August 27, 2023

The Essential Ingredients of the Most Destructive Wildfires: Wind and Grass

When many people think of wildfires, they often first visualize a forest fire.

And when the media and politicians talk of wildfires, they usually hone in on drought and climate change as the cause.

But if one is interested in the wildfires that kill and injure the most people, or wildfires that do the most economic damage, forests and drought are not the key factors.

In reality, it is grass and wind, which can produce rapidly expanding grass/range fires that have resulted in billions of dollars of loss and the deaths of many hundreds of individuals.

As described below, grass/range fires are the main threat to humanity.  And there is much we can do to reduce the terrible impacts of these events using the best science, technology, and land management. 


Note: The term rangeland includes tallgrass prairies, steppes (shortgrass prairies), desert shrublands, woodlands of small shrubs, savannas, chaparrals, and tundra landscapes.   Such vegetation often desiccates during the warm season (or under temporarily dry conditions).

Some Examples of Major Grass/Rangeland and Wind Fires
  • The 2023 Maui wildfire in which 60-90 mph winds descended the West Maui mountains and resulted in electrical fires that spread through fields of flammable grasses into Lahaina.  Over 100 lost their lives, with billions of dollars of direct and indirect loss.
  • The 2018 Camp Fire that destroyed the town of Paradise, California, resulted in 85 deaths and over 16 billion dollars of damage.  Strong winds descending the Sierra Nevada caused electrical fires that spread on grass/range vegetation (and some trees) rapidly toward the town, with little warning.
  • The 2022 Marshall Fire, when strong winds descended the Colorado Front Range, pushing a grassfire into Superior Colorado, killing two and destroying over 1000 homes.  Damage is estimated to exceed two billion dollars.
  • The September 2020 Malden (WA) Fire, in which powerful northerly winds resulted in sparks from the broken powerline that ignited range vegetation that surged into Malden, destroying most of the town.
  • The October 1991 Tunnel Fire, in which strong easterly flow resulted in a grass/range fire that destroyed nearly 3000 homes and killed 25 near Oakland, CA. 3-5 billion dollars in damage.
The Marshall Fire Burned Through Grass into Superior, CO. Picture courtesy of Tristantech.

The largest fires this spring/summer in Washington State were grass/range fires (see map for eastern WA).


I could provide you with dozens of other examples, but the message is clear:  the overwhelming majority of wildfire deaths and the bulk of the economic loss from wildfires are associated with grass/range vegetation and strong winds.

Grass and Range Fires

Grass and range fires occur in light fuels: grasses, small bushes, and the like.   They often go through a distinct seasonal cycle:  greening up during the cool/wetter winter and then drying out, with the foilage above the surface dying (see picture above).

Grasses and small vegetation (less than 0.25 inches) are 1-hr fuels, which means they can dry out within roughly an hour.  Small bushes are 10-hr fuels.

The fact that such vegetation can dry out very quickly under the right conditions (no precipitation, lower humidity, strong winds), means the previous weather/climate conditions are of minimal importance. 

Even if it rained the day before, they can rapidly dry out to support fire.   Particularly, with strong, dry winds, these light fuels will be ready to burn quickly.   So prior "drought" in the weeks or months before is pretty much immaterial.

What can increase the risk of range and grass fires is above-normal precipitation during the previous spring and winter, which results in more bountiful grass growth.  Thus, drought the previous winter would REDUCE wildfire threat,  a subtlety absent from most media stories.

Rangeland in Hawaii. Picture courtesy of Aaron Yoshino

Wind and Grass/Rangeland

Wind plays a huge role in grass/rangeland fires.  Once the fires are started, strong winds provide huge amounts of oxygen for the fire, and rapidly push the fire forward by moving hot embers and superheated air ahead of the flame front.

Wind can also help dry the light fuels, by greatly enhancing evaporation.   Dry winds are particularly good at very quickly drying grass fuels.     

This is why strong downslope winds are the absolute worst situation.   As the air descends and accelerates down the slope, it is warmed by compression, and the relative humidity plummets.

Thus, many of the great wildfire disasters (Maui, Marshall fire in Colorado, Camp Fire west of the Sierra Nevada) are associated with downslope windstorms.


It is important to note that there is no evidence that winds are increasing or downslope windstorms are becoming more frequeny due to climate change.  In fact, the opposite is suggested on the West Coast, where substantial research suggests that warm/dry easterly flow down the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades will WEAKEN under global warming.

The Grassland/Range Wildfire Situation is Getting Worse--And it is NOT Because of Climate Change

Grass/range wildfires driven by wind have always been serious threats, but deaths and damage from them are increasing. Climate change is not the reason.

