Wildfire 2021

[bodywhomper]

hanson discussion, especially in the comments: https://forestpolicypub.com/2021/07/...nerating-them/

[neufox47]

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

In most spots they are pretty diffuse. This thing sprays chips in about a 50’-75’ arc and they moved it quite frequently. There was only one spot I saw that appeared to have 4-5” of chips. Hopefully the chips will also act to retain water. Regardless I’ll trade a slow moving smoldering fire for a raging fire any day.

Chatted with one of the crew yesterday and he said it is just as fast as stacking piles to burn and they don’t have to come back to burn them.

Saw three deer in the newly thinned area. No new growth so no idea why they would have moved in so fast.

[Meadow Skipper]

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.

I’ll agree that some FS thinning may be a ruse to sell lumber, but that should be looked at on a case by case basis rather than used as a case against thinning in general.

I was in forestry school in the 70s and, yeah, tree farming was the ideal. Forestry isn’t the only science that has had radical rethinking over the last 50 years. I doubt that corn-growing is still held as the ideal, except on certain commercial sites.

But Hanson’s claims about wind, solar radiation, and the “benefits” of every tree only sound reasonable if you say them really fast and don’t think about them with a critical mind.

The wind will hit the tree crowns regardless of how many there are or how thick. Thick stands with touching crowns will burn harder and more catastrophically during windy conditions than open stands.

The sun will bake closed stands just as hard as open ones, and when crowns burn there will be no advantage to shaded forest floors. Also many species like Ponderosa, Douglas-fir, and Aspen are not shade-tolerant, they need sun to thrive. Less desirable (and burnable) species like White Fir thrive in shade.

Thinning can release (desirable) sun-tolerant species, renew and refresh watersheds, and reduce/prevent “dog-hair” stands that choke other species (and things like wildlife habitat), suck water, and carry fire effectively into crowns. Not every tree provides “benefits” by a long shot.

[Meadow Skipper]

I just want to say that this is one of the better discussions I’ve seen on this topic on the interwebz anywhere. Carry on.

[Meadow Skipper]

I meant to add earlier that it’s nice that Hanson has a UCD degree, but as a f’r instance there are a number of people with law degrees that seem to have some bad thinking going on.

[bodywhomper]

One of his current areas of focus is Los Padres NF. Googling will get you to some articles. Challenging NF use of a CE for a 1k ac thinning project with the arguments discussed in past handful of posts above and with misinformation about the NEPA compliance process. It feels like he’s pulling the wool over the eyes of the locals of that area who will likely lose their town before he lets an EIS/ROD get signed without legal challenge. It is interesting what forests he picks and chooses to focus on and what species he focuses on.

[ill-advised strategy]

I bet Dr. Chad lives in a big city and couldn’t start a husqvarna 372 if his life depended on it.

[Meadow Skipper]

^

[TBS]

^^^Is there an inside firefighter joke here? All of my husqis (two 4hp, one 5hp) were easy to start.

[bodywhomper]

He used to live in the Grass Valley, ca area… I never noticed him challenging the USFS, fema, or state park fuels thinning projects in his (former) home area that have all been approved in the past 15 yrs….

[Meadow Skipper]

An amusing note about the incident objectives in the Wildfire Today article on the Alísal fire.

[John_B]

Very funny!

[PB]

Wait!! What about the oil spill?!?!?

[old goat]

Wait!! What about the oil spill?!?!?

Not to worry, they did a prescribed burn on the oil slick.

[tellybele]

Severity

[neufox47]

What it now looks like.

What it used to look like.

Crew in action(zoom in). Looks like they have 1 person drive it and they drive it towards the cut down brush. The 2 man loading crew just throws it in about as quick as they can unless they get to a larger log. Bring the machine to the brush. Thing went through a 10” log like butter.


Manzita and brush that burned in the Bridge Fire

As a lay person, it would take pretty sound evidence to convince me that pic 2 is a more desirable than pic 1.

