlife in mind in the mission. Elk, bighorn sheep, peregrine falcons and the federally threatened Canada lynx call the area home. As does a particular strain of cutthroat trout believed extinct until a 2018 discovery.
That all being said, if you run across a local story on our issues that you think has an interesting angle to it, please share with me at my email and I will round them up and post a collection. PSA if you can, please support your local news!
The title of the on-line version is different, and pasted below “Community destruction during extreme wildfires is a home ignition problem.” Many people in the forest protection community have also been saying that for decades.
Dr. Jack Cohen is the most knowledgable on the planet when it comes to protecting homes and communities from wildfires. Dr. Cohen’s bio in the Missoulian reads: “Jack Cohen, PhD, retired from U.S. Forest Service Research after 40 years as a research physical scientist where he conducted experimental and theoretical wildland fire research. In addition, he developed operational fire models for management applications and served operationally as a fire behavior analyst.”
Meanwhile, “Dave Strohmaier is Missoula County Commissioner. He previously worked for both the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service in fire management, and has published two books (here and here) on the subject of wildfire in the West.” Strohmaier is not only one of my Missoula County Commissioners, he’s also my former Missoula City Councilperson and my former state legislator. I’ve chatted with both Dave and Jack about wildfires and home protection over the years.
Question: Where would our country, the U.S. Forest Service, and communities be in terms of being better prepared for wildfire if we would’ve listened to—and implemented—the recommendations of Dr. Cohen, Strohmaier and numerous forest protection groups over the past two decades instead of letting some politicians and some in the timber industry use the wildfires as an excuse for more logging and roadbuilding with less oversight and less public participation?
Community destruction during extreme wildfires is a home ignition problem
By Dr. Jack Cohen and Dave Strohmaier
We must abandon our expectation that we can suppress 100% of wildfires and reject the false narrative that community protection requires wildfire control. Community wildfire disasters have only occurred during extreme wildfire burning intensities, when high wind speed, low relative humidity, and flammable vegetation result in rapid fire growth rates and showers of burning embers (firebrands) starting new fires. Under these conditions, wildfire suppression, the principal method used for protecting communities, quickly becomes overwhelmed.
But wildfires are inevitable and wildland fuel treatments don’t stop extreme wildfires. Does that mean wildland-urban (WU) fire disasters are inevitable as well? Absolutely not! Wildfire research has shown that homeowners can create ignition resistant homes to prevent community wildfire disasters. How can this be possible?
Recall the destruction of Paradise, Calif., during the extreme 2018 Camp Fire. Most of the totally destroyed homes in Paradise were surrounded by unconsumed tree canopies. Although many journalists and public officials believe this outcome was unusual, the pattern of unconsumed vegetation adjacent to and surrounding total home destruction is typical of WU fire disasters. Home destruction with adjacent unconsumed shrub and tree vegetation indicates the following:• High intensity wildfire does not continuously spread through the residential area as a tsunami or flood of flame.• Unconsumed shrub and tree canopies adjacent to homes do not produce high intensity flames that ignite the homes; ignitions can only be from burning embers and low intensity surface fires.• The “big flames” of high intensity wildfires are not causing total home destruction.
Surprisingly, home ignitions during extreme wildfires result from conditions local to a home. A home’s ignition vulnerabilities in relation to nearby burning materials within 100 feet principally determine home ignitions. This area of a home and its immediate surroundings is called the home ignition zone (HIZ). Typically, lofted burning embers initiate ignitions within the HIZ. Although an intense wildfire can loft firebrands more than one-half mile to start fires, the miniscule local conditions where the burning embers land and accumulate determine the ignitions. Importantly, most home destruction during extreme wildfires occurs hours after the wildfire has ceased intense burning near the community; the residential “fuels” — homes, other structures and vegetation — continue fire spread within the community.
Given the inevitability of extreme wildfires and home ignitions determined by conditions within the HIZ, community wildfire risk should be defined as a home ignition problem, not a wildfire control problem. Unfortunately, protecting communities by creating ignition resistant homes runs counter to established orthodoxy.