First, much of the western U.S. and Hawaii have been invaded by non-native, invasive, and highly flammable grasses.  One of the worst is cheatgrass, which is now found extensively around the nation (see map).


In Hawaii, invasive, flammable grasses have invaded agricultural lands that have been abandoned during the past few decades, resulting in huge flammable areas next to densely populated areas (see map below)


But the increase of vast areas of flammable vegetation is only part of the problem.

Increased population has resulted in far more powerlines, which are providing a potent ignition source of fire when winds are strong.
And increasing population near and in grasslands has resulted in hugely increased vulnerability to grass/range fires.

Finally, increasing grassland/range fires also results in increased forest fires, because grassland and forest are often adjacent and intermixed, and grasses/shrubs extend into forest areas.  Grass/range fires can move into forest areas, where the fire can ascend into canopies through a variety of ladder fuels.


Dealing with the Threat of Grass/Range Wildfires

There is much we can do to lessen the threat of grass/range wildfires.   We can save many lives and greatly lessen the damage from such fires.  

But to do so requires that society deals with the real origins of the problem and attack the problem in a rational, science-based way.  In this final section, I will describe some approaches that can help.

Use Weather Prediction and Fuels Information Better

During the past decade, the ability of high-resolution weather forecast models to predict the conditions associated with wind-driven grass fires has gotten stunningly good, specific in both time and space.  But this valuable information is often not effectively applied

For example, numerical prediction models clearly forecast the extreme winds and low relative humidity associated with the Maui fire (see my previous blog on this).  But little of the extreme threat near Lahaina was communicated.

In addition, satellite-based observations coupled with machine learning now provide real-time maps of where range-grass fuels are available in dangerous quantities (see the wonderful USDA Fuelcast site graphic below)


By putting the two data sources together (predicted winds and available dry fuel), we can provide very timely warning of wildfire threats.

Let me be very concrete here.   Wildfire Prediction Centers should be established for Hawaii, Alaska, and the lower 48 states to provide such guidance, as well as to interact with local authorities and power companies.  

The National Weather Service and other agencies must become much more aggressive in providing specific and timely warnings of this threat.

Deal with the Electrical Infrastructure Problem Through De-Energizing and Hardening Powerlines

Let's be frank.  Many of the most deadly and destructive grass/range fires have been caused by failing powerlines, which cause sparking that easily ignites the "kindling" of dry grass/range vegetation. 

In many areas, power infrastructure needs extensive and expensive remediation. 

Until we can harden the current power infrastructure, much more aggressive de-energization of powerlines is required.   Fortunately, high-resolution weather prediction and knowledge of the state of the surface fuels can allow such power shut-offs to be limited in time and space.



Creating Fire Breaks around Range/Grassland Areas Near Populated Regions, Reducing Grass Load.

Firebreaks can be created near population centers, and grazing animals and mechanical cutting can be used to reduce fuel density, among other steps.

Improved Construction in Dangerous Areas

As clearly shown by the Maui, Marshal, and Camp Fires, homes and buildings take over as a fuel source as grass/range wildfires reach urban areas.  Non-flammable roofs, screens to prevent invasion of firebrands/embers, removing vegetation near buildings, and other steps can make a huge difference.  The lone house to survive in Maui was a stark illustration of the ability to reduce risk.



The Bottom Line:   Grass/range fires are the major cause of wildfire deaths and economic loss in the U.S.   Such fires generally result from seasonally dry fuels and strong winds. Since the dry fuels can be monitored and the winds skillfully predicted, the potential for large and rapidly expanding grass/range wildfires can be forecast in advance with some skill.   Climate change has little to do with such grass/range fires.  Many steps can be taken to reduce the grass/range wildfire risk.

28 comments:

  1. As a professional forester, you nailed it.

    There are fewer homes in forested areas than in the transition zone from grass/brush to forest. In Washington state, the most devastating fires have been in the shrub-steppe transition zone. We have had a "epidemic of trees" in the last 80 years, but also the bio-mass in the shrub-steppe lands has increased dramatically as well.

    Foresters are focused on trees, and they are responsible for much of the fire suppression efforts nation-wide. The agencies responsible for wildland fire efforts are run by foresters and they focus on trees.

    I pointed this out to a DNR employee on a "forest" fire and he noted that DNR contracts OUT their shrub-steppe fire fighting efforts to local fire districts. Worse yet, the expertise in these areas is fragmented between Federal, state and county resources.

    The Feds are a minor presence as it the state in the shrub-steppe habitats, and the locals are focused on fire fighting instead of prevention.

    The bio-mass accumulation (epidemic of trees) occurs in this ecosystem as well.

    Worse yet, fire prevention is much, much simpler in the shrub-steppe habitat. I pay close to $200 a year in property taxes in Wenatchee for "flood" prevention projects.

    My house is not going to flood. But every other year, I get an evacuation notice for fires from Chelan County.

    Maybe we need to have fire prevention districts.just like we have flood control districts?? I did mention this to a Chelan County Commissioner in a private discussion.

    Folks really have a hard time wrapping their heads around a "fire prevention district", but in eastern Washington it makes more sense than all those "flood" control districts that my tax dollars are funding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Local fire districts can and should focus their efforts on fire prevention as it relates to wildland fires, and many do. Adopting wildland/interface codes and firewise property mitigation should be the focus in the future.

      Delete
    2. You do have a ‘fire prevention’ district. Reach out to your local conservation district and there is a wildfire expert there. Look up Wenatchee CD. Your tax dollars support the district.

      Delete
    3. No I don't have a "fire prevention district". I have a fire fighting district. I have a conservation district.

      BUT I do not have a local government agency that can plan for and reduce fire hazard on private land like a flood control district. My house will be burned down by my neighbors "old-growth" sage. It is not a priority for them. There is NOBODY to order them to remove the fire hazard.

      I would be fine with a "fire protection district" modeled on a flood control district. Manage the vegetation to reduce the fire hazard. Pay for it with tax just like we pay for flood control districts.

      Managing the vegetation means that the loss of homes goes down A LOT. SIGNIFICANTLY. It is worth the little money spent on vegetation management.

      Planning is fairly simple. The tough part is getting private landowners to agree to allow the local government to reduce fire hazard on their lands.

      Delete
  2. It seems like no one wants to be accountable or take the hard steps to actually solve these problems. It's much easier to blame " climate change " and bury head in the sand.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another great, science based, accurate, sensible, non-scare-tactic post! Thank you! Politicians and media create "chaos" and target "emotions around this issue to get folks to "vote" for them, give money to them, earn clicks, and focus on nonsense ways of dealing w the problem.
    I think we all agree humans contribute to global warming. But we need to be practical and scienceable :) about it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But there is a correlation between the Palmer Drought Index and the size of fires: " the relationship was quantified between the self-calibrated Palmer Drought Severity Index (sc-PDSI) and wildfire burn area (BA) in California during the time of 1984–2018, and results indicate that the drought is a significant driver of wildfire BA in California."
    International Journal of Wildland Fire 31(3) 230-239 March 2022.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that study uses MONTHLY average conditions...which is a proxy for time of the year.....a real problem with that study

      Delete
  5. Cliff...I hope to see a post tomorrow on the thunderstorm potential.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree...let's get back to addressing the local weather changes about to happen.

      Delete
    2. Yes- as of today (Monday) the rain has been pretty pitiful so far. Where's the beef?

      Delete
  6. Two fires in WA State with grass and Ponderosa forest - - the Dry Side.

    https://wildfiretoday.com/2012/08/15/taylor-bridge-fire-burns-60-homes-in-washington/

    https://www.dailyrecordnews.com/snag-canyon-fire-aug-4/image_7189b814-1cae-11e4-8799-001a4bcf887a.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your statement discussing the need to harden structures reminded me of a doc I saw last year regarding the devastating Paradise fires, and how almost every home was destroyed - except for the home of the former fire chief. He had taken the necessary steps to prevent fire from taking his home - clearing all of the brush from his property, trimming the trees so that none of the branches were likely to contribute to igniting the flames onto his home, etc. He also hosed down his roof before he evacuated, something that we saw was also effective during the Maui fire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John, I believe you missed my central point (as well as Cliff's) - fire mitigation and prevention strategies can and should involve all property owners. As for his house being worthless, far from it - in fact, Paradise is in the ongoing process of being rebuilt, albeit with more hardened homes for the future.
      https://news.caloes.ca.gov/four-years-later-paradise-residents-continue-to-return-home/
      Ergo, the house left standing will indeed be worth more than before. Why you chose to focus on an unproven negative take is for you to ponder.

      Delete
  8. I agree. We should grow the National Weather Service and nationalize our energy sector. This is the only way to protect lives and property, and to remove the profit imperative acting in contradiction to those priorities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nationalize our energy sector? What's your plan for that? Government hasn't been doing a good job, sure give them more power. Bound to help, HA!

