This past winter, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) began preparing two Environmental Impact Statements to review the environmental of consequences creating a region-wide series of “fuel breaks” that will add thousands of miles of new linear non-sagebrush habitat across the Great Basin portion of Nevada, Idaho, Oregon and Utah.

The goal of fuel breaks is to reduce large wildfires in sagebrush habitat. Under natural conditions, sagebrush burns at 50-400 year intervals depending on the sagebrush type. However, the frequency of fires has increased, and the interval between wildfires has shortened. Wildfires are now one of the threats to the sagebrush ecosystem and dependent species like sage grouse.

Unfortunately, the creation of a massive network of linear pathways in the sagebrush steppe likely will not preclude large fires and will have serious impacts on sagebrush ecosystems.

Furthermore, this immense habitat degradation process is being done without any evidence that it is effective. Indeed, the BLM has admitted as much in a recent report where it concluded; “Despite the extensive use of fuel breaks in sagebrush landscapes, especially since the 1990s, the IRFMS-ASP points out that “no specific research within the sagebrush ecosystem has been conducted to evaluate their effectiveness”.

And like so many issues on public lands, one of the causes of large wildfires has to do with two factors that are off-limits for the BLM to consider.

One is climate change which the Trump administration denies is real. Yet there is abundant evidence that large wildfires are a direct consequence of warm, dry conditions.

The second factor leading to greater wildfire occurrence is livestock grazing. It’ s a bit nuanced, but livestock grazing facilitates the expansion of flammable exotic grasses like cheatgrass. Livestock enhances cheatgrass germination and survival by destroying biocrusts that cover undisturbed soils and alternatively weakening native bunchgrasses by chomping away at them, weakening their ability to compete against exotics like cheatgrass.

Because the BLM is prohibited from discussing the proximate factors contributing to larger wildfires, they are instead proposing measures to deal with the wildfires that are inevitable. This is somewhat analogous to medical doctors recommending radiation to treat a chain smoker’s lung cancer and never doing anything about the source of the cancer-cigarette smoking.

So, the BLM is stuck dealing with the symptoms of livestock grazing and climate change, rather than doing anything about these factors. I can predict that the proposal to build a series of fuel breaks throughout the Great Basin will ultimately fail to protect the sagebrush ecosystem and the many plants and animals that depend upon it, including sage grouse.

There are three major proposals for fuel breaks. One is to plant a strip of vegetation resistant to wildfire along roads. The most common species are either crested wheatgrass or kochia, both are non-native exotic plants from Asia. Unfortunately, over time, kochia and crested wheatgrass tend to spread into adjacent grasslands, thus directly competing with native bunchgrasses. Neither is particularly good forage for wildlife. Kochia tends to create sterile vegetation types with an understory of thorny bur-buttercup.

The second method is to bulldoze and herbicide a strip of land on either side of a road to kill all vegetation. This disturbance of soils enhances the spread of cheatgrass, so in effect, just creates a more burnable buffer zone. The elimination of native vegetation and the disturbance created by fuel breaks tend to enhance the spread of exotic weeds. One study in California found a 40% increase in exotic annuals along fuel breaks.

The third method discussed is targeted grazing. Targeted grazing is unlikely to be used widely in part because most ranchers are not interested in hauling their livestock out to graze a narrow strip of land and having to deal with keeping their animals confined to the targeted area. Not to mention that another obvious issue is that livestock enhances the spread of flammable cheat grass.

Another unmentioned issue with all of these fuel break strips is that ORVs like to ride them, and in the process disturb the soil and spread the seeds of weeds.

One problem with these “solutions” is that all large wildfires burn under what are termed “extreme fire weather conditions” which are characterized by high winds. With high winds, wildfires regularly jump 16 lane interstates or large rivers like the Columbia, so a narrow fuel break is not going to halt the advance of fires under extreme fire weather conditions. Wind easily throws embers as much as several miles ahead of a fire front, and the idea that fuel breaks a couple hundred feet wide will preclude fire spread under such conditions is delusional. Plus, it is suicidal for firefighters to be anywhere near a blaze occurring under such conditions.

In fact, a recent Dept of Interior report on fuel breaks admits as much concluding that “fire managers acknowledge that, under extreme fire weather conditions, fuel breaks are unlikely to adequately reduce fireline intensity, flame length, or rate of spread (Moriarty and others, 2016).”

Besides the fact that fuel breaks are unlikely to be successful in halting wind-driven blazes, there are many, many unintended negative consequences of such a proposal. Many wildlife species are impacted by such linear patterns with significant “edge effect” which result in habitat fragmentation.

For instance, snakes, frogs, amphibians, small mammals, and other wildlife are more vulnerable to predators in these open pathways. Indeed, there is evidence that coyotes, badgers, ravens, and other birds of prey regularly patrol linear fuel breaks and roads for that reason.  And ground-nesting songbirds suffer greater egg predation from mice that are favored by linear travel pathways created by fuel breaks.

Some wildlife, including sage grouse, avoid such linear lines of open terrain. One study documented a “functional” habitat loss for sage grouse up to a mile from the linear vegetation break. Therefore, a massive network of linear shrubbery removal programs can significantly reduce the habitat for these birds.

Linear features like powerlines, pipeline corridors and so forth have been shown to reduce nesting songbirds, and the smaller habitat patches of sagebrush are avoided by such species as pygmy rabbits which have been petitioned for endangered species status.  Plus, smaller sagebrush habitat patches are avoided by sage grouse.

So in the end, the sagebrush ecosystem and its associated wildlife will suffer significant ecological impoverishment as a result of fuel break creation, while at the same time, the effectiveness of fuel breaks in stopping wildfires burning under extreme fire weather conditions is acknowledged to be ineffective.

Worse for the American public is that the BLM and the current administration are refusing to deal with the two major causes of larger wildfires in the sagebrush ecosystem, namely domestic livestock grazing and climate change. Without acknowledging these factors and dealing with them, any proposals for fuel breaks will invariability fail.

 

 

Tagged with:
 
avatar
About The Author

George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide with a degree in wildlife biology

10 Responses to Proposed BLM Fuel Breaks Likely To Fail

  1. avatar Dave Nielsen says:

    Public Lands should be managed by State and County Government Agencies! The Federal Government Agencies usually follow the influence received from environmental special interest groups, and make decisions that do not benefit the citizens who own the public lands.

    • avatar Larry Keeney says:

      Dave, I am all for bringing back our native flora and fauna and make our prairies great again. Tell me how that will happen if I get on board your train.

    • avatar Patrick says:

      Sorry Dave, but states typically have a conflict of interest with regard to managing federal lands. They would open lands to the highest bidder, with little concern for other users. Local politicians are easily bought by local business interests.

      • avatar Gerry Small says:

        Exactly. But isn’t that the point?

        • avatar Patrick says:

          Jerry, I’m assuming you are replying to me. The answer is no, because folks trying to make money off of federal lands through resource extraction are not the only stakeholders, but selfishly consider themselves the only important ones. These are the moneyed interests that buy off local politicians to push their own agendas. Mind you, I’m not one of those folks that thinks federal lands should not be open to multi-use, but the way these lands have been used in the past has not been sustainable. We need to let many of these areas heal for awhile and then reconsider what is reasoned and reasonable use. This will mean some will not be able to make as money as they want, but what WILL happen is that other businesses will arise to take advantage of the increased wildlife abundance and diversity. Those towns that are creative in developing and marketing these opportunities will see more broadbased and sustained growth.

  2. avatar Barbara Warner says:

    Looks like another stupid plan by BLM that no true environmental organization would approve of .
    Thanks, George, for another excellent article with the facts that show the cause and affects. Am sharing it.

  3. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    “There are three major proposals for fuel breaks. One is to plant a strip of vegetation resistant to wildfire along roads. The most common species are either crested wheatgrass or kochia, both are non-native exotic plants from Asia.”

    WHY do these agencies keep doing this????? I just do not understand why they insist on planting non-native species. Aren’t there native plants that evolved for this type of environment? I had read once that the excuse the BLM or the Forest Service gave was they ‘didn’t have enough seeds’. If you came back with that kind of answer to your boss, you could be fired.

    Bureau of Land Meddling.

  4. Thank you for this intelligent and caring essay about the proposed system of fire breaks that will only prove ineffective and cause terrible ecological mayhem to so many plants and animals. This would be the thick-skulled way of “making work” but would be terribly stupid and destructive in the end. Let’s restore the natural world in all its great diversity of interbalanced species, not further butcher it alive!

  5. avatar M Black says:

    All that is required is to RETURN the WILD HORSES to their legally designated areas … the greatest natural fire-fighters available. Nothing removes the tinder scrub like they do. It would save millions of dollars and restore the natural ecology instead of interfering and meddling with unsuitable species. Why do stupid humans insist on re-inventing the wheel.

    • avatar Barbara Warner says:

      I agree with you , M Black. Instead of doing this the BLM wants to kill so many they will be on the verge of extinction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Calendar

May 2018
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: