Forest Fires, Ecological Concerns and Fire Supression

Forest Fires, Ecological Concerns and Fire Suppression

The United States Forest Service designates “critical biological areas,” which are protected to a great extent against human impacts.  These zones are designed to conserve ‘species-at-risk;’ which are defined as being ‘specifically identified under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered, and/or by the NatureServe global conservation status ranking system as being in jeopardy of extinction’ (Stein et al., 2010).  Balancing forest fire fuel reduction and fire prevention efforts, with the need to conserve particular areas for the benefit of certain species is often a difficult task.  In this report I have considered sources with varying viewpoints on critical biological areas; some arguing in support of critical area species protection, as well as those which see this status as a hindrance to fire management.  As I will show, careful planning aided by the powerful tool that is GIS can provide an effective route forward in combating, and planning for forest fires. 

The United States government spends millions of dollars per year combating forest fires across millions of hectares of forest.  Active fire suppression started in the United States around 1886.  Soon after the creation of the National Parks, the U.S. Army was tasked with patrolling the parks for fire suppression surveillance purposes.  Soon thereafter, serious discussions took place wherein key figures such as the second U.S. Forest Service Chief Henry Graves made a strong case for serious fire suppression policy.  Preemptive under burning to reduce fuel levels was encouraged; a policy he believed was based on traditional Native American Indian fire techniques (Stephens & Ruth, 2005).  Clearing of fuel is a key method of forest fire suppression and damage control.  The idea is that by removing dead, low-lying material from the forest floor, fires will spread less quickly, and be easier for fire fighters to control.  The Stephens and Ruth report stresses the necessity of comprehensive forest fire management techniques, as simply removing as much fuel as possible is not efficient.  Factors such as weather and topography play an important role in determining the best course of fire prevention action, and can dictate whether or not removing fuel from certain areas is efficient or even necessary.  Managing a complex web of data inputs and producing intuitive and coherent display of factor interaction is a challenging task; one which can be nigh on impossible without the use of GIS.

The creation of fire danger maps using GIS software is instrumental in planning regional forest fire management.  GIS has the power to overlay many data inputs in a single map projection; illuminating the interactions and interdependence of many levels of fire suppression techniques.  A 1996 article by Chuvieco & Salas appearing in the International Journal of Geographical Information Science elaborates on the importance and utility of GIS mapping in forest fire prevention, using a case study in Central Spain.  Chuvieco & Salas show how they used GIS mapping to create an inclusive model of forest fire factors, and provided an in depth and comprehensive report for the Spanish fire prevention service.  Factors such as climate play a large role in forest fire prevention.  Most weather monitoring is done in urban areas, at low elevations, which provides little to no useful data for the concerned rural forest regions.  Chuvieco & Salas use interpolation of local climate data and prefabricated climate maps to create relatively accurate weather data across large regions of forest.  This can be overlaid with data on topography, historical fires, soils, vegetation, fire lookout towers, fire stations, fire roads, etc.  The end result was to create a GIS fire danger model for the region.  The end product ‘danger map’ included seven factors; “air temperature, humidity, slope, aspect, fuel types, exposure of fuel types, and human fire risk,” (Chuvieco & Salas 1996).  The authors had to create their own digital elevation model (DEM) of the region, which was done by digitizing from a 1:50,000 scale map of the study area, and performing a linear interpolation to create the elevation raster.  GIS danger mapping is useful, but to create thoughtful fire prevention policy, factors other than simple forest fire risk must be considered.  This is especially true in the case of controlled fuel burns, in regards to their impact on local ecosystems. 

Fires effect local forest ecosystems greatly.  Not only do fires dramatically change the landscape, but the lack of fires due to vigilant fire prevention can also have negative impacts on biodiversity and species richness.  In many regions, including the section of forest in Los Angeles which was torched in the 2009 Station Fire, frequent small scale forest fires are a natural part of the ecosystems.  These fires cause the natural succession and diversity of habitat necessary to maintaining a healthy landscape.  When humans artificially suppress wildfires, some species find themselves with little to no habitat left, as they rely on new growth, and without forest fires, thick undergrowth with tough subshrubs dominate the landscape.  While active forest fire prevention decreases the frequency of forest fires, there may be a tendency for fires to be larger and more devastating when they do happen.  Without frequent fires, local flora and fauna populations are prone to disastrous declines when fires do strike (Stein et al., 2010).  The implications of forest fires on species richness become especially poignant in the case of critical biological areas.  These are areas which have been designated by the United States Forest Service as containing at-risk species, and are afforded special protections therefore.  However, this can become a point of contention between conservationists, and fire prevention advocates. 

