U.S. Federal Fire and Forest Policy: Emphasizing Resilience in Dry
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
U.S. Federal Fire and Forest Policy: Emphasizing Resilience in Dry Forests Scott Stephens, ESPM Department, UC Berkeley Talk Outline Fire and forest policy in California and the USA – How did this begin? • Review of fire in California forests –Private federal, and state lands Impacts of fire exclusion on forests – Climate change effects Forest restoration – How are we doing in the Sierra Nevada? New fire policy ideas that could increase forest resiliency and adaption to climate change Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer Forests Frequent Fire Types • Low severity fire regimes historically • Killed mostly small trees • Reduced woody fuels – Frequent return interval • 5-25 years between fires – Ends around 1900 – Approximately 4.5 million acres burned/year before 1800 in California • Today 10% of this area • Stephens et al. (2007) Early US Fire Policy – Desire to control fire, why? • Destructive burning practices settlers/loggers/grazers • Idea that forests were understocked for timber – California had the biggest influence on national fire policy of all States – Regional Forester DuBois directed US Forest Service supervisors that fire control was the top priority – Led to his publication in 1914 of Systematic Fire Protection in California Forests – Cited as most influential single document in US fire control history (Cermak 2005) Early US Fire Policy – 1919 US Forest Service directs forests to suppress all fires, even on private lands – 1924 California Board of Forestry endorsed fire exclusion as state policy – National Forest Service meeting in Mather (near Sacramento) in 1935 important • The famous “10 AM” rule is created • All fires expected to be controlled by 10 AM the day after discovery • Begins to create a systematic fire control system • Today 98% of fires suppressed < 300 acres in size Early US Fire Policy – 1968 US National Parks revises fire policy • Prescribed fire and managed lighting fire occur – Before this full suppression • Ecological effects of fire suppression on wildlife habitat was the key issue (Leopold report 1963) – 1974 US Forest Service revises fire policy but still emphasizes suppression even today • Agency is trying to change course with suppression costs > $2 billion annually and fires causing ecological damage to frequent fire forests – Could things have been different in California? • Light burning debate in early 1900’s – Burning to consume fuels and small trees Early Fire Management in California Red River Lumber Company in southern Cascades, near Lake Almanor, owned by Walker family – Owned 750,00 acres, used light burning to 1920’s Forest History Society pictures 1920 Clinton Walker Wrote in Letter in 1938 Regarding his Father, TB – ‘The general condition of the forests when the white man first came into CA was very excellent’ – ‘Then came the foresters from Yale University and put the tourniquet on the forests’ – ‘I would prefer to remove the tourniquet in our timber matters [which] is the lack of fire’ Meeting of TB Walker and Early Leaders – ‘I request permission [to burn] from the State Forester and the USFS DuBois. Both refused’ – ‘We proceeded to burn anyway, and Chief Forester Graves came out from Washington and DuBois and many others with cameras and notebooks to get damaging evidence’ – ‘They stayed several days and followed the burning, with comment by Graves that the work was excellent’ – ‘DuBois apologized to me for panning me in the newspapers previously ‘ Policy of Fire Suppression Wins – William Greeley, the 3rd USFS Chief stated ‘the conviction burned into me is that fire prevention is the number 1 job of American foresters’ – A scientific study on the merits of fire suppression vs. light burning supported a strong fire suppression policy (Show and Kotok 1924) • That maximum protection or fire exclusion inevitably increases hazard by the encouragement of undergrowth is, of course, true, but such added hazard in no way vitiates the reasons for protection (Show and Kotok 1924) – How have Sierra Nevada forests changed? Bear Creek Guard Station 1915 Plumas National Forest, Sierra Nevada Walter Robertson Forest Guard Bear Creek Guard Station 2002 Ryan Tompkins 87 years later Bear Creek Fire Guard Station Plumas National Forest, Sierra Nevada 1915 2002 Forest Inventory Data from 1911 from Yosemite and Stanislaus Forest Forest Change, 1911 Stanislaus NF, YNP Clavey River N. Fork