Skip to main content

I have to take issue with the recent diary Firebombs in the Forest: Slashpiles Fueled Angora Fire Destruction by FUSEE. There are some conclusions in the diary which, while they may sound reasonable, simply aren't supported by experience or research.

The tendency in almost any wildfire where property destruction takes place is to place the blame on someone else - someone other than the property owner who suffered the loss. Most often, that someone else is the Forest Service.

In some cases, the Forest Service shares some of the blame, and the deteriorated conditions of western US forests is certainly a result of (among other causes) past Forest Service practice.

However a look at the science of structure ignition in wildfires makes FUSEE's claims seem unlikely.

The diary linked discusses the role of piles of brush and limbs ("slash piles") leftover from thinning operations, for as long as 3 years. The piles were the result of a procedure called "pile and burn", which is often used in reducing fuel loads in overgrown forests. Except in this case, the "burn" part of the operation didn't take place until a wildfire swept the area.

FUSEE's argument is nicely summarized by the concluding paragraph of his diary:

The Angora Fire offers a wake up call: untreated slash piles function like "firebombs" in the forest, increasing the spread, intensity, and severity of wildfires, and can be a major agent of structure ignitions. The number, location, and extent of unburned slash piles scattered throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin and elsewhere across the West constitutes a real and present danger to residents living near similar so-called "fuels reduction" units.  

Now there is something to this: leaving slash piles from thinning operations in place for three years or so is a fire hazard. The object is to remove fuels from an area being treated, not to simply move them around. And while there probably is some increase in local intensity and spot fire ignitions from the piles, it's important to keep in mind that the fire intensity and spread would have likely been the same or greater if the fuels had been left in place instead of being cut and piled.

One of the main objects of thinning is to break the fuel "ladders" that allow a fire to climb from grasses to shrubs to the lower limbs of trees and finally into the crowns or tree-tops, leading to a crown fire. Crown-fires are considerably more destructive and harder to control than surface fires. According to FUSEE, the slash piles actually led to some torching of trees, which is clearly contrary to the purpose of thinning in the first place, but again, is hard to compare to what would have happened if the fuels were left in place to burn.

However the conclusions I'd take issue with are the claims that the slash piles were a "major agent of structure ignitions" and a "danger to residents". Those statements indicate to me confusion about who ultimately is responsible for the protection of property in forested areas (whether private or public lands), and what the ultimate cause of structure ignitions is.

There are basically two mechanisms by which a wildfire can ignite a structure: radiative transfer of heat and ignition from embers. While FUSEE makes a lot of the intensity with which slash piles burn, their heat energy emissions are nothing compared to a crown fire. In my experience burning slash piles from pile and burn operations, you can easily get within 10 feet of a pile burning at full-bore. Around here, crews don't build piles larger than that, unless they'll be burned immediately. How close you can get relates to the radiative component of the fire.

One of the goals of thinning was likely to reduce the likelihood of crown fire, and a crown fire is slightly more intense than a burning slash pile. An intense crown fire creates winds high enough to suck trees out of the ground, an can actually create it's own weather (hail or rain). The measured heat output of a crown fire is on the order of 45 kilo-watts per square meter - about 45 times more intense than the sun on a beach on a clear, hot day. It's unlikely that you could get within a few hundred feet of a crown fire and survive.

However, the same isn't true for your home. Research conducted by Jack Cohen of the Forest Service's Missoula lab indicates that your home will survive the heat energy radiated by a crown fire without even scorching, as long as the fire is kept about 30 feet (10m) away. Cohen constructed stud walls covered with plywood and placed them 10, 20 and 30 meters from an experimental crownfire in Canada's Northwest Territories. The wall section closest to the fire didn't even scorch, and none of the sections were damaged.

