Observa(ons and Comments on the 2012 Peavine and Klone Peak Fires. Ma; Dahlgreen The Nature Conservancy January 2013

Transcription

1 Observa(ons and Comments on the 2012 Peavine and Klone Peak Fires Ma; Dahlgreen The Nature Conservancy January 2013

2 New Year s Day, my wife and I skied near the top of Blewe; Pass. We followed a ridge that looks down on Tronsen Meadow to the south. The drainages on either side of the ridge are within the 2012 Peavine Fire perimeter. By fire season s end, the Peavine Fire had been subsumed by the more notorious Table Mtn Fire.

3 Along the way, I took photographs of what the fire did, and did not, do. We ve all seen drama(c photographs of towering smoke columns like this one of the Table Mtn Fire, or seared and barren landscapes, or, best of all, beau(ful flames against a night sky. We rarely see photos of dull, gray smoke driring upslope as the fire quietly creeps downhill, or of the sca;ered orange of a few scorched trees arer that smoke clears, or of the fire that lays down at night to get a li;le rest. Most fires exhibit both kinds of behavior and effects in varying propor(ons. The photographs that follow aren t very drama(c but they are evidence of fire that had minimal nega(ve effects and considerable beneficial ones.

4 The view area from the ridge is 7,000 acres. The Peavine Fire was 20,000 acres in size. These photographs aren t representa(ve of the en(re fire, but neither are photographs of the extreme fire behavior and its severe effects in the lodgepole country of the Table Mtn Fire. It is important to show the full range and extent of fire effects as objec(vely as possible.

5 Scorched stringers The scorched stringers on these ridges, and the occasional scorched individuals, are the only visible evidence of fire. None of these stringers appear to be more than a couple hundred feet wide. These scorched stringers will provide new and valuable wildlife habitat for species such as black- backed woodpeckers. The area in the upper right that looks as though it s been burned hasn t. It s actually a stand of larch on an open slope that is great skiing.

6 Scorched stringers Scorched individuals Addi(onal examples of the fire s mixed severity in dense stands of (mber. It isn t apparent in the photo but there was some torching which consumed some crowns. Note that some scorch is apparent on the open slope as well.

7 Doomed ponderosa Surviving larch Dead Doug- fir saplings Dead grand fir With the excep(on of a single large ponderosa, the trees killed by the fire were generally the same ones we d have thinned by hand for a lot of money. Note that for all of these slides, mortality is inferred from crown scorch only. Especially for grand fir, lodgepole pine, and smaller Doug- fir, mortality caused by cambium damage as the duff layer burned won t show up un(l next year. Dead ponderosa saplings But not much else is likely to die

8 larch Fire killed the smaller understory trees, leaving the large ponderosa pine behind. The effect is to increase the growing resources available to the pine, allowing them to grow even larger. Similarly, the larch in the center of the photo appears to have survived the fire and will experience less compe((on from smaller trees.

9 larch This is a ½ acre patch that burned hot enough to kill most of the small trees in the above photo but spared the large pine. The jury is out on the larch trees but it looked as though they survived. We ll know next year. Again, the effect to the surviving trees is very beneficial.

10 A previous fire(s) had scarred the pine on the right, leaving a cat- face of dry wood that was ignited by this fire. The tree appears to have made it through the fire but likely didn t have the strength to survive the winter winds. As a down log, it is now providing wildlife habitat and perhaps, at some point in the future, shelter for a young pine. The tree on the ler is just fine.

11 Scorched overstory pine Two views of the same area. Some, not all, of the smaller ponderosa pines were killed. Again, these are the same trees we d have thinned by hand. Only one overstory tree appears damaged, and perhaps not fatally.

12 An example of nature s impar(al cruelty sparing the small firs yet killing the big, old pine (in the upper right).

13 The same ponderosa pine The fire killed 5-7 medium sized Douglas- fir- - the same ones we d likely have taken in a (mber sale and spared the big Ponderosa and a couple of the Douglas- fir. The scorched pine in the center of the right hand photo is another example of the randomness of fire. It didn t appear to have had much fuel around it yet it s done for.

14 These are two examples of ½- to one- acre patches that torched because of considerable surface and ladder fuels. The pine in the center of the ler photo is likely to survive. However the two other dominant pines were scorched enough that the remaining foliage is unlikely to support the respira(on required to keep them alive. If that is the case, they will go on to provide great wildlife habitat for a few decades.

15 Some good, some bad. In the photo above, bunnies are taking advantage of a large pine, felled by the fire, for cover and food. The upper right photo shows the path of a deer skir(ng a ceanothus shrub that was scorched by the fire but would otherwise have been excellent forage for the winter. If not for the fire, these tracks would have led straight to the ceanothus. A Douglas- fir dwarf mistletoe broom, spared by the fire, is providing winter cover and food for hares.

16 The fire passed beneath these small trees in an old clearcut yet scorched them only slightly. (The bare trees in the background are larch that will be just fine.) The logging slash was probably disposed of by broadcast burning, thus allowing these trees to survive this fire. Here, the fire didn t kill enough trees and hand thinning will be necessary. The slope in the background burned as well and some scorch is visible.

17 An example of (one of the few) patches that burned with enough intensity to torch a one acre patch. That the dwarf mistletoe broom wasn t torched is yet another example of fire s randomness. Douglas- fir dwarf mistletoe broom

18 Looking down- ridge, the dense forest on the northerly aspect appears to have experienced only sca;ered areas of torching in patches less than 3-4 acres. The arrow indicates the burned patch with the mistletoe broom shown in the previous slide.

19 Photo courtesy of John Barnes On the ler is a fire severity map of the Klone Peak Fire which burned at the same (me, but in a different forest type, than what you ve seen of the Peavine Fire (found at h;p://centralwashingtonfirerecovery.info/maps/). In this forest type, severe fire, as experienced by the subalpine fir/lodgepole pine trees shown on the right, is common and should be expected. The huckleberries in the foreground are grateful for that as are the bears. The mosaic of low, moderate, and high fire severity shown on the map is essen(al for the ecological health of this forest type. This fire burned in a roadless area that includes both mul(- story old forest that is suitable spo;ed owl habitat and a large stand of lodgepole pine that has been hammered by mountain pine beetle. When it comes to fire hazard in these kinds of stands, we seem incapable of avoiding the word catastrophic. But it didn t turn out that way for many of the same reasons the Peavine Fire didn t. But don t get me wrong, if a camper had started a fire at the bo;om of the hill in August, it would have been high drama. That s one of my points though, chance has a whole lot to do with this stuff.

20 Photo courtesy of John Barnes These fires burned with rela(vely low severity and with beneficial effects for a variety of reasons. They were backing downslope, against the wind, and not spofng downhill very much. And they happened during the typically moderate burning condi(ons of late- summer. That s not the whole story though. In a different (me or with different leadership, it s easy to picture an en(rely different outcome with severe fire effects. In this case, the Forest Service considered current and expected fire behavior then formulated a strategy that, most of all, ensured firefighter safety along with saving considerable money and wildlife habitat and reducing nega(ve effects to the aqua(c system. That took a lot of for(tude on the part of the Forest Supervisor and the District Rangers and a whole bunch of pa(ence and finesse on the part of the firefighters. This kind of fire suppression should serve as a model of how wildfires can be managed to protect property, the public, and the resource while ensuring the safest work environment for firefighters. Few people are aware of this and we ought to take the opportunity to commend them for that whenever possible.

21