      Delete
  9. In this YouTube video, Washington Governor Jay Inslee blames climate change for two large wildfires which burned large portions of grassland and forestland last week near Spokane, Washington.

    Washington Governor Discusses Destructive Wildfires in Spokane County

    "The beast is at the door", Governor Inslee said in blaming climate change for the two Spokane County wildfires. He has repeated this meme some number of times in his years as a climate activist Washington Governor and sometime candidate for President of the United States.

    In the video, Governor Inslee claims that the main solution to preventing large wildfires in the future is for the world to decarbonize. In the meantime, he advocates that greater resources be devoted to fighting wildfires once they begin.

    Little or nothing is said about taking the proactive measures in rangeland management, in forestland management, in weather prediction, in proactive emergency preparedness, in building codes, and in home protection which Cliff Mass and rational science say are necessary for dealing with the increasing risks of wildfires to an expanding human presence on the edges of our grasslands and forestlands.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree that grass/brush fires combined with strong winds are increasingly posing more threat to people and structures, especially since they are building more in these danger zones. However, to state that grass fires have historically caused the most deaths and economic costs is a bit of a stretch. The Peshtigo fire in 1871 which caused at least 1500 deaths and the Hickley fire in 1894 (over 400 deaths) were forest fires in the northern mid-west. Closer to home, the 1902 Yacolt fire (65 deaths) and the huge 1910 Idaho fires(87 deaths) were forest fires. These along with the later Tillamook fires, and several other large forest fires of the 1920s and 1930s resulted in a huge economic loss in valuable timber.
    I think you also downplay the roll that longer term drought conditions played in the grass fires you mentioned above. The Marshall fire in Colorado was fueled by a wet spring but was followed by several months of very dry weather right up to its start. The Camp and Tunnel fires both were preceded by extended drought and the Camp fire also had quite a bit of forest associated with it. In Washington state, the 2020 Malden fire and the two large grass fires of this year were all preceded by extended warm, dry periods. I do not recall any recent large grass fires in Eastern Washington that were not preceded by extended warm, dry periods.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To all that live in western Washington- please consult with your local county conservation district to learn how to be ‘fire wise.’

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bennett said in a comment above: "I agree. We should grow the National Weather Service and nationalize our energy sector. This is the only way to protect lives and property, and to remove the profit imperative acting in contradiction to those priorities."
    -------------

    Those who want America transformed into a fully socialized nation running under a centrally-planned command-driven national economy have the means to accomplish to this goal by gaining direct control of all forms of energy, the lifeblood of any capitalistic economy.

    President Biden is now under strong pressure from climate activists to declare a national climate emergency in response to the wildfire disaster on the island of Maui in Hawaii.

    In light of recent events, let's ask an important question ..... how far could the Biden administration go in quickly reducing America’s consumption of fossil fuels using presidential authorities already granted to the Executive Branch under current law?

    Here is a link to a long essay I've posted on WUWT which uses the conceptual framework of the 'Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP)' as a vehicle for examining this question in considerable depth.

    The Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP): a fast track approach for eliminating fossil fuels from America’s economy

    The conceptual framework of the SSCECP combines national security law with environmental protection law in ways which make the combination greater than the sum of its individual parts.

    Under this conceptual plan, the United States would be consuming roughly two-thirds as much energy by the year 2030 as we consume today in the year 2023, and possibly only one-third as much energy by the year 2050.

    Using a plan like the SSCECP, the Biden administration could greatly accelerate an already embedded process of transforming America into a fully socialized nation running under a centrally-planned command-driven national economy.

    The risk of severe political blowback is all that keeps President Biden and his people from moving just as far and as fast as current law would allow them to go in suppressing America's carbon emissions.

    It's my personal opinion that if the Biden adminstration is in office in 2025, the climate activists inside that administration will be tempted to throw all political caution to the winds and go full bore in using climate change as a justification for completely transforming both American society and America's economy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Im curious, is this a plan you support?

      Delete
    2. Caroline: "Im curious, is this a plan you support?"
      ------------

      My essay doesn't advocate for adoption of the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP). I myself as the plan's author don't advocate for its adoption.

      Rather, my essay uses the conceptual framework of the SSCECP as a vehicle for examining in great depth the question of how far Joe Biden could go in quickly reducing America’s consumption of fossil fuels using his own authorities as President.

      Let's all recognize that Joe Biden himself makes no decisions. He is the outward facing spokesman for the people behind the scenes who actually do make of all his administration's decisions and who determine the policies he advocates publicly.

      My essay offers a clear warning of what might happen if climate activists begin using the full power of the federal government in pushing their agenda, an agenda which goes well beyond simply responding to the alleged dangers of climate change.

      Moreover, the essay describes in great detail just how it could be done without new legislation from the Congress.

      Energy policy wonks — who by nature don't mind reading lots of technical policy detail verbiage — will get a lot out of the essay. Others who are new to the topic will find it very difficult reading. There is no way to avoid this problem given that the essay is directed primarily at public policy professionals in academia and in government.

      It is my assumption that many of the various parts and pieces of the SSCECP concept have already been discussed and analyzed by the bureaucrats who run each particular department and agency inside the federal government, those who might have a direct interest in their particular area of regulatory power and responsibility.

      What most probably has not been discussed and analyzed, at least not yet, is how to fully integrate those various parts and pieces in a way which combines national security law and practice with environmental regulation law and practice.

      These people are smart. Combining national security law with environmental law is the next logical step for them to be taking.

      The result of that combination would be a highly unified and effective approach for quickly reducing America’s carbon emissions, a combination which is greater than the sum of its parts. And also very highly coercive in its method and approach.

      Inside the essay itself, the reasons why I’ve authored the SSCECP are stated under GENERAL REMARKS.

      What one discovers working in the nuclear industry is that the cross-currents of government oversight and regulation can be mind boggling. Dealing with those regulations, and with the people who write and enforce those regulations, is both an art and a science.

      If you are working on the industry side of the federal regulatory equation, your radar antenna must always be on the lookout for what might be coming at you on the regulatory horizon.

      The climate activists inside the Biden administration haven’t gone nearly as far as they might go in weaponizing the regulatory powers of the federal government against the free market system. Not yet, anyway.

      Here in the year 2023, the risk of severe political blowback is all that prevents these people from moving full speed ahead.

      If a second-term Biden administration is in the White House in 2025 — something which cannot be discounted at this point — the people who call the shots behind the scenes might be tempted to throw all political caution to the winds and put their vision for a fully socialized command-driven American economy on a fast track for completion.

      A plan like the SSCECP would be the perfect means for quickly ending free market capitalism in America and for imposing a WEF style socio-political philosophy on America's economy and on American society in general. One ignores this possibility at one’s own peril.

      Delete
    3. Thank you. I have seen you reference this on WUWT and just haven't read the entire thing. I agree with your general conclusions. Appreciate your efforts to educate.

      Delete
    4. Caroline, from an academic perspective, the SSCECP as presented in the essay starts at the top at a simpler level of detail and then moves down in stages adding more complex detail as it adds sections. Policy wonk academics will quickly recognize the method of its organization and presentation.

      From a policy substance perspective, the breadth and depth of the material which undelies the SSCECP could easily fill a graduate level course in command economics of the kind that was implemented in World War II. A latter day Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith would quickly grasp the approach to central planning which is at the heart of the SSCECP concept.

      President Biden's ambitious Net Zero targets cannot be achieved without imposing a highly coercive system of energy rationing on the America people.

      Dr. Galbraith, who was employed by the Roosevelt administration in World War II in the area of price controls, noted in an interview some years ago that the public's compliance with the federal government's rationing programs in WWII was generally good, with one notable exception. People would sell their first born child for a tank of gasoline.

      Delete
  13. Perhaps Washington DOT needs to take a look at grasses along the shoulders and medians of highways. Highway 3 in Kitsap is an ugly blight of burned up snags, brush and ground. Some of the fires almost took out structures. This seems like a fault of DOT at this point, and not just morons tossing cig butts out car windows or broken glass turning into magnifying glasses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WSDOT is really a disgrace. Washington needs to step up their infrastructure game. Some of the worst highways in the nation. Plenty of dead fuels along many highways. SR 167 and SR 18 is notable in the King County area. Brush fires have started around these areas before.

      Delete
  14. Wind, dry one-hour fuels, low RH and an ignition source is all it takes to create a fire maelstrom. Virtually every disaster you mentioned started with a combination of those factors, then you simply add the urban interface and bingo! Homes surrounded by dry grass are time bombs if given the right conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Back in the olden days your insurance agent would come out every few years to evaluate my parents' house. Now computers seem to run everything. I have never had an insurance agent look at anything. A non-profit run by all property insurance companies should be assessing neighborhoods. The run-on effect of this would be to enable local governments to require homeowners to take steps to protect the rest of the neighborhood. Much of Long Beach Peninsula is threatened by runaway 25(?) year old shore pines. Friends there realize they would have no choice but to run for their lives if a major fire broke out.

    ReplyDelete

Please make sure your comments are civil. Name calling and personal attacks are not appropriate.