Guest Commentary: George Wuerthner's "On the Range"

Notes on the ‘88 Yellowstone Fire Conference

By George Wuerthner, 10-14-08

I attended The ‘88 fires: Yellowstone and Beyond fire conference in Jackson, Wyoming. The conference went on for five days and had many simultaneous presentations, featuring some of the latest insights into wildfire ecology and fire behavior. The following are some of the highlights.

Weather and climate figured into many presentations for a variety of reasons. Speakers like Tony Wsesterling of the University of California and Tom Swetnam of the University of Arizona spoke about long term global climate change which will likely increase the severity and number of large wildfires in the future.

Many speakers from agency managers to wildfire ecologists emphasized over and over again the influence of drought, low humidity and wind on fire spread and behavior. The conclusion of speakers is that under severe weather conditions, some fires are unstoppable and we are already seeing such a trend in fires today.

For instance, Yellowstone researcher Roy Renkin emphasized that fuel moisture is the primary determinant of fire severity. His research suggests that wind and drought must exceed the 97th percentile before one gets a stand replacement fire, and if it exceeds the 99th percentile nothing will stop a fire and it will burn through all fuel types, including thinned forest stands. In other words there are very predictable thresholds in fuel moisture and wind speed that creates the ideal conditions for fire spread. When these conditions are met, wildfires are large and unstoppable.

Other speakers talked about the effect of wind on fire spread. Even in a dry year like 1988, the majority of fires are small without wind to drive them. For instance, Bob Mutch retired from the Missoula Fire Lab, found that out of 249 fires that started in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in 1988, the majority or 81% burned ten acres or less. Huge acreages of the forest were consumed during the few days when high winds prevailed.

For instance, the 1988 Canyon Fire that burned through the Bob Marshall Wilderness was propelled by high winds of the Jet Stream which dipped down to the surface above the fire. With the Jet Stream pushing it, the fire raced across 190,000 acres in a single day. Researchers emphasized that wind was a major factor in all large fires including historic blazes like the 1910 Burn that charred more than 3 million acres of the Northern Rockies.

During a field trip, I talked to Penny Morgan of the U of Idaho who recently published a couple of papers on the fire history of the Northern Rockies. She found that a strong connection between climatic conditions and fire years. Of 11 years with significant acreage burned by wildfire between 1900 and 2003, six occurred prior to the 1940s and five have occurred since 1988. All were correlated with dry springs and hot summers. The years between 1940 and the 1980s were wetter and cooler than the years before and after calling into question whether fire suppression has been as effective as previously assumed. Yet it is these post war years that forms the basis for our views about what is “normal” behavior for wildfires.

This is where other speakers’ research fit into the mix. Cathy Whitlock of Montana State University has looked at long term fire histories throughout the West, including a 17,000 year fire history for Yellowstone. Her conclusions are that the recent past climatic conditions no longer exist. In other words, trying to “manage” for past vegetation patterns is not going to work because we now have a new climatic regime that is has warmer temperatures, a longer drying season, and generally higher winds than the recent past. Thus thinning forests to “restore” a “historic” appearance to the landscape may be pointless. We are now into a new climate model that will change fire behavior as well as vegetation response.

Proposed treatments like thinning, logging and other prescriptions are ineffective for many forest types under the new climatic conditions. For instance, Ronald Wakimoto of the U of Montana Forestry School suggested that thinning of lodgepole pine forests as is now occurring on Forest Service lands in the Northern Rockies is “fool management” not fuel management. Thinning, as Wakimoto noted, simply makes the forest floor hotter, drier and windier—all ingredients that increase fire spread and severity.

Megan Walsh of the U of Oregon looked at charcoal remains for the past 1000 years to determine the fire history in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. For decades it was presumed that Native American fires maintained the valley grasslands and open oak woodlands. Her research suggests that valley fire activity responded primarily to climatic changes.

The influence of Native Americans on wildfire frequency appears to be localized, primarily in and near places where permanent occupation occurred. The idea that Native American significantly affected fire frequency across the larger landscape is called into question.

Another presentation by Dick Hutto of the U of Montana emphasized the ecological importance of dead trees, in particular, burnt trees. Hutto, like many ecologists, is opposed to salvage logging of burnt trees, especially on the assumption that dead trees are a “wasted” resource. Hutto’s research focuses on birds, and there are many species that live and forage primarily in burnt forests. Such an evolutionary response suggests to Hutto that stand replacement fires have occurred in all forest types, not just high elevation forests like those found in Yellowstone. Despite assertions by the ill informed to the contrary, we may be experiencing a deficit of wildfires. In other words, even if it were possible to suppress large fires—which clearly it is not--we need more large wildfires, not fewer.