[old goat]

[skiJ]

regarding pictures #1 and #2 -
picture #1 is probably more resistant to a significant Fire event, but is missing several layers of a natural ecosystem, And I would be concerned about how it would absorb a big Rain event if it was in the midwest ( in the arid west, this may be of no concern ) ;
picture #2 ,,, seems more susceptible to Fire, but I believe represents a healthier natural ecosystem ( habitat for small creatures ) ;

in the midwest, it might take less than four years for the environment to restore itself to something closer to #2 than #1.

a good friend recently said, 'it grows back. '

I hope our Forest management practices are evolving.

Huge Respect for Firefighters ! skiJ

[TBS]

Some photos of prescribed burns in Metolius River basin of Central OR

This stand (totaled 200 acres) was just torched


This stand (150 acres IIRC) was torched in May


This stand is next to ^^^

It needs to be burned to clean the understory and thin out the lodgepole

And some spawning Kokanee for shits and giggles

[ill-advised strategy]

Looks great ^^

[davjr96]

Looks like a controlled burn jumped containment lines today in the Watsonville (Santa Cruz County, CA) area

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...ville/2683989/

[bodywhomper]

I hope that Watsonville fire isn’t too bad!!

On another note:

“I and my colleagues are getting really tired of the type of activism that pretends to be science and in fact is just self-serving garbage,” said Crystal Kolden, a professor of wildfire science at UC Merced and co-author of a journal article that rebutted Hanson’s arguments.

Read more at:
“I and my colleagues are getting really tired of the type of activism that pretends to be science and in fact is just self-serving garbage,” said Crystal Kolden, a professor of wildfire science at UC Merced and co-author of a journal article that rebutted Hanson’s arguments.

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/californ...#storylink=cpy

[old_newguy]

I hope that Watsonville fire isn’t too bad!!

On another note:

“I and my colleagues are getting really tired of the type of activism that pretends to be science and in fact is just self-serving garbage,” said Crystal Kolden, a professor of wildfire science at UC Merced and co-author of a journal article that rebutted Hanson’s arguments.

Read more at:
“I and my colleagues are getting really tired of the type of activism that pretends to be science and in fact is just self-serving garbage,” said Crystal Kolden, a professor of wildfire science at UC Merced and co-author of a journal article that rebutted Hanson’s arguments.

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/californ...#storylink=cpy

People would be wise to look at The Nature Conservancy’s stance IMO. They actually manage land for ecological benefit. They are pro restoration of forests to a natural fire regime and step one in that process is often some sort of mechanical fuels reduction so you can manage fire effects when you burn it.


Edit- what is Hanson even talking about?

“ Hanson argues that thinning removes a lot of thick, old-growth trees that are fairly resilient to fire. What’s left is small trees, saplings and seedlings that ignite like kindling.”

This is exactly opposite of what anyone involved in fire management thinks of when they use the word “thinning”. I’m

TBS - in that photo you posted of the stand that needs fire, I bet they would struggle to burn that without really high mortality in the ponderosa they want to retain. They will probably mechanically treat it before burning.

[bodywhomper]

I agree, TNC is taking a leadership role.

I am fairly certain tnc has conceptually designed the forest restorations projects that will be funded under Feinstein’s wildfire bill, if it passes.

Tbs. will those recent burn sites get a big flower bloom in the next couple of springs?

[altasnob]

So what are these scientists' who criticize Hanson end game? They want to come up with millions, if not billions, of dollars from the federal government to fund an endless operation of thinning and prescribed burns. The end result being forests devoid of all underbrush, similar to Bavaria. And like Bavaria, the natural biodiversity will plummet. And with our fire resistant, Bavarian-like forests, living in the forest will be even more heavily subsidized than it already is. Wildfire insurance premiums will plummet. Millions of Americans priced out of the city will flock to forested lands, the last remaining private developable land. The wildfire urban interface will swell even more dramatically than it already is.

Fast forward 100-1,000 years. There will millions of people living in the woods of California. Biodiversity will be non-existent. Once you loose biodiversity you lose the very planet we are living on. By far, the biggest threat to the forests and the wildlife in the forests isn't fire, it is human encroachment. Modern humans have repeatedly proven that they cannot co-exist with the natural environment. Our only hope for long term survival is to concentrate human habitat, and leave the rest of the world as natural as we possibly can. And everyone will look back and say, maybe we should have listened to that Hanson guy.