New Age Forestry?
December 19, 2002 The Idaho Statesman
Prescribed fire is an effective forest management tool by Dave Rittenhouse When the Western governors signed their fire management implementation strategy just outside Idaho City, it was in a beautiful grove of large ponderosa pine adjacent to a completed prescribed fire. Their strategy, and other related policies clearly exemplify both the challenge and opportunity to implement an understood and accepted fire management program. After seven years as supervisor of the Boise National Forest, I have appreciated the never-ending complexities of natural resource management. One problem is certain. Within this national forest, about 40 percent of the ponderosa pine forest has burned in the past 15 years with uncharacteristic intensity. The costs of suppression and emergency watershed rehabilitation exceeded $100 million. We clearly have an issue. More importantly we have an opportunity. We live within fire-adapted ecosystems. We know historically that in ponderosa pine forests, low-intensity, frequent fire removed brush and small trees and increased nutrients. Today they are dominated by dense vegetation and burn more intensely. Tools like thinning and prescribed fire can help return them to more historical — and healthy — conditions. Several programs are occurring to accomplish this goal: • Completed in 1996, a “hazard risk” assessment to recognize the potential for large severe wildfires and the consequences of disturbance to the entire ecosystem. This assessment told us where to focus time and energy. • A significantly increased prescribed fire program, completing nearly 60,000 acres within the past 10 years to strategically restore the natural role of fire under controlled conditions. • Emphasized fuel hazard reduction near eight communities and rural intermix sites, with the use of prescribed fire and mechanized treatments. • Enhanced work with partners, including the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Department of Lands and rural fire fighting departments, for both fire suppression and fuel reduction. • Four stewardship pilot programs, which exchange goods for services and build collaborative relationships. Prescribed fire is one of our key management tools because we decide where and when to burn, thereby limiting smoke, resource damage and threats to life and property. Eventually some “natural” fire will be used, but only through careful planning. Letting all wildfires burn is both irresponsible and unwise due to current unhealthy forest conditions. Selectively removing primarily small to mid-size trees is another successful fuels reduction method, used in combination with prescribed fire. This activity is increasing. By thinning first, a prescribed fire minimizes damage to residual trees. If we focus on whatīs left behind those beautiful large pine trees can be saved. I foresee the Forest Service continuing to implement an integrated watershed approach, mixing wildland urban interface with larger watershed restoration projects by utilizing small diameter and commercial tree removal, and prescribed fire. Some thinning projects may need additional funding to pay contractors to complete projects. Whatever the tools, whether thinning, prescribed fire, timber sales or stewardship contracts, my hope is that public conversation will focus on the end result of having a forest that can sustain fire and maintain healthy watersheds. Warm Springs Ridge, a 13,000-acre site halfway between Boise and Idaho City, exemplifies the mix of fuel reduction activities to produce more resilient conditions. Small and mid-sized fire-sensitive trees are being removed through a commercial timber harvest that retains larger ponderosa pine. Prescribed fire, thinning and fuel breaks are also being used. This is a perfect example of “progressive” forest management practices tied to fuel reduction. Near Yellow Pine, the community, Idaho Department of Lands, and the Boise and Payette national forests have thinned and stacked smaller trees for later burning. Private citizens cleared fuels from their property. Although there isnīt yet a dependable market for the small-diameter wood, small businesses and other entities are working hard on promising ideas. The Boise National Forest is quietly completing the very work thatīs being discussed. And itīs working. Comment by poster: Some interesting stuff from one of my old Ranger Districts. A pal I worked with in South Carolina just signed on with the Boise National Forest there and is in charge of parts of the silviculture department in Idaho City. Since the massive 200,000 acre Rabbit Creek burn in 1995, Idaho City and the Boise NF have been pushing for some kind of "sensible fuels management" and it looks like they're implementing it now. However, It's not a new idea and I have been pushing it for 10 years. Everyone wants fire resistance in our forests but don't see the bigger picture of drought resistance. They often go hand in hand and should be linked in the treatments. A drought resistant forest should also be fire resistant when treatments are complete. Larry eco-forestry rules! |
New Age Forestry?
Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article , writes: However, It's not a new idea and I have been pushing it for 10 years. Everyone wants fire resistance in our forests but don't see the bigger picture of drought resistance. They often go hand in hand and should be linked in the treatments. A drought resistant forest should also be fire resistant when treatments are complete. I have been wondering how the general public is going to accept all the smoke. If they want to minimize fuel loading they are going to have to burn pretty frequently, particularly if there are some really flush years that cause heavy fuel buildup, if there is a windstorm that puts a lot of fuel on the ground, or an ice storm that does the same. They may be able to burn some sites on a 20 year rotation, but I bet lots of sites require a 10 year burn cycle. The cool fires they want are also the ones that generate the most particulates and partial combustion products. If you do a controlled burn on 10% of the forests in Oregon and Washington, you would be smelling the smoke in Iowa! I don't think they have come to the realization that burning that much forest would pollute the airshed for the entire North American continent. Total agreement here. The smoke issue has been quite on the front burner, so to speak. The smoke from fires in the Lake Tahoe basin has been bothering people for years. So much that they even proposed doing some summer burning there until Los Alamos squelched that one. Cool burns are the kind wanted by those who inacted the Sierra Nevada Framework but that where it's fatal flaw has always been. How do you burn small portions of a huge pile of kindling without losing the whole thing? The public hates smoke when it's from wildfires but complain loudly when it controlled burning in their "back yard". The Regional Forester hasn't yet amended the Sierra Nevada Framework to adjust the amount of fuels removal and to reduce the massive amounts of burning that was mandated by the SNF. Larry |
New Age Forestry?
(Larry Harrell) wrote in message . com...
[snip] Comment by poster: Some interesting stuff from one of my old Ranger Districts. A pal I worked with in South Carolina just signed on with the Boise National Forest there and is in charge of parts of the silviculture department in Idaho City. Since the massive 200,000 acre Rabbit Creek burn in 1995, Idaho City and the Boise NF have been pushing for some kind of "sensible fuels management" and it looks like they're implementing it now. However, It's not a new idea and I have been pushing it for 10 years. Everyone wants fire resistance in our forests but don't see the bigger picture of drought resistance. They often go hand in hand and should be linked in the treatments. A drought resistant forest should also be fire resistant when treatments are complete. I certainly agree with the bulk of your post, Larry. The one thing that I would take exception to is the very last statement: "A drought resistant forest should also be fire resistant when treatments are complete." The only completely fire-proof forests is one without trees. That may be one reason why fire is such an important part of forest management. I agree completely that thinning forests is a good and necessary thing. But it is always an on-going operation. Most western forests west of the Cascades at least need to have several cords (or the equivalent) removed each year as the forest matures. Removing this biomass at 10 year intervals may (or may not) harm the forest by introducing parasitic fungi via the treads of the thinning machinery commonly used. Odd thing about forestry: it's just not as sterile as most people think. And I've yet to see a sterile forest (thank God!). Daniel B. Wheeler www.oregonwhitetruffles.com |
New Age Forestry?
(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message . com...