There are good reasons to reduce fuels or “treat” vegetation for ecological and commercial objectives. But fuel treatments are most effective on wildfire behavior within a fuel treatment. They do not stop extreme wildfires. So let’s call a spade a spade and not pretend that most of these projects truly reduce home ignition risk during extreme wildfires. The most effective “fuel treatment” addressing community wildfire risk reduces home ignition potential and occurs within HIZs and the community, which is to say, we can prevent WU fire disasters without necessarily controlling wildfires.
To make this shift, land managers, elected officials, and members of the public must question some of our most deeply ingrained assumptions regarding wildfire. For the sake of fiscal responsibility, scientific integrity and effective outcomes, it’s high time we abandon the tired and disingenuous policies of our century-old all-out war on wildfire and fuel treatments conducted under the guise of protecting communities. Instead, let’s focus on mitigating WU fire risk where ignitions are determined — within the home ignition zone.
Matthew posted this by Doug Bevington about a documentary that elicited some discussion, but since it was shown by different stations across the US at different times, it was hard for us to see it together and discuss.
Stephen Most told me that Amazing Earthfest has a discussion of it on their schedule of events for August 22 at 6pm MDT. You can see Wilder than Wild online for free plus a Q & A with Stephen Most and the director, Kevin White, after it streams. You just need to register here, at the Amazing Earthfest site. Once you’ve registered, they provide a link so that you can view the film.
I watched the film and then re-read Bevington’s post, which, as you may recall started with:
Unfortunately, the filmmakers have chosen to make glaring omissions—excluding key scientific and environmental voices and leaving out essential facts—that cause their film to distort these issues more than it informs. As a result, the film gives cover to policies that are harmful to forests, dangerous for public safety, and detrimental to the climate, while steering attention away from genuine solutions.
I suppose it goes without saying that I did not see it that way.
What the film said to me is that:
1. Wildfires can do bad things to people, wildlife and their habitat, and watersheds.
2. Climate change will make things worse.
3. To protect things humans value, plus places where other creatures can live, we need to use PB and WFU.
4. Native Americans managed land using burning, and so PB has been used for thousands of years before Native Americans were killed off and displaced.
5. Given changed conditions, vis a vis people and climate change, we need to work together to figure out what is best for our mutual futures.
I don’t know how anyone can argue with these, but am willing to have the discussion in the comments.
The film also calls into question some of the proposed solutions:
6. Some have said that the solution is for people to move somewhere else -out of the WUI- but you just can’t move entire towns and cities away. Plus the population is growing, and major cities have housing costs that are so high, people move farther away for affordability. There’s no way to force people to pay high rents for tiny places. The film says that there are 50 million folks currently living in the WUI.
7. Some have said something along the lines of “if you just protect 100 feet around your home, everything would be fine.” But the film shows a variety of infrastructure other than structures that are burned. Is a solution to make communities more fire-resilient? Yes. Is a solution also to keep fires out of cities and towns? Also yes. Is this controversial or wrong?
Finally, I thought it was interesting that people used the concept of “ecosystems evolving with fire”- but if Native Americans are thought to have been in California for 19000 years then the ecosystems evolved with Native Americans’ use of fire. We also know the climate has been changing for that time period, such that then we can’t really go back to a pre-Native American time (if we wanted to pick a human-free time). It seems that we’d have to say “the Native Americans got it right and that’s where we need to go even though the climate has changed since they were killed off” or “everything’s changed, given our values for species and people’s needs, we’re going to have to muddle through together.”
My own observations:
* Great videography of the fires and post-fire from above.
* There’re photos that show an old growth forest before and after an intense fire that certainly gives you the impression that at least some fires are not good for old growth and old-growth dependent species.
* Note that Calfire and the Park Service have prominent role in the film- hard to fit in the framing that it’s all about the FS wanting to log.
* The film shows the personal impacts of having a fire run through your community. In the El Paso County (Colorado) offices, we used to have an art exhibit created by people impacted by the Waldo Canyon Fire. These stories of personal impacts of wildfire I think are important to hear. Because (at least here) we do all need to work together, to keep fire out of communities, to evacuate, to house the people and animals, to tolerate PB smoke, and so on.
Quibbles:
If the quote about FS vs. NPS policies seemed not what you remember from the past… here’s an article by NPS that goes into more detail.
One thing that seemed to fit that wasn’t mentioned was the liability problem with PB. But this documentary was about California, and perhaps that is not a problem there.