Tuolumne River Tuolumne River M. Fork Tuolumne River Study area (convex hull S.Fork Tuolumne River polygon): 40,000 acres Rim Fire perimeter Stanislaus NF 0 2.5 5 Stand-replacing patches Yosemite NP ¹ Miles Current versus historical forest conditions: based on re- measurement of timber surveys initially conducted in 1911 Total basal Number of trees > 6 Year area inches (acre-1) (ft2 ac-1) 1911 59 19/acre Collins et al. 2013 248 224/acre 2011, 2015 SSPM Cherry Lake Fire Severity 2013 Rim Patterns from Tree Fire Mortality Lake Eleanor Landsat data Clavey River Hetch N. Fork Tuolumne River Hetchy Tuolumne River M. Fork Tuolumne River S.Fork Tuolumne River Rim Fire perimeter Stanislaus NF 0 2.5 5 Stand-replacing patches Yosemite NP ¹ Miles Field plot within Rim Fire Pre-fire (15-Jul-2013) Field plot within Rim Fire Post-fire (25-Sep-2013) Yosemite National Park Fire Use Program Sierra Nevada 40 years of fire use 40,000 acre area Wildland fire use program: 1974 to present n Crane Flat weather station Yosemite NP boundary Meters Illilouette Creek basin ¯ 0 5,000 Roads 0 10 Kilometers Collins and Stephens, 2007 Front. Ecol. Environ. 2001 Hoover Fire Yosemite National Park Wetland After Lightning Fire Diverse post-fire vegetation and pollinators Vegetation Change From Photos Fires Reduced Forest Area by 22% 1970 (1974 1st fire) 2012 Boisramé et al. 2017 For. Ecol. Man. Wet meadows increased by 200% Dry meadows increased by 200% What about Shrublands increased by 30% Water and hydrology? Fire and Water Amount of stream water leaving watershed has increased or remained stable since 1974 Three other control watersheds decreased water output Lower drought- bark beetle tree mortality too Biosrame et al. (2017) Management Response • Forest fuel treatments implemented to reduce fire hazards and fire effects – Prescribed fire, forest thinning, managed lightning fire • Fuel reduction treatments – Treatments shown to have few negative consequences across the US (Stephens et al. 2012 BioSci) – Is climate change driving recent fires and their impacts? • Forest structure change most important • Climate change increasing length of fire season and decreasing fuel moisture content • How are we doing with forest restoration in the Sierra Nevada? USFS Sierra Nevada Fuel Treatments Need innovation and policy change to address this critical issue North et al. 2012 Federal Fire Policy Revisions Current resource-specific policies are so focused on individual concerns that they may be missing the fact that we have “endangered landscapes” that are threatened by changing climate and fire Forest restoration should therefore be at least equal to other policy priorities such as endangered species, clean air, clean water Furthermore, it needs to stand on its own two feet, i.e., large-scale restoration is necessary for the sake of forest ecosystem integrity now and into the future Federal Fire Policy Revisions Ensure fire suppression funding does not impede restoration efforts (Congress debating, this has been an issue for the last 4-5 years) Engage in collaborative planning to ensure Firewise development in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), including appropriate fire suppression cost sharing Increase education and outreach to enhance fire prevention to assist with current problems Federal Fire Policy Revisions Increased public–private collaborations for landscape-level fuel management Need to build skills in performing prescribed fire at large scales and need wood processing facilities to assist in forest restoration As climates continue to warm it is critical to improve forest fire policy and management quickly to facilitate increase forest resiliency Stephens et al. 2016 (Ecosphere) Summary Forest adapted to low-moderate intensity fire regimes changed greatly by suppression and logging – Forest change has decreased resiliency – Climate change will make this situation worse (not the main issue) Need increased fuel reduction treatments and managed wildfire for resource benefit, 10x current treatment area Frequent fire forests – critical Will help forests adapt to climate change Can possibly assist with State’s water goals Next 1-3 decades absolutely critical Leave options available for future managers, optimistic Acknowledgements Eric Biber, Brandon Collins, Sally Thompson, Gabriel Boisrame, Danny Fry, UC Berkeley. Peter Fule, Northern Arizona University USDA-USDI Joint Fire Science Program Papers available at: www.cnr.berkeley.edu/stephens-lab/ Email [email protected].