(Larry Harrell) wrote in message . com... [snip] Comment by poster: Some interesting stuff from one of my old Ranger Districts. A pal I worked with in South Carolina just signed on with the Boise National Forest there and is in charge of parts of the silviculture department in Idaho City. Since the massive 200,000 acre Rabbit Creek burn in 1995, Idaho City and the Boise NF have been pushing for some kind of "sensible fuels management" and it looks like they're implementing it now. However, It's not a new idea and I have been pushing it for 10 years. Everyone wants fire resistance in our forests but don't see the bigger picture of drought resistance. They often go hand in hand and should be linked in the treatments. A drought resistant forest should also be fire resistant when treatments are complete. I certainly agree with the bulk of your post, Larry. The one thing that I would take exception to is the very last statement: "A drought resistant forest should also be fire resistant when treatments are complete." The only completely fire-proof forests is one without trees. That may be one reason why fire is such an important part of forest management. You answered yourself, Daniel. I was very careful to use "resistant" instead of "proof". Fires and droughts are inevitable, like the the sun, wind and rain. Shouldn't we be planning for them instead of bemoaning our "luck" at such a "bad" fire season or? I agree completely that thinning forests is a good and necessary thing. But it is always an on-going operation. Most western forests west of the Cascades at least need to have several cords (or the equivalent) removed each year as the forest matures. Removing this biomass at 10 year intervals may (or may not) harm the forest by introducing parasitic fungi via the treads of the thinning machinery commonly used. Odd thing about forestry: it's just not as sterile as most people think. And I've yet to see a sterile forest (thank God!). Daniel B. Wheeler www.oregonwhitetruffles.com Maybe we'll need to "sterilize" logging equipment in the future. Brings a new twist on the term "surgical logging", doesn't it? Larry |
New Age Forestry?
(Larry Harrell) wrote in message . com...
(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message . com... (Larry Harrell) wrote in message . com... [snip] Comment by poster: Some interesting stuff from one of my old Ranger Districts. A pal I worked with in South Carolina just signed on with the Boise National Forest there and is in charge of parts of the silviculture department in Idaho City. Since the massive 200,000 acre Rabbit Creek burn in 1995, Idaho City and the Boise NF have been pushing for some kind of "sensible fuels management" and it looks like they're implementing it now. However, It's not a new idea and I have been pushing it for 10 years. Everyone wants fire resistance in our forests but don't see the bigger picture of drought resistance. They often go hand in hand and should be linked in the treatments. A drought resistant forest should also be fire resistant when treatments are complete. I certainly agree with the bulk of your post, Larry. The one thing that I would take exception to is the very last statement: "A drought resistant forest should also be fire resistant when treatments are complete." The only completely fire-proof forests is one without trees. That may be one reason why fire is such an important part of forest management. You answered yourself, Daniel. I was very careful to use "resistant" instead of "proof". Fires and droughts are inevitable, like the the sun, wind and rain. Shouldn't we be planning for them instead of bemoaning our "luck" at such a "bad" fire season or? Well, since "fires and droughts are inevitable" the cheapest response is no response. Somebody who's foolish enough to site their dream house within a few miles of these beautiful forests should be responsible for their own safety and building fire-proof houses. I'm sure that will go over well with the newly affluent. The rest of us, who depend on the forests for water, will just need to spend more to safeguard that resource. I agree completely that thinning forests is a good and necessary thing. But it is always an on-going operation. Most western forests west of the Cascades at least need to have several cords (or the equivalent) removed each year as the forest matures. Removing this biomass at 10 year intervals may (or may not) harm the forest by introducing parasitic fungi via the treads of the thinning machinery commonly used. Odd thing about forestry: it's just not as sterile as most people think. And I've yet to see a sterile forest (thank God!). Daniel B. Wheeler www.oregonwhitetruffles.com Maybe we'll need to "sterilize" logging equipment in the future. Brings a new twist on the term "surgical logging", doesn't it? Surgical logging? Isn't that an oxymoron? "Surgical" logging techniques are probably responsible for dispersing the cedar blight which has already killed much of the Port Orford cedar, and may cause its extinction shortly. (But the blight was introduced from nursery stock originating in Japan.) Similarly, Sudden Oak Death may well have been introduced by imported rhododendrons which had already been infected. Rhododendrons are relatively unaffected by the disease. But northern California oak are not. Lack of these organisms may well have a greater impact on American forestry than any other aspect, including endangered species. Daniel B. Wheeler www.oregonwhitetruffles.com |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter