Wildfire 2023

[TBS]

Yup, just saw report of Simnasho fire. Growing fast, but it usually does on that part of rez.

[bodywhomper]

https://www.courthousenews.com/conse...ing-in-oregon/

[MagnificentUnicorn]

https://www.courthousenews.com/conse...ing-in-oregon/

This is just stupid, what is the environmental group’s agenda here?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[oldnew_guy]

This is just stupid, what is the environmental group’s agenda here?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

- If you start letting the FS use a CE to cut large commercially viable trees, you aren't far away from them using it as an excuse to cut old growth or cut in sensitive areas or increase logging to an unsustainable level under the guise of "fire mitigation" without any public input and short cutting a bunch of environmental review. (I tend to agree that a 29,000 acre project would seem to be challenging to fit into a CE.)

- Outside groups play a big role in checking if the agencies are following NEPA. This is a outside group making the agency go through the legal motions to justify their actions.

- Tying the agencies in regulatory knots so they can't accomplish anything that goes against the goals of the litigant.

- The last admin was trying to push using regulatory mechanisms to get around NEPA and ESA reviews because they have an ideological position that is opposite the goals of those two pieces of legislation and would be happy to see them dumped in the trash can.


I'm guessing that a much smaller project, say something with a small footprint around a particular resource (campground, ranger station, etc) would fit the intent of the CE much better versus this large project (29,000 acres is 45 square miles) and would not have generated this lawsuit.

Here is Oregon Wilds press release:

https://www.oregonwild.org/about/press/conservation-groups-challenge-fremont-winema-logging-project

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Commercial thinning needs to happen. There’s really not much if any old growth left outside national parks or wilderness.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[oldnew_guy]

Commercial thinning needs to happen. There’s really not much if any old growth left outside national parks or wilderness.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Yeah, there isn't much old growth left because they went and cut it all down without thinking about the consequences. If you cut down the big trees in the name of "mitigation" you aren't going to get back to a fire resistant ecosystem or get old growth ecosystems back on the landscape. (Yes, I know its more complicated...species, stocking levels, slope orientation, etc)

No disagreement here that we need commercial thinning back in the mix.

[bodywhomper]

I have not looked at the CE language. USFS still must comply with ESA and NHPA. My experience is that USFS still has some public input in their application of CEs through their postings in their SOPA.

here's a wild one: https://www.nrdc.org/bio/rita-frost/...ass-boondoggle

Briefly skimming online, this project has been in the works for several years and CEQA review had been completed for a few years. My gut thought is that NRDC is making shit up about this project.

[Meadow Skipper]

An interesting article about one place’s approach to growing fire danger.
This southern Oregon town is buying the forest around it to confront wildfires

[bodywhomper]

An interesting article about one place’s approach to growing fire danger.
This southern Oregon town is buying the forest around it to confront wildfires

Thanks for sharing that. Well written. In 2020, I remember hearing the head of parks for Paradise describing their similar concept.

[TBS]

^^^Interesting piece for sure. Butte Falls is way out in the sticks and isn’t in a position to defend against large wildfire.

That said, I’m not sure 400 acres will provide much buffer. But I applaud their efforts.

Speaking of not letting perfection be the enemy of progress, USFS has proposed treating 20,000 acres of previously logged and burned over land about 10 miles west of me. The plan is to restore the land to conditions before intensive logging and lack of fuels treatment.

It’s been in the works for six years, but there’s PAVErs (People Against Virtually Everything) who get apoplectic if any merchantable trees are cut. It’s great to hear them call 21” Douglas fir and larch “old growth”. Especially when it’s natural regen from previous logging.

So the area will likely turn into a giant fire scar before all the objections are dealt with. But no trees will be cut!

[bodywhomper]

. It’s great to hear them call 21” Douglas fir and larch “old growth”. Especially when it’s natural regen from previous logging.

That DBH is the Chad Hanson threshold

I hear $2-5k per acre for initial entry treatment of overgrown conifer or mixed conifer forest. A lot of $$$ for those 400 ac at Butte Falls.

Paradise was planning a maintained perimeter lawn with a clear break in canopy surrounding the town. I’m not sure of their current plan.

[TBS]

^^^OK that sorta makes sense. The loudest PAVEr in this issue (Green Ridge Landscape Restoration project) is a recent transplant from upstate NY. Gotta see if there’s a connection between him (https://westernwatersheds.org/about/ ) and Earth Island. Funny thing is, there’s not a lot of watershed there. Just a bunch of intermittent creeks. No appreciable snowmelt. Could be that he’s gotta protect something and all the watersheds around here are already well cared for…

Sitting outside smelling smoke from (based on wind direction) the Simnasho fire. AQI of 70. There’s a front coming in - temps to drop 10*, but winds are picking up. Supposedly 25% of perimeter contained.

[Meadow Skipper]

‘PAVErs’. I hadn’t heard that before. Good one, handy phrase.

[oldnew_guy]

21" DBH on the eastside is called the "Eastside Screen" and has been around since '94 as part of the Northwest Forest Plan. It was modified in 2021: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/la...d=fseprd710229

PAVER's aside....if your goal is to create a fire resilient forest that mimics old growth conditions of the past, it's pretty hard to get there if you cut down the big trees. Personally don't think it matters what the prior disturbance was (fire, bugs, logging,etc) as saying it can't be old growth because it's in an area that was previously cut automatically excludes a huge area from ever being considered again.

The stupidity comes in when these groups don't want 21" trees cut that are over represented (firs) or are overstocked.

[oldnew_guy]

I have not looked at the CE language. USFS still must comply with ESA and NHPA. My experience is that USFS still has some public input in their application of CEs through their postings in their SOPA.

If they did their homework, the CE will hold up. My guess is that applying a CE to 45 square miles isn't going to fly.