Like Hutto other researchers are finding that large blazes have profound positive effects upon forest ecosystems and associated species. For instance, Wayne Minshall of Idaho State University has studied fire effects on streams for decades. His research found that stream drainages that experienced high severity fires rather than being “destroyed” had the highest biomass of aquatic insects, which in turn supported higher densities of cutthroat trout. But the fire also had an effect on terrestrial species as well. Minshall found that severely burned watersheds also supported higher density of fly catching birds, bats, and riparian spiders, among other animals.

On a field trip through Jackson and up into Yellowstone with researchers Monica Turnker, Dan Tinker and Bill Romme, participants observed a forest that had been heavily infected by pine beetles in the 1970s. If Romme had not mentioned it to us, none of the field trip participants would have guessed that the forest had ever experienced a major beetle outbreak. As Romme explained, beetles, even under the most severe infestations, seldom kill all trees. With the death of some trees, the remaining trees grow very quickly to fill in the gaps in the forest canopy.

Furthermore, Romme’s and researchers have found that beetle killed trees do not necessarily increase fire hazard. Once a year or two has passed, and dry needles and small branches fall off, the forest is actually less likely to burn than a green forest under severe fire conditions. The green forest needles and branches are loaded with resins that burn extremely well if the internal moisture of the trees dips as occurs during severe droughts. In other words, fire hazard does not increase significantly as a result of beetle kill.

Additionally there are many ecological benefits associated with pine beetle infestations, including the creation of dead trees for wildlife use, increased nutrient flows into soils, and other affects. If communities and politicians panicking about current beetle outbreaks could visit the Tetons they would realize there is nothing to be feared.

The overall conclusions I took away from the conference was that climate change was going to create climate/weather conditions more conducive to large blazes. Management prescriptions like logging won’t change fire behavior under severe conditions, and in fact, may improve conditions for fire spread by opening up the forest to greater drying and wind penetration. Fortunately, large fires are ecologically beneficial and necessary for many ecosystem functions, including nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat creation, and other ecological processes. Therefore, an increase in large burns rather than being something to be feared or suppressed should be embraced. To do this, we need to change our approach to wildfires from suppression to co-existence.

The best way to achieve such a relationship is not to fight fires or log the landscape in the mistaken believe that we can affect fire severity or spread, rather we need to reduce sprawl into the wildlands urban interface through zoning and planning combined with greater attention to making existing structure fire safe. Even something as a requirement that all buildings in fire prone ecosystems have metal roofs would go a long ways towards reducing losses to wildfire.

George Wuerthner is an ecologist, photographer and writer with 34 published books on natural history and environmental issues.

[End of article]

George: So what is the purpose for forests in our lives? What I read in your story is that climate change is producing the larger fires, and the forest burning is inevitable. Our forest situation is hopeless. Send money.

The environmental gain is to provide dead tree habitat for woodpeckers and other birds, which would be obvious. But that is a one time benefit. If the climate has changed, a new forest is not forthcoming.

My question would be what happens to other species, from Maser's slugs and newts to Jerry Franklin's ancient lichens? Are those lost forever? If climate change is the driving force, then to lose a forest created in another climate, long ago, to fire is not unlike letting old buildings from a different age burn because it is cheaper to build a new one on the land than keep the old one in good repair. Isn't there a historical sense of preservation that would want us to TRY to keep some of the old heritage forests? The fragile "cloud forests?" The climatically isolated and tenuous forests?

Some forests are legacies from another time, perhapsdue to climate, and anthropogenic use. They are there because they are there, and can only exist as long as they are there. And, they are warehouses of plants and animals many times found nowhere else. Should we not make great strides to protect them as best we can, or is it their fate to be consumed by fire? If so, why not log them now, and at least use the material before it becomes greenhouse gases, lung choking particulate matter, soils lost to the plume? And if nothing grows back on those acres, so what? As the climate changes, so will the pioneer species to bring about the new environment. You still have the forest, albeit with new and different species and landscape impacts. Maybe it is now a savannah or range in the making.

I spend some time following fire press releases, management decisions, site reports, and it is my impression that Wildland Fire Use is a driving force in the recent spate of large acre wildfires. I have fought enough fire to know how wind works. Wind drives fires with speed along the ground, and then the canopy fire follows as fuel pockets ignite in the burned areas, far behind the fire front. In some fires, the fire goes to the canopy as the wind drives a fire up a slope, and the fire spots over the top on far slopes. On top of the ridge, the winds curl and blow back into the fire, and the fire creeps down the slope until the next slope is sufficiently afire to bring it along in the canopy again. Leapfrog fires. That drives the backburn from miles away attempts, many of which fail but do add significant area to the fire. I have to wonder how much is burned in the fire itself, and how much is burned in the backfires from far away. So I wonder why red flag weather is a time for WFU fire? I would think the effort would be to extinguish fires while small and possibly containable in the heat of the summer, when the sheer numbers of fires limits people and equipment, and WFU in fall ahead of wet weather, or in the spring when the ground is wet so as to protect soils and critters on the ground or in the ground. This deal of not fighting a fire in Wilderness in the heat of summer, and then spending tens of millions to keep the fire out of town, off private lands, is basic insanity. No money nor resource is "saved."

