Wildfire 2021

Altasnob, do you think there are any Federal agencies that have processes and decision bodies that generally do a decent job of balancing different perspectives in pursuit of what is understood as societal and legislative intent? The CDC for example?

My concern with your apparent support of the battle-it-out-in-court approach to oversight of these agency decisions is that in the current wildfire debate it’s giving ammunition to politicians and pundits arguing that aggressive clear cutting is the answer.

And raking. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frorider

do you think there are any Federal agencies that have processes and decision bodies that generally do a decent job of balancing different perspectives in pursuit of what is understood as societal and legislative intent

---

I think the Forest Service has great, intelligent, hard working scientists, lawyers, ect doing their best to comply with the laws with the resources available to them. When you sue the Forest Service, it is not a personal insult. You are simply arguing they are not complying with the law. These lawsuits prompt both policy and legal change.

A great analogy is Public Records Act litigation. I am a strong advocate of public records and government transparency. I have noticed over the last several years that government agencies who are sued often (the large cities, counties, state agencies) have done a much better job of streamlining their public records process compared to agencies who don't get sued as much (the small cities/counties, the more obscure state agencies; like school districts). The agencies who don't get sued as much are still doing things the same ol ways. They don't know any better because no one has bothered to sue them over it yet, challenging their internal polcies. And the politicians who control the purse strings don't see how important it is to divert resources towards public records transparency because they haven't been sued over it yet (out of site, out of mind).

When environmental groups are repeatedly prevailing in environmental litigation against the Forest Service, one would hope the politicians would divert money to the Forest Service so they can better comply with laws (so the public doesn't have to keep paying out attorney fees). That, unfortunately, doesn't seem to happen. But that's on Congress.

Private or public org leaders know that the tough decisions generally involve time and resource constraints. That’s part of their salary justification. ;). Whether expediting decisions during a pandemic or attempting a significant reset in wildfire proactive mgmt, there will always be tough calls to make in the interests of expediency.

I fully support public records and govt transparency and don’t doubt your observation of the positive result from lawsuit pressure. But consistently I hear experienced land managers and fire experts calling for more autonomy, at least in situations where significant danger is present. The luxury of time just isn’t available.

Having known some of these folks for years, and knowing their commitment to the right objectives, maybe I’m biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frorider

consistently I hear experienced land managers and fire experts calling for more autonomy

---

No one likes to be told what to do (do we, or should we, let doctors to exclusively control our medical malpractice laws?). I would love to hear from Forest Service attorneys, and the federal judges who are deciding these cases, on their opinion, off the record and on the hush hush (so it's candid). I bet it mirrors a lot of my observations (that Congress needs to give the Forest Service more resources to comply with laws, not that the laws are flawed or should be relaxed).

So what do you guys think of the Caldor fire? Is this an example of a devastating fire that must be stopped through forest mitigation practices? Or, was that fire a best case scenario for that region? Yes, some homes were lost, but now Tahoe has a massive natural fire line. And the wilderness lands experienced natural fire mitigation. Yes, there was lots of fire suppression efforts on this fire. But correct me if I am wrong, that fire seemed to do what it wanted to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

So what do you guys think of the Caldor fire? Is this an example of a devastating fire that must be stopped through forest mitigation practices? Or, was that fire a best case scenario for that region? Yes, some homes were lost, but now Tahoe has a massive natural fire line. And the wilderness lands experienced natural fire mitigation. Yes, there was lots of fire suppression efforts on this fire. But correct me if I am wrong, that fire seemed to do what it wanted to do.

---

There won't be much natural fire line. It may be worse now. The Caldor area where my interest burned, was also intensely burned 15 years ago. Within a few years, the new brush, and then dense stands of young trees looked like a greater fire hazard than pre-fire. These forest lands are very productive. 10,000 years of post-glacial soil, plus a thick annual blanket of slow melting snow makes a great plant nursery. A tanker load of phos-chek fuels yet more growth.

IMO, the pre-49er dream forest naturally takes shape over centuries. Caldor should have produced areas where some trees survived, that over decades of continuing fire could become the start of a widely spaced large tree forest, a forest that is fire adapted. It also produced areas fully killed that will regenerate brush and overstocked forest. A fire adapted forest looks different - pre-49er forest in Yosemite was a meadow.

I don't see an easy answer, and look to forest experts to provide any. And affected communities can tax themselves and decide whether the answers are worth implementing. Firefighters are saying nice things about recent thinning/firebreak efforts.

This ^^^^^. A fire that leaves the forest healthy is a fire that leaves the big trees. We're still waiting for a definitive assessment of the Caldor fire but from what I've been hearing--from Sierra at Tahoe ski area for example--is that a lot of big trees were lost.
The other factor in CA is the grasses. My understanding is that pre-Columbian grasses were perennially green but the native grasses were replaced by eastern grasses brought by white settlers. Those drought-intolerant grasses in turn allowed brush to grow in areas that previously were gladed meadows, leading to much hotter fires.