Given that the energy of a crown fire is on the order of 100 times more intense than a burning slash pile, radiation of heat from slash piles was not likely a source of home ignition. FUSEE does do a good job of outlining the other (and most common) cause of structure ignitions: embers thrown from the fire. Here's Cohen on the subject (from Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes):

(WU-I is "Wildland-Urban Interface")

As previously mentioned, firebrands are also a principal W-UI ignition factor. Highly ignitable homes can ignite during wildland fires without the fire spreading near the structure. This occurs when firebrands are lofted downwind from fires. The firebrands subsequently collect on and ignite flammable home materials and adjacent flammables. Firebrands that result in ignitions can originate from fires that are at a distance of 1 kilometer or more. For example, during the 1980 Panoram Fire (San Bernardino, California), the initial firebrand ignitions to homes occurred when the wildland fire was burning in low shrubs about 1 kilometer from the neighborhood. During severe W-UI fires, firebrand ignitions are particularly evident for homes with flammable roofs. Often these houses ignite and burn without the surrounding vegetation also burning. This suggests that homes can be more flammable than the surrounding vegetation. For example, during the 1991 fires in Spokane, Washington, houses with flammable roofs ignited without the adjacent vegetation already burning. Although firebrands may be lofted over considerable distances to ignite homes, a home’s materials and design and its adjacent flammables largely determine the firebrand ignition potential.

(emphasis added)

Cohen's paper cites other studies that showed for homes with non-flammable roofs, those clear of dense vegetation for an area of 30 feet or more had a probability of survival of from 86% to 95%. Cohen himself has done considerable post-mortem analysis of homes that survived or failed to survive fires, and his conclusions are the basis for the Firewise program among other things.

Before pointing the finger at the Forest Service or even slash piles in the fire, or claiming the piles were repsonsible for structure losses, it would be imperitive to understand what kinds of structures were involved and what the conditions were around them. Dense vegetation near the homes, shake roofs, firewood stacked next to the house, paths of dry vegetation leading directly to the structure, decks or porches not screened underneath, even a build-up of pine needles on the roof or in the gutters are all invitations to ignition by firebrands, even if the fire remains a long distance away.

Cohen concludes (and anyone who lives in a high fire danger area would agree) that:

The congruence of research findings from different analytical methods suggests that home ignitability is the principal cause of home losses during wildland fires. Any W-UI home fire loss assessment method that does not account for home ignitability will be critically non-specific to the problem. Thus, to be reliable, land classification and mapping related to potential home loss must assess home ignitability. Home ignitability also dictates that effective mitigating actions focus on the home and its immediate surroundings rather than on extensive wildland fuel management. Because homeowners typically assert their authority for the home and its immediate surroundings, the responsibility for effectively reducing home ignitability can only reside with the property owner rather than wildland agencies.

The potential for survival or destruction of a home in a wildfire is largely a result of the choices homeowners make - whether the structure is built with fire survival in mind and what kind of surroundings the homeowner maintains. Government can improve the survivability of structures through things like building codes and regulation - something the homewoners in Lake Tahoe might have opposed strongly - but ultimately, the survival of homes isn't determined by conditions in the nearby forest, and is the responsibility of the property owner. Some of us take that responsibility seriously.

If you put a highly flammable house next to a burning forest, the house is likely to burn as well - it's made of the same stuff as the forest, and kept in a drier condition. If you take steps to prevent the house from catching fire in the first place, the odds that it will survive the fire are extremely high. Whether or not someone irresponsibly left slash piles or other hazardous conditions in the near vicinty.

Originally posted to badger on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 03:21 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Slash Piles, Wildfire, and Home Ignitions (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mooncat, mrkvica, captainlaser

    Badger makes so many comments verifying the assertions in FUSEE's diary "Firebombs in the Forest"  that his diary seems more like giving us praise than criticism.  Moreover, it is appreciated that s/he presents so much data from Jack Cohen's pioneering research on the subject of home ignitions from wildfire.

    You may think that it is a complete accidental coincidence that the largest cluster of destroyed homes in the Angora Fire was located next to the thinned unit that contained hundreds of untreated slashpiles within it, but we doubt other folks will agree once they see the evidence.

    Badger makes an excellent point that reducing home ignitions are ultimately the responsibility of the home owner, but is less convincing in the argument that whatever the Forest Service does--or does not do--in managing fuels is completely unrelated to home ignitions.  Homes were ignited by the embers lofted by slashpiles--without those embers, there would have been no ignitions.

    The most valid argument in Badger's diary that is a subject for further scientific research and debate concerns the difference between crownfires and slashpiles in creating home ignition potential.  While it may be true that the intensity of a crownfire is higher that a slashpile, the radiant heat pulse of a crownfire is extremely short-lived (lasting a fraction of a minute in most cases).  Once the needle mass has been consumed by flames, the intensity level drops down dramatically to almost nothing.  

