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 what´s 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 isn´t 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 that´s
being discussed.

And it´s 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!

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.


--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

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

(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

(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

(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