Explainer of the new enhanced red flag warning that will be used: https://yubanet.com/regional/nws-sac...xZseS5ABgji70I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

Explainer of the new enhanced red flag warning that will be used: https://yubanet.com/regional/nws-sac...xZseS5ABgji70I

---

Maybe this is to align with the criteria used to do do public safety power outages. If you see PDS prepare to be without power for a few days?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

In California, the typical individual that opposed and halts larger wildfire mitigation projects on federal lands is Chad Hanson. He is often supported by a larger organization. For years it was the Sierra Club. Now it is the CBD. For a while, he was searching. He typically focuses on one or two NF's at a time. He halted many fuels reduction/thinning projects in Plumas (I believe) Tahoe, Eldorado, and Stanislaus NF's. He's now moved down to socal and seems to be focusing on Los Padres and Angeles. If you do a deep dive or have followed this, you will see that his MO and focus has evolved over the years. He gets a big mic sometimes with the NYT or WaPo. Most fire ecologist that I have met try to ignore him, but occasionally, there are some arguments in journals. There have been some specific projects that Hanson opposed using ESA, FSM/NEPA as the specific catalyst for challenging that have now burned down and the spp habitat is no longer present. Hanson has also challenged post WF recovery in the NF's (look up Starr Fire in Eldorado NF) in a manner that has resulted in no post fire recovery, the elimination of top soil, and habitat type conversion. Sierra Forest Legacy was another group, but they are now very supportive of wildfire fuel reductions and promote/organize groups like prescribed burn associations. The Nature Conservancy has now become n force pushing to green light large wildfire mitigation projects and gathering other enviro and community groups behind it in support. TNC is careful where they chose to focus their efforts because of Hanson and some groups that have aligned with him, like the chaparral institute.

---

Chad Hanson, on the Board of Directors for Sierra Club, and star plaintiff's witness in the fisher lawsuit, made an appearance in the Seattle Times this morning (AP) article:

Quote:

---

While most scientific studies find forest management a valuable tool, environmental advocates say data from recent gigantic wildfires support their long-running assertion that efforts to slow wildfires have instead accelerated their spread. They contend forest thinning operations are essentially logging projects in disguise. Opening up the forest canopy and leaving more distance between trees reduces the natural humidity and cooling shade of dense forests and allows unimpeded winds to push fire faster, said Chad Hanson.

In the Bootleg Fire in southern Oregon, “not only did tens of thousands of acres of recent thinning, fuel breaks, and other forest management fail to stop or slow the fire’s rapid spread, but … the fire often moved fastest through such areas.” Hanson says similar things about the Dixie fire.

The debate focused on a project where the Klamath Tribes and The Nature Conservancy have spent a decade thinning smaller trees and using planned fires.

---

Interesting to see a divide in the non-profit environmental community; Nature Conservancy vs. John Muir Project, CBD, and others.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...tes-divisions/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

A fire that leaves the forest healthy is a fire that leaves the big trees.

---

Hanson seems to disagree with this to some extent. He contends high intensity fires are needed to create large, long lasting snags that wildlife rely on for habitat. He also contends that areas after high intensity burns have some of the highest biodiversity of any area of the forest. Wildlife, like the fisher, will den in the more mature forest on the periphery of the burn area, but feed in the area that has burned. Hanson also believes it is critical to leave snags and dead fall alone after the burn, as it is essential to forest health.

https://therevelator.org/myths-wildfires-hanson/

It’s interesting to see that Hanson is back on their board. After the camp fire, Hanson and the chaparral institute jointly posted press releases on social media describing how the fire ripped through a previously thinned/managed area before ripping through Paradise and Magalia to demonstrate that it’s not helpful. This message was repeated and broadly “shared,” while at the same time, it was pointed out that the Camp Fire burned through the town before entering that thinned area, and those original social posts were slightly edited, but the shared versions were not edited, the huge mistake had not been publicly acknowledged, and the damage had been done. Disinformation at its finest!

What does fire speed have to do with the effectiveness of thinning?

Smells like bullshit.

https://apnews.com/article/wildfires...08ea8102e3398c

Quote:

---

James Johnston, a researcher with Oregon State University's College of Forestry, called the groups' conclusions "pretty misleading," "irresponsible" and "self-contradicting."
"Claims that modern fuel-reduction thinning makes fire worse are not credible," Johnston said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

Hanson seems to disagree with this to some extent. He contends high intensity fires are needed to create large, long lasting snags that wildlife rely on for habitat. He also contends that areas after high intensity burns have some of the highest biodiversity of any area of the forest. Wildlife, like the fisher, will den in the more mature forest on the periphery of the burn area, but feed in the area that has burned. Hanson also believes it is critical to leave snags and dead fall alone after the burn, as it is essential to forest health.

https://therevelator.org/myths-wildfires-hanson/

---

You can produce snags with prescribed fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

After the camp fire, Hanson and the chaparral institute jointly posted press releases on social media describing how the fire ripped through a previously thinned/managed area before ripping through Paradise and Magalia to demonstrate that it’s not helpful.