    A slashpile, on the other hand, produces high radiant intensity for hours (sometimes days, depending on the size and configuration of the pile), and the convective heat of an ember-filled smoke column coming out of slashpiles produces a greater fire risk.  The ember particle size tends to be larger, the residence time of burning embers is longer, and the duration of time that slashpiles emit embers is longer (again, lasting hours or longer). Wildfires have been ignited from winds picking up embers from untended slashpiles that were ignited and believed to have been extinguished several days earlier.

    More research is needed that compares the spotting potential of crownfires versus slashpiles, but one should not assume that crownfires are more of a hazard to homes than slashpiles because the homes in the Angora Fire were not ignited by crownfires, but rather, surface fire spread and spotfires ignited by the embers from slashpiles.

    Finally, if the unit containing untreated slashpiles burned with high severity (essentially killing all of the remaining trees and nuking the soil), and so many homes adjacent to that unit were totally destroyed, it begs the question: why go through the energy and expense of thinning if it's all going to be a waste anyway?  FUSEE believes in the usefulness of thinning as a pre-treatment for reintroducing fire, but if land managers are unable or unwilling to burn the thinning slash in the first place, it is valid to question why that thinning should occur in the first place.  Slashpiles can and do function like firebombs in the forest.

    Thanks to Badger for writing a thoughtful critique and validating so many of the points in our diary!  May this discussion continue...

    --FUSEE

    Keep the Greenfire burning!

    by FUSEE on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 04:14:34 PM PDT

    •  Without the slash piles (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Feanor

      the embers might have come from the fuels in place, or crown fires enabled by the fuels in place. Stuff burns - there just isn't any way around it, except to find some way to get rid of it (usually covered by the blanket term "Fire and Fire Surrogates",the latter being thinning).

      I do agree with the bulk of FUSEE's diary - it makes no sense to me to thin a woods and then leave the slash on site for 3 years. But I do understand the problems of getting rid of slash - I'm "managing" (by default,not choice) a project to thin about 250 acres of private land along a 3 mile road/drainage, both for fire-fighter and resident safety, and the biggest problem is what to do with stuff after it's cut.

      But once again - what do you mean by "slash pile", because it seems to me the definition changes to fit the point you're trying to make. I have slash piles on my property. The ones from thinning are 5-10 feet in diameter, 3 feet tall and contain maybe 100-500 lbs of biomass. The peak output lasts less than 5 minutes (and with a long enough stick I can roast wienies on them), and there's nothing but coals after 30 minutes.

      The logging slash piles (around 20 years old, from before I bought) are as big as 40x60 and 10 feet tall at the peak - machine piled with stumps and 3 foot diameter logs. They contain more than 100 tons of fuel, and given the amount of dirt in them would probably burn for months. I've heated my house for 10 years with wood from those piles - that's a fair amount of energy, especially if released almost all at once.

      The small piles are the kind people make here when they do thinning, including the FS or DNR. They're hand piled, and the idea is to keep them small, tight, spread out and watch what's overhead to keep from sterilizing soil or scorching needles. If the FS does something different in the Tahoe area, that's just another level of incompetence in addition to not burning the piles safely. But the danger is to the surrounding forest, and the increase in danger to homes is minimal as far as I can see, unless they pile within 30 feet of houses.

      The fact the homes that burned were in Tahoe is probably a more significant common factor than their proximity to slash piles, especially the size of piles that a good thinning operation produces.

      There is no more New Frontier - we have got to make it here - Henley/Frey

      by badger on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 10:03:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was down Angora Lake Road in early June (0+ / 0-)

    coming back from Fallen Leaf Lake.

    My friends and I (ex-Tahoe HS graduates) all were amazed at how dry it was, how the houses up Angora Lakes Road were built right into the forest and I said "How the hell have they avoided fire here with all the barbeques in the back yard".

    Prescient.

    My friends reminded me of the Tahoe Paradise fire in the 1960's.  Same area.

    The inability to clear the understory around the houses and the rather limited TRPA rules about removing trees near houses makes this sort of thing very likely.  And Tahoe is not alone.  It is happening throughout the west.

    You can't build houses in a forest and not get burned.

    Ninety percent of life is just showing up. Woody Allen
    The other 10% is homework. Anonymous student.

    by captainlaser on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 04:54:19 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site