Realistically if you want to accelerate forest management you need to declare an emergency which allows you to get around NEPA or rewrite NEPA and ESA.

[bodywhomper]

Another method are programmatic NEPA approvals and things like ESA 7(a)(1) compliance, which is also a programmatic method. I know there’s been attempts to arguing that mitigation can be an emergency in relations to immediate threat to life and property, but have never heard of that working out at the federal level. In California, Newsome exempted all state enviro laws to implement a bunch of priority projects immediately after paradise burned down. That seemed to be a one time deal.

In CA, the state and federal gov has a 1M acre per year treatment goal and they’re now acknowledging that not enough is happening to reach that goal.

[californiagrown]

- If you start letting the FS use a CE to cut large commercially viable trees, you aren't far away from them using it as an excuse to cut old growth or cut in sensitive areas or increase logging to an unsustainable level under the guise of "fire mitigation" without any public input and short cutting a bunch of environmental review. (I tend to agree that a 29,000 acre project would seem to be challenging to fit into a CE.)

- Outside groups play a big role in checking if the agencies are following NEPA. This is a outside group making the agency go through the legal motions to justify their actions.

- Tying the agencies in regulatory knots so they can't accomplish anything that goes against the goals of the litigant.

- The last admin was trying to push using regulatory mechanisms to get around NEPA and ESA reviews because they have an ideological position that is opposite the goals of those two pieces of legislation and would be happy to see them dumped in the trash can.


I'm guessing that a much smaller project, say something with a small footprint around a particular resource (campground, ranger station, etc) would fit the intent of the CE much better versus this large project (29,000 acres is 45 square miles) and would not have generated this lawsuit.

Here is Oregon Wilds press release:

https://www.oregonwild.org/about/press/conservation-groups-challenge-fremont-winema-logging-project

Yep, giving officials a mechanism to skirt established environmental laws and regulations establishes precedent and can/will be used in the future under much less dire circumstances to skirt the laws and regulations... especially if another anti-enviro administration comes into power. As much of a PITA that these environmental groups can be sometimes, they are needed to keep govt accountable and ensure lawful application of laws and regulations so that rogue public officials arent allowed to just enforce their own agenda.

[donutlynx]

An interesting article about one place’s approach to growing fire danger.
This southern Oregon town is buying the forest around it to confront wildfires

Good article. Don is an amazing human - goes above and beyond to make things happen. The Douglas-fir decline here in SW Oregon has really taken off over the past few years. Lots of dead standing trees...

[TBS]

21" DBH on the eastside is called the "Eastside Screen" and has been around since '94 as part of the Northwest Forest Plan. It was modified in 2021: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/la...d=fseprd710229

PAVER's aside....if your goal is to create a fire resilient forest that mimics old growth conditions of the past, it's pretty hard to get there if you cut down the big trees. Personally don't think it matters what the prior disturbance was (fire, bugs, logging,etc) as saying it can't be old growth because it's in an area that was previously cut automatically excludes a huge area from ever being considered again.

The stupidity comes in when these groups don't want 21" trees cut that are over represented (firs) or are overstocked.

Thanks for this. I’d forgotten about the limits from ‘94 NFP. IIRC, that plan was in response to listing of spotted owls. It was also done when the climate science was in early stages and fire resilience was just getting into the lexicon.

To me prior disturbance matters because of how regeneration occurs - cut/run vs replanting a monoculture vs fire/neglect will get different results and require different approaches when the goal is to restore the ecosystem to a resilient sustainable condition..

Agreed that large stems should be preserved where it makes sense. But as the analysis you linked points out (box 14, page 42) rigidly applying the 21” standard across all species isn’t likely to restore a forest. A good example in the Green Ridge case - removing some >21” conifers to restore an aspen grove to a sustainable size.

But the PAVErs just have a knee-jerk CUT NO TREES OVER 21”!!! mantra. And they accuse the district ranger of being in cahoots with loggers. It’s not helpful.

And the AQI here has been 160-240 today…Now we have the Bedrock fire adding smoke from Simnasho.

[TBS]

The Douglas-fir decline here in SW Oregon has really taken off over the past few years. Lots of dead standing trees...

Here’s a piece from OSU Extension Service on the topic.
https://extension.oregonstate.edu/fo...rtality-oregon

[TBS]

Well, the AQI here is now 160. Bedrock fire 50 miles SW of here blew up from 600 acres yesterday PM to 4500 now. Further to discussion above regarding stand resilience the current briefing describes the fuels involved as follows:

Timber (Litter and Understory)
Closed Timber Litter
Brush (2 feet)

The mixed ownership of private and federal lands coupled with old fire scars provides a checker board mosaic of fuel types. Mixed aged classes of timber from slash and young managed stands to late seral stage timber are spread across the landscape. Light and very dry lichen moss is draped in the tree canopies and accentuates spotting.

That’s gonna even out the age classes - most of the regen is up in smoke.

Search Google Earth for Bedrock Campground and it brings the narrative some color. The area’s steep and actively managed for timber production in prime site classes. Lotsa fuel. At least it’s well-roaded.

[bodywhomper]

Calfire loss 3 in a helicopter crash yesterday in Riverside Co.

~~~~~
Fuck Hanson

https://www.sfchronicle.com/californ...k-18261745.php

[donutlynx]

FS LODD out of Gold Beach, OR. First season on the hand crew. RIP

https://www.firefighternation.com/ne...in-lodd-in-or/

[Meadow Skipper]

Holy shit.
“Lahaina (Maui) has been devastated,”

[AK47bp]

Holy shit.
“Lahaina (Maui) has been devastated,”

Dam. Will be there Saturday.

Lahaina is (was) a cool spot, hope it bounces back.