Farm Bill Based on Flawed Assumptions about Forest Health and Wildfire

- by George Wuerthner

There are wide­ly held assump­tions that log­ging will reduce or pre­clude large wild­fires and bee­tle out­breaks. The recent Farm Bill pro­vi­sion that would allow cat­e­gor­i­cal exclu­sion to log up to 3000 acres with­out NEPA review is based on flawed assump­tions about for­est health and wildfire. 

1. LARGE WILDFIRE CLIMATE DRIVEN

Large fires are dri­ven by climatic/weather con­di­tions that com­plete­ly over­whelm fuels. Chang­ing fuels does not pre­vent large fires and sel­dom sig­nif­i­cant­ly reduces the out­come of these large fires. The climatic/weather fac­tors dri­ving large blazes are drought, low humid­i­ty, high tem­per­a­tures and most impor­tant­ly high winds. High wind is the crit­i­cal fac­tor because winds will blow burn­ing embers over, through or around any fuel reduc­tions includ­ing clearcuts. When these con­di­tions line up in the same place as an igni­tion, it is vir­tu­al­ly impos­si­ble to stop such fires–until the weath­er changes.

2. BEETLE KILL REDUCES FIRE HAZARD

Bee­tle kill actu­al­ly reduces fire haz­ard once the nee­dles fall off, so all this pan­ic about dead bee­tle killed trees will lead to mas­sive fires is myth. We may have large fires, (but it is due to cli­mate) but the pres­ence of bee­tle kill has lit­tle do with the fire spread. 

3. FUEL REDUCTIONS FAIL UNDER SEVERE FIRE CONDITIONS

Fuel reduc­tions effec­tive­ness is incon­sis­tent. There are places where it appears to reduce fire spread under MODERATE fire weath­er con­di­tions but it tends to fail under SEVERE fire weath­er which is when you have the big fires. Many of the larg­er fires in Ore­gon in recent years have burned through “man­aged” forests. The Bis­cuit Fire in SW Ore­gon burned through sub­stan­tial sec­tions of pre­vi­ous­ly logged lands or the Bar­ry Point Fire by Kla­math Falls burned up about a third of Collins Pine man­aged pri­vate lands.Similar large fires occurred on pre­vi­ous­ly logged lands in Mon­tana like the Jocko Lakes Fire, Lolo Creek Fire, Der­by Fire, and many others. 

4. FUEL REDUCTIONS CAN SOMETIMES INCREASE FIRE SPREAD

Accord­ing to one meta-analy­sis of fuel reduc­tion effec­tive­ness, in about a third of cas­es reviewed, fuel reduc­tions INCREASED fire spread. This is typ­i­cal­ly due to the move­ment of fuel from trees to the ground dur­ing log­ging oper­a­tions as well as to the fact that log­ging opens up the for­est to greater dry­ing and wind penetration–both fac­tors that favor fire spread. Oth­er stud­ies also ques­tion the abil­i­ty of fuel reduc­tions to influ­ence LARGE fires under severe fire weath­er. And that is the key phase–severe fire weath­er. Even if fuel reduc­tions appear to work under mod­er­ate con­di­tions, they gen­er­al­ly fail com­plete­ly under severe fire conditions.

5. PROBABILITY OF FIRES ENCOUNTERING FUEL REDUCTIONS IS LOW

Fire is unpre­dictable. Most fuel reduc­tions will have no influ­ence on fires because the prob­a­bil­i­ty that a fire will encounter one in the time frames when fuel reduc­tions are pre­sumed to work (about 10–20 years at best is extreme­ly small. Sta­tis­ti­cal­ly fuels reduc­tions, except for those imme­di­ate­ly next to com­mu­ni­ties and towns, are a waste of tax dollars.

6. MOST FIRES ARE NOT UNHEALTHY OR OUT OF HISTORIC CONDITION

New inter­pre­ta­tions of for­est his­tor­i­cal con­di­tion are ques­tion­ing whether our forests are real­ly out of ‘whack” or out­side of their his­toric con­di­tion. This is espe­cial­ly true for all forests out­side of the low­est ele­va­tion dry for­est of pon­derosa pine. Thus log­ging to “restore” forests is an oxy­moron because it is ques­tion­able that most forests are not in need of restoration.

7. LOGGING HAS MANY EXTERNALITIES

Log­ging has many “exter­nal­i­ties” that are a con­se­quence of log­ging are not acknowl­edged by log­ging pro­mot­ers. These include the spread of weeds due to dis­tur­bance accom­pa­ny­ing log­ging oper­a­tions and roads, sed­i­men­ta­tion from log­ging roads into streams which destroys fish­eries, reduc­tion of wildlife secu­ri­ty cov­er because of increased access from log­ging roads, dis­tur­bance of sen­si­tive wildlife and so forth. When the­ses “costs” are inter­nal­ized, log­ging would almost nev­er make any eco­nom­ic sense.

8. PROTECT HOMES BY REDUCING FLAMMABILITY OF HOMES

The proven way to safe­guard com­mu­ni­ties is to reduce the flam­ma­bil­i­ty of homes through the adop­tion of fire wise poli­cies like instal­la­tion of fire resis­tant roof­ing mate­r­i­al, removal of burn­able mate­ri­als away from homes, zon­ing to pre­vent home con­struc­tion in the fire plain (like flood plain of a riv­er) and oth­er measures.

9. WILDFIRE, BEETLES, AND DISEASE ARE RESTORING FORESTS

Final­ly, wild­fire and bee­tle kill are ‘RESTORATIVE” process­es that are crit­i­cal to HEALTHY for­est ecosys­tems. Even if log­ging could pre­clude or lim­it the influ­ence of fire, bee­tles and so on, it would not be desir­able from an ecosys­tem health per­spec­tive. The eco­log­i­cal truth is that dead trees are crit­i­cal to healthy forests. Indeed, the snag forests that result after severe wild­fires are home to the sec­ond great­est bio­di­ver­si­ty after old growth forests, but this phase is short­er lived as forests regrow, thus rel­a­tive­ly-speak­ing scarcer.


Posted

in

by


EJ Communities Map

Map of Coal and Gas Facilities

We are mapping all of the existing, proposed, closed and defeated dirty energy and waste facilities in the US. We are building a network of community groups to fight the facilities and the corporations behind them.

Our Network

Watch Us on YouTube