Wildfire 2021

[old goat]

There certainly have been logging projects masquerading as fire mitigation. The govt is partly to blame--in the past there was more of an effort to avoid paying for thinning by letting the logger make a profit. To do it right is going to cost a lot more than anyone seems ready to pay.

They're rebuilding the multistory decks of a condo complex near me. They have a bunch of nice clear straight long 2x10's in the parking lot, maybet 16 feet long--made of edge glued finger jointed 2x2's. As strong as solid lumber? I know it costs money to make engineered lumber, but the output of thinning has to be turned into something useful, not burned. Maybe that won't turn a profit or break even but maybe at least cut the cost some.

[old_newguy]

There certainly have been logging projects masquerading as fire mitigation. The govt is partly to blame--in the past there was more of an effort to avoid paying for thinning by letting the logger make a profit. To do it right is going to cost a lot more than anyone seems ready to pay.

They're rebuilding the multistory decks of a condo complex near me. They have a bunch of nice clear straight long 2x10's in the parking lot, maybet 16 feet long--made of edge glued finger jointed 2x2's. As strong as solid lumber? I know it costs money to make engineered lumber, but the output of thinning has to be turned into something useful, not burned. Maybe that won't turn a profit or break even but maybe at least cut the cost some.

So? Does logging increase fire behavior? Maybe, if you allow the logger to leave slash all over the place. Does thinning work under all fire weather conditions? No.

People need to wrap their brains around the fact that some of this will have to be paid for by cutting trees down and turning them into a product.

We certainly don’t need to go out and log like crazy, don’t need to open up new lands, etc, but we need a way to protect the values at risk.

The reality IMO is that all this hand wringing about more thinning or more prescribed fire is a day late and a dollar short and you have to do is look at a 5-10 year fire history map to understand that CA in particular is working on burning up all that excess fuel whether we like it or not.

[PB]

Heard someplace (upthread? too lazy to back check) that we currently have 3 times the trees and 10 times the bio-mass in CA forests compared to pre-European intrusion. Seems to imply that thinning and judicious logging would reduce the fire danger, but not eliminate it. Gross oversimplification, I realize, but it stands to reason that the new normal is not well balanced and may never be as long as humans keep altering the landscape/environment to meet their selfish whims. Fire storms may be the quickest way back to a better balance, but no way will humans accept that option

[altasnob]

You can produce snags with prescribed fire.

Hanson doesn't seem to have a problem with prescribed burning, stating:

Forest thinning should not be conflated with prescribed burning, which can temporarily reduce the intensity of a potential fire and will slow down its approach. Prescribed fire usually kills less than 5 percent of the mature trees in a forest canopy.

However,

The Forest Service often calls burning of logging debris piles “prescribed burning,” which is misleading.

https://grist.org/fix/forest-thinnin...ldfires-worse/

[Lone Star]

i was hoping by page 25 some sort of discussion on montane chaparral and its role in all of this would come up but....

[altasnob]

Here is Hanson's claim that logging didn’t stop the camp fire



https://johnmuirproject.org/2019/01/...the-camp-fire/

[old goat]

So? Does logging increase fire behavior? Maybe, if you allow the logger to leave slash all over the place. Does thinning work under all fire weather conditions? No.

People need to wrap their brains around the fact that some of this will have to be paid for by cutting trees down and turning them into a product.

We certainly don’t need to go out and log like crazy, don’t need to open up new lands, etc, but we need a way to protect the values at risk.

The reality IMO is that all this hand wringing about more thinning or more prescribed fire is a day late and a dollar short and you have to do is look at a 5-10 year fire history map to understand that CA in particular is working on burning up all that excess fuel whether we like it or not.

I understand trees need to be cut. I am grossly unqualified to say how much timber harvesting is justified by necessary thinning and how much is done for profit, but it seems to me that depending on profits from a thinning project is incentivizing over-harvesting. Like it or not this is something that should be paid for by the taxpayer, and probably on private lands as well as public. There are some in the environmental community--although fewer than there used to be--who think cutting any trees is wrong.

I fear that your last sentence most accurately sums up the situation. Seems like the main thing that is stopping these big fires is running into a burned over area, sometimes from earlier the same season.

[bodywhomper]

Depending on many circumstances, thinning needs to occur with rx burns. Two examples: fuel loads are too high for a safe rx burn in a burn unit or the owner has plans to harvest some wood to offset costs of treatment.

Post treatment fuel maintenance is very important.

Changing post wildfire restoration methods. There are multiple methods. Zeke Lunder has recently discussed this in one of his recent vlogs when discussing the Caldor Fire. https://youtu.be/HzXXc4uqsuM

[ill-advised strategy]

What else are you going to do with a thinning unit except pile it and burn it?

I guess just broadcast burn the slash. But anyway what’s the plan without burning it? Are they really harvesting spindly thinning trees? For what, paper?

Any dummy that doesn’t get how thinning is beneficial shouldn’t have input into wildland fire decision-making.

[bodywhomper]

What else are you going to do with a thinning unit except pile it and burn it?