It is irresponsible for the US to not produce wood products for the world market, in any form, from raw logs to finish lumber and panels. In our stead, the tropical forests and the forests least able to be defended for any special environmental reason are decimated, legally and illegally, to feed the wood markets of China and the rest of Asia, Europe. That is unconscionable. That is not being Green. That is being a part of the problem. A big part. All that stuff you buy for cheapo wood furniture at Walmart, et al, comes from stolen timber smuggled out of Russia to China, and from many other parts of the world where money talks, and platitudes are shot for food.

As usual, the conference has the grad student paper presented as the real McCoy. If you read the UofO Geography Dept. fall schedule, you will see Meagan Walsh gets to defend her dissertation on Willamette Valley anthropogenic burning on Oct 30. Will NewWest be there?

George, I can't yet wrap my head around not using a resource destined to be incinerated, and having that be the best thing for human society. If the forest that is there is going to burn, and soon, then why not use the wood, deprive the certain fire of some of its fuel, keep that smoke, particulate matter, those greenhouse gas emissions to the lowest possible levels. And then live with whatever the new climate brings to the site. Quit thinning, and clear cut. My years of fire observation have seen fire tack like an America's Cup contender around low fuel areas, ten foot tall new growth, to burn the uncut timber alongside the old clearcut, and then race off into more and heavier fuels. I have told people that the best way to not have your house burn in a wildfire is to have a green lawn, no trees close to dwellings, sofits closed, air vents covered, a metal roof, firewood stacked in the open well away from buildings, and a neighbor who is a junk collecting packrat with no sense of aesthetics and no vegetation control. The fire will come straight at your house, and veer to the fuels laden neighbors place, and then race on after more fuel, leaving you unscathed. I have seen that many times on fires. And, after all the scrap metal is removed, the neighboring property is no longer a junkyard. Bare ground and metal skeletons, melted glass, a double wide frame. Even the nasty dogs are gone.

As an aside, and contradiction of the global climate change and warming stampede, I should note that my blueberry charges were two weeks late in ripening, and what usually would ripen in a week took 10 days this summer, which was missing about two weeks of "degree days" of warming, and lo and behold, the first killer frost has come 18 days sooner than normal. So we had visible snow banks in the Coast Range at 2000' the first of June, a cool summer, and now an very early onset of winter temperatures. Now that all the processing and fresh market packing companies are closed for the season, we have blueberries still ripening, and thousands of pounds hanging on the bushes that will not get picked. We have fall foliar spraying that has to happen, which precludes the fruit from going to market. Cedar waxwings are enjoying the bonus. The starlings are hanging out at the dairies and the growing silage piles, thankfully. The sweet corn crop still has some fields to be picked, and the stalks are brown, not green. 2008 in the Willamette Valley is much, much colder than usual, our having lost 6 weeks of our usual growing season: two weeks in the spring to cold and frosts, poor pollination, two weeks of cold and rain in the summer, (which slowed the grass seed harvest and those who did not change over a combine to a header and go after their increased wheat acres got them rained on in early August for a week, leading to sprouting in the head and feed grains prices---so much for the $10 a bushel contract) and a two weeks or more early killer frost to split the tomatoes, and stop all activity. And Al Gore is coming to town in the next week to lecture us on global warming....hope he brings a warm coat.

Bearbait

I have little time to respond. You raise some good concerns, but let answer quickly. As usual you are thoughtful in your responses.

One of the points that I am trying to make about forestry is that many impacts are not considered as part of the cost of logging. Without a clear idea of the ecological impacts, we can't make a rational decision about whether it makes sense to log the forests or not.

In the end it may be that given the choice, using wood from our forests would be the best choice in the end, however, we can't make such a decision as long as the real impacts from logging are ignored. The idea that burnt trees are "wasted" is not supported ecologically.

And I am more and more convinced that dead trees may be more ecologically important to the total forest ecosystem than live trees. In other words, we might find if we bothered to look that dead trees from beetles and/or fires are more important to the long term health of plant communities than live vegetation. Just speculation, but because we have a bias against dead things, we haven't really given this idea much consideration.

It is quite possible that if we knew all of the impacts, we might conclude we should be doing a lot less logging. And we might find that the cost of wood products would rise. Maybe then we might construct smaller homes, or we might use alternative building materials. We might recycle more paper or use less paper products in general.

And I'm sure, as the thoughtful person that you are, you would agree there is room for reducing our use of wood in our lives. Just watching all the packaging waste in our consumer society is a place to start.

As for less logging here contributing to more logging elsewhere, I find such arguments pointless. All that does is lead to a spiral downward in everyone's ecosystem health. It's like saying we shouldn't have things like health insurance or living wages in the United States because if we demand it here, corporations will go to third world country to exploit workers there. Obviously if we follow such a prescription all that does is drive everyone into poverty.