---

After watching Rebuilding Paradise, I got the impression that the extreme high winds - which were creating spotting miles in front of the fire - spread the fire so incredibly fast that it didn't matter whether the forest was thinned or not.

Or was I wrong on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muted reborn

After watching Rebuilding Paradise, I got the impression that the extreme high winds - which were creating spotting miles in front of the fire - spread the fire so incredibly fast that it didn't matter whether the forest was thinned or not.

Or was I wrong on that?

---

My point was that the recently treated area that Hanson and chaparral were saying was ineffective was actually on the wrong side of town. They never dove into those details of wind and ember movement. To make their point, they originally stated that the fire entered paradise from the southwest, which was very wrong and information available at that time was easy to know how the direction of fire movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

My point was that the recently treated area that Hanson and chaparral were saying was ineffective was actually on the wrong side of town. They never dove into those details of wind and ember movement. To make their point, they originally stated that the fire entered paradise from the southwest, which was very wrong and information available at that time was easy to know how the direction of fire movement.

---

Understood, but I'm asking if it was disingenuous on their part to even mention thinning was the issue, because even if it the thinning was done on the 'correct' side, the extreme winds were going to make sure Paradise burned quickly no matter what or where thinning happened. Or am i wrong on that presumption?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muted reborn

Understood, but I'm asking if it was disingenuous on their part to even mention thinning was the issue, because even if it the thinning was done on the 'correct' side, the extreme winds were going to make sure Paradise burned quickly no matter what or where thinning happened. Or am i wrong on that presumption?

---

You sound right to me.

If thinning doesn't slow or stop the biggest, highest intensity fires does that mean it does no good ever? (Reminds me of some people using breakthrough cases to argue against vaccinations.)
OTOH is it possible that we will never be able to thin enough forest for thinning to have the impact one would hope for? Does it do any good to thin 1000 acres or whatever a typical project size is when there are millions of overgrown bone dry forest next door?

Thinning and other forest management practices was reported to help SLT be saved in the Caldor fire and help in many other fires. I think the Paradise fire was different, it was an absolute monster straight out of a horror movie.

It seems that most experts believe in thinning yet no one thinks it's going to save California

I kind of hate to say it, thinning won’t stop embers being blown from long distances (and unthinned areas) and lodged in structures when the wind is howling and fuel moisture percentages are in single digits.

Extremely high winds combined with low fuel moistures can kind of negate the thinning effects, unless the thinning takes places at much greater acreage than currently implemented…and affordable. Climate change is putting us in somewhat deeper shit.

I’m thinking of the K-Mart that burned in Santa Rosa CA a couple years back.

All this is to say that thinning is effective most of the time, and is an essential piece to WUI protection and forest health. IOW Hanson is completely full of shit.

OG is right on.

With deciduous trees loosing their leaves in the fall, they make easy large embers that can travel pretty far with high winds. The dry leaves will also blow out of the trees and collect against building and wooden fences making for a nice fuels waiting for an ember. There have been dry years where oaks will go from green to brown instead of their typical color change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muted reborn

After watching Rebuilding Paradise, I got the impression that the extreme high winds - which were creating spotting miles in front of the fire - spread the fire so incredibly fast that it didn't matter whether the forest was thinned or not.

Or was I wrong on that?

---

Paradise was like getting hit with a CAT 5 hurricane. Not a lot you can do to mitigate it. Caldor was like a CAT 2-3 when it hit SLT. CAT 2-3s hit all the time. Our towns should be ready for a CAT 2.

Of course, paradise wasn’t ready for the equivalent to a TS….

Methinks the enviros are mainly drawing a distinction between thinning = take out the brush and small trees, and thinning = take out the big profitable trees. I missed out on the social media kerfluffle. Regardless, there was an effort to blame federal forest management, when the forests upwind of Paradise are all private lands.

And my casual reading matches your understandings above - a fire break is useful for containing a containable fire. If winds are blowing 30-40, no firebreak is likely to work. E.g. for Dixie they constructed/burned a wide black "catcher's mitt" west of Lake Almanor. I believe this used prior mitigation work. Strong winds blew the Dixie fire 15 miles in a day, right across/over that burly line. If the winds held off a few days or a week, that line likely would have held, and Dixie may have been a big fire instead of a giant fire. Same with the Kmart example above inadequately protected by 6 lanes of freeway. OTOH, Shaver Lake and Christmas Valley were both saved by prior mitigation efforts with lesser wind.

Camp Fire had 50 mph winds. I seem to recall some of the 17 fires had wind speeds of 60-80. That’s a fire storm.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Ok, so when they produce their peer reviewed, multivariate analysis of thinning that accounts for the conventionally understood drivers of fire behavior outside of fuel load and spatial distribution (slope, wind speed and direction, alignment of slope and wind, temperature and RH) I’ll get right behind them on the “thinning doesn’t work” train.