Controlled burning of old growth forest fire fuel has for decades been the standard method of fire prevention on forest lands.  This becomes tricky when biologically sensitive zones come into play.  Some argue that without fire prevention work in these areas, there will be an unacceptable risk of property damage due to fire, and that the protected status of these lands is a hindrance to productive fire prevention activities.  T. L. Hanes 1971 work on ecological succession in Southern California’s chaparral landscape sheds light on the natural patterns and possible management techniques for fire prevention in the region.  Hanes observes that between the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains, there are relatively few widespread or abundant plants.  He also finds that succession is slowest on the south facing slopes, desert and oceanic exposure areas respond differently to post fire succession, etc.  A Los Angeles Times article, appearing on April 7, 2012 by Louis Sahgun explores the efficacy of replanting forest lost in the 2009 Station Fire.  He finds that the planted trees have by in large died off; out-competed by the natural succession of chaparral plants.  Attempts at restoring forest in a Mediterranean climate are yet another attempt by humans at taming the landscape, and as we have seen, have little to no positive effects.  Natural succession patterns are vital for supporting ecosystems, and anthropogenic fires, lack of fires, and forest restoration are all ecologically deleterious.  Observations such as those described in Hanes’s work are crucial to creating intelligent and comprehensive fire prevention policy.  These factors can be included in a GIS model as layers, and can direct fuel clearing or fire line creation in more efficient and biologically sound directions. 

Keeley, Morais and Fotheringham’s 2002 work historic fire regime in Southern California shrub lands provides an unbiased, and scientific view on fire prevention work.  They find that according to the California Statewide Fire History Database, the intense fuel clearing efforts of the past decades has had little to no effect on fire frequency or total area burned per year.  Fire intensity has not increased, and fire season has not changed since 1910.  They point to the high velocity winds of Southern California often will overshadow the ability of fuel clearing at fire spread reduction.  If you look at the map I have created of the spread of the 2009 Station Fire, you will see the distinct North and East progression of the fire; directly following wind patterns in the area, regardless of fire suppression attempts.  The leading determinate in forest fire ignition and spread, is the ever expanding “urban-wildland interface.”  Keeley, Morais and Fotheringham recommend focusing on strategic locations for fire prevention work, as opposed to broad spectrum fuel clearing fire rotations across a widespread area.  They point to landscape features, and suggest creating defensible buffer zones around at-risk areas.  Later, in 2002, Keeley and Fotheringham published another report on southern California fire regime.  In this report, they compare historic fire regimes in Southern California, and Northern Mexico, as these two regions are historically similar, but in contemporary times, California has undertaken massive fire prevention projects, while Mexico has not.  They find that there is actually little to no difference between the regions, and that it is human encroachment on wild areas which has led to increasing property damage, fire ignition and fire prevention expenditures.

My research has led me to believe that preemptive fuel clearing is not a good solution for fire prevention in the Station Fire area.  Those who wish to continue clearing fuel in the Station Fire area, irrespective of the critical biological areas which are affected by such activities are misinformed.  They are relying on outdated information and practices.  Instead, creation of comprehensive GIS maps, which can guide fire prevention officials to find defensible fire line locations, while avoiding disturbance of endangered species is recommended.  I have created a series of maps which illustrate the parameters of the 2009 Station Fire, the elevations and topography of the region, as well as critical biological areas in the region.  With these maps, fire prevention officials will be able to plan prevention projects around endangered species, while concentrating their efforts and funds on more strategic locations. [Maps located below reference list]

References

Chuvieco, E., & Salas, J. (1996). Mapping the spatial distribution of forest fire danger using GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 10(3), 333-345.

Hanes, T. L. (1971). Succession after fire in the chaparral of southern California. Ecological monographs, 27-52.

Keeley, J. E., & Fotheringham, C. J. (2002). Historic fire regime in southern California shrublands. Conservation Biology, 15(6), 1536-1548.

Keeley, J. E., Fotheringham, C. J., & Morais, M. (1999). Reexamining fire suppression impacts on brushland fire regimes. Science, 284(5421), 1829-1832.

Sahagun, L. (2012, April 07). Reforestation not taking hold in land burned by Station fire. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved  March 17, 2013. <http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/07/local/la-me-dead-trees-20120408>

Stein, S. M., Carr M. A., McRoberts, R. E., Mahal, L. G., & Comas, S. J. (2010). Threats to At-Risk Species in America’s Private Forests. USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station State and Private Forestry: General Technical Report NRS-73.

Stephens, S. L., & Ruth, L. W. (2005). Federal forest-fire policy in the United States. Ecological Applications, 15(2), 532-542.

Reference map for concerned Southern California area.

Digital Elevation Model of concerned area.  This can be used to determine fire spread around landscape features, and promising locations of fire lines and fuel clearing efforts.

This map depicts the spread of the Station Fire.  From 2:48 am on August 29th, to 12:39 am on September 2nd.  Notice the South-North, and West-East spreading pattern of the fire.

This map depicts the fire fighter stations near the Station Fire area. This is overlayed with a Digital Elevation Model, so as to facilitate easy fire management planning and strategizing.

This map is arguably most relevant to this essay. It depicts the critical biological ares in the region of the Station Fire, along with a DEM and the historic perimeter of the Station Fire.  It is to be used in planning fire prevention efforts, especially as far as preemptive burning of fire fuel is concerned.