I guess just broadcast burn the slash. But anyway what’s the plan without burning it? Are they really harvesting spindly thinning trees? For what, paper?

Any dummy that doesn’t get how thinning is beneficial shouldn’t have input into wildland fire decision-making.

Not sure if you’re posting to me.

I believe there are attempts to haul thinned woods for biomass energy generation if it’s economical.

My neighbor’s burn unit is full of spindly incense cedar, medium sized incense cedar, blackberry, and scattered black oak. The incense cedar, though native, often act like an invasive. Based on the burn plan that she paid to be developed, she’s reduced the number of small incense cedar that are standing (felled in place), will log/haul out the medium cedar to offset the costs of the burn plan and the burn boss. She hopes to burn the small cedar, debris on the floor, and blackberry. It’s a 16 ac unit. For her, it’s a lower effort and more sustainable approach for land maintenance. I’m not sure about her maintenance plan.

[neufox47]

What else are you going to do with a thinning unit except pile it and burn it?

I guess just broadcast burn the slash. But anyway what’s the plan without burning it? Are they really harvesting spindly thinning trees? For what, paper?

Any dummy that doesn’t get how thinning is beneficial shouldn’t have input into wildland fire decision-making.

The thinning they did by me they have a hydraulic chipper on tracks that followed the crews. Thing made it through some pretty steep terrain.

[Lone Star]

Not sure if you’re posting to me.

I believe there are attempts to haul thinned woods for biomass energy generation if it’s economical.

It's not. For example, with the Dixie Fire, it will likely be a break-even deal at best getting biomass from post-fire salvage logging to the Honey Lake biomass plant which is not that far away.

My neighbor’s burn unit is full of spindly incense cedar, medium sized incense cedar, blackberry, and scattered black oak.

curious if she's had any firewood peeps take a look? Hearing some ridiculous numbers on what firewood is going for these days. Sounds like she has a lovely piece of woods, though. those west side oak/cedar woods are pretty lovely if they aren't so overgrown with brush and cluttered with slash to be able to walk through and enjoy.

[Meadow Skipper]

…it seems to me that depending on profits from a thinning project is incentivizing over-harvesting. Like it or not this is something that should be paid for by the taxpayer, and certainly on private lands as well as public…

Exactly, I just changed one word.

[bodywhomper]

Y’all should check out the forest resiliency bond created by blue forest conservation. Apparently, it’s the current working model for funding forest health projects. I’m not sure how investors get a return on their investments.

[bodywhomper]

It's not. For example, with the Dixie Fire, it will likely be a break-even deal at best getting biomass from post-fire salvage logging to the Honey Lake biomass plant which is not that far away.

curious if she's had any firewood peeps take a look? Hearing some ridiculous numbers on what firewood is going for these days. Sounds like she has a lovely piece of woods, though. those west side oak/cedar woods are pretty lovely if they aren't so overgrown with brush and cluttered with slash to be able to walk through and enjoy.

The biomass that I was referencing for (potentially) offsetting costs is for fire mitigation/forest health (not post-fire). There have been so many burned trees in CA that have been felled and removed as hazard trees, I’m not sure what is happening to all the wood. I have seen some hauled off and some chipped in place (not sure where the chips are going). I haven’t been by the port of Oakland in a while. Sometimes the port’s had huge log decks waiting to be shipped overseas.

This winter, I will be heating my house with some of her wood (oak). I’m thankful. Maybe her plan has changed, but I think the incense cedar may be selling better as siding than firewood. Rates this year are 350-450/cord for seasons and split hardwood. I’m not sure about rates for incense cedar.

[ill-advised strategy]

The thinning they did by me they have a hydraulic chipper on tracks that followed the crews. Thing made it through some pretty steep terrain.

I wonder if dispersing a lot of chipped fuel like that perhaps affects the fuel-loading-reduction objective of the thin-pile-burn process we did in my career. Seems possible you just create a nightmare of smoldering wood chips if it burns, like a sawmill fire…. Which are incredibly hard to mop up.

Or like that hilarious thing where all the grass is cold but there’s smoldering cow turds everywhere. “Ok rookie, go cold trail over there” lolol

[ill-advised strategy]

Meadow:

I lost track after I moved, but of those huge multi-year Taos area thinning projects, did any of them ever face wildfire to see how they performed?

One by Windy Peak near Tres Piedras. One at the Scout Ranch near Chimayo. One west of Peñasco…

Big projects. They should drop fire right to the ground. I wonder if they’ve been put to that test yet.

[Meadow Skipper]

I wonder if dispersing a lot of chipped fuel like that perhaps affects the fuel-loading-reduction objective of the thin-pile-burn process we did in my career. Seems possible you just create a nightmare of smoldering wood chips if it burns, like a sawmill fire…. Which are incredibly hard to mop up.

Or like that hilarious thing where all the grass is cold but there’s smoldering cow turds everywhere. “Ok rookie, go cold trail over there” lolol

Ha! Smoldering cow turds were the worst! I remember having a piss pump and a shovel…misery.

Meadow:

I lost track after I moved, but of those huge multi-year Taos area thinning projects, did any of them ever face wildfire to see how they performed?

One by Windy Peak near Tres Piedras. One at the Scout Ranch near Chimayo. One west of Peñasco…

Big projects. They should drop fire right to the ground. I wonder if they’ve been put to that test yet.

None have been tested yet as far as I know, though the Boy Scout camp one came close a few years back. I visited a couple of those projects back in the day. You were probably working your ass off while I was standing next to a pickup thinking about lunch while I was listening to Pat and Sam D. jabber.

[altasnob]

I wonder if dispersing a lot of chipped fuel like that perhaps affects the fuel-loading-reduction objective of the thin-pile-burn process we did in my career. Seems possible you just create a nightmare of smoldering wood chips if it burns, like a sawmill fire…. Which are incredibly hard to mop up.

Now you are starting to sound like Chad Hanson. One of his big complaints on thinning is that it creates lots of debris that makes the area even more prone to burning. Even if you are burning the slash piles you are still leaving lots of dry debris (needles, bark, wood chips, ect) all over the forest floor that wouldn't be there absent the thinning project.

[old_newguy]

But thinning is usually the first treatment step prior to a prescribed fire. In some/most of these stands you can’t manage fire effects without addressing the initial fuel loading problem.

What I typically saw was:

1. Hand thinning and piling or logging style thinning and piling or mowing
2. Burn piles in winter
3. Now that fuel mass is lowered, implement prescribed burning on a regular return interval.

Arrangement of the fuel matters. Turning a bush/tree into a pile of chips totally changes how it is going to behave when it burns. It’s like trying to burn the newspaper all nicely folded up versus crumpled up with lots of airflow around it.

[Meadow Skipper]

Now you are starting to sound like Chad Hanson. One of his big complaints on thinning is that it creates lots of debris that makes the area even more prone to burning. Even if you are burning the slash piles you are still leaving lots of dry debris (needles, bark, wood chips, ect) all over the forest floor that wouldn't be there absent the thinning project.

So, should we just sweep and pave it after thinning? Of course there’s gonna be some stuff left over, but it’s going to be on the order of multiple tons/acre less than untreated, and it’ll be on the ground instead of the canopy. Some people are so clueless and/or stupid. And IAS was talking about chipping debris spread and left on the ground, which hardly ever happens on any large scale

For what I hope is the last time, I want to point out that thinning doesn’t prevent fire, it mitigates the effects. Only clueless think it prevents fires.

[old_newguy]

So, should we just sweep and pave it after thinning? Of course there’s gonna be some stuff left over, but it’s going to be on the order of multiple tons/acre less than untreated. Some people are so clueless and/or stupid. And IAS was talking about chipping debris spread and left on the ground, which rarely if ever happens.

For what I hope is the last time, I want to point out that thinning doesn’t prevent fire, it mitigates the effects. Only clueless think it prevents fires.

Light an unthinned patch of forest with lots of ladder fuels and one that has been thinned to remove ladder fuels with some debris on the forest floor on 95 degree 12% RH day in August and let me know which one you can stand closer to….


You know the answer.

[altasnob]

I'm just summarizing what I have read Chad Hanson put out there. He's got a Phd in Ecology from Davis, he has peer reviewed published studies. The Forest Service cites his studies depending on the context. Disagree with him, but I don't think anyone can call him stupid.

Hanson does not seem to be against prescribed burning. But not all "thinning" gets prescribed burned. Hanson pushes the narrative that a lot of what the Forest Service calls thinning is just a ruse to sell lumber. It wasn't that long ago that the Forest Service and forest schools, like Oregon State, were claiming that growing trees was just like growing corn. Today, the National Forest still make about $150 million a year selling the public's trees. So, like Hanson, I remain skeptical that the Forest Service puts long term forest and biodiversity health as their top priority.

From my reading, I think the jury is still out on whether thinning and prescribed burning is the best long term management of these forests. Hanson makes compelling arguments that when you thin trees, you are exposing more sun to to the forest floor, and you allow more wind. Not to mention you are removing trees and all the benefits they provide. And decaying wood, burned and not burned, is essential to soil health. Hanson correctly point out that the biggest factors of all are climate and weather. Of all forest types, it is older, mature, forests that are best able to handle fires (see my next post). The million dollar question is how to get these previously logged forests to once again, become mature forests.

[altasnob]

In Hanson's fisher declaration, he cited the new study below, which was conducted by the Forest Service's own scientists. The study concluded (to no surprise) that the type of forest that can best handle fires is older forest where the spotted owl lives (i.e. the forests that haven't been logged or thinned):

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-280175/v1

PDF here:

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_journa...ister_d001.pdf

[bodywhomper]

My understanding is that many of his compelling arguments are not based on peer reviewed science.

For structure protection mitigation >30 ft from structures in primarily pine, incense cedar, and Doug fir forest, I’ve witnessed (and helped a little on) mastication that focused on certain fuels and left other fuel alone, 4 years to dry, rx burn that focuses on duff and masticated material. Peer reviewed method at a research center.