Forest Fires

[GRTimberCO]

I was watching a show on Discovery Channel last night. I think it was call "Into the Firestorm" where they were documenting a couple/ three fire fighting crews i nthe central to north west. By all accounts this is an annual thing, the fires breaking out every summer into early fall. I have virtually NO perspective on this being from the Appalachians which is a completely different type of forest but my question is this to those of you closer to the situation and in the know:

What does the forestry service do to prevent these in the off season and if they don't, why don't they utilize management plans like controled burns and selective harvests?

 

[smokechase II]

why not

Three big reasons:
1) Public resistance to logging and laws/courts that are used to back that. (Also, wilderness areas by law do not allow harvesting etc.)
2) Budgets, (To take care of the entire Western US would be an Iraq level expense. Seriously! Remember the vast acreages and terrain difficulties in the Western States.)
3) Smoke intrusions, look we get more smoke from the fires than prescribed burning, but logic doesn't apply here.

It really is an eye opener to go the Southern States for the controlled burns there.

 

[BC_Logger]

here in BC they do a few things


1) Operational Fuel Management , removal of trees, low branches, needles, and woody debris

2) Prescribed Fire , fire fighting crew controlled fire to remove fuel

heres a link you might be interested in http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/protect/safety/pamphlets/FireSmart-BC4.pdf

its a manual that lists possible options on how to "fire safe' your property

 

[jrizman]

A big one is Thinning and fuels reduction projects, which are often litigated for several years before they actally are put inplace...

I have alot to say on the issue as i used to be a fire scientist and researcher in CO, but will leave my comments at bay.

also, fire used to be an integral component to the southern Apps, but suppression has ensued (as it has nation wide). We curretnly burn the Cherokee and also many areas in SC (longleaf pine needs fire to regenerate, as we find many oaks are regenerating when exposed to fire again).

 

[BIG JAKE]

A big one is Thinning and fuels reduction projects, which are often litigated for several years before they actally are put inplace...

Yep-tree huggers cause a lot of problems. The huggers consist of anyone attempting to manipulate sound forest management (I hope) without the proper knowledge.
In New Mexico roughly 21% of our state is forest land. Of that, over 60% is administered by the forest service. They do a number of things to control wildfires. A few of them are: controlled burns, thinning, timber harvesting. Some areas are clearcut and opened up as fuelwood areas, or they just open up areas for fuelwood and issue permits. I heard of an experimental project down in the Gila/Silver City area where the forest Service contracted goatherders to run herds of goats to eliminate brush in certain areas. So the Forest Service isn't just sitting around-unless there's litigation. They can't control drought cycles, wind, lightning, insect infestations like spruce budworm, or morons throwing cigarettes out the window etc. Some areas are inaccessible-way it goes. With all those variables they do the best they can-generally. Cerro Grande-never mind.
These days I hear they want to close many of the logging roads and limit access. That'll make it harder to harvest-thus, more fires. If you doubt that just remember Yellowstone-they couldn't stop the fires. My 2C

 

[fishhuntcutwood]

Forest fires aren't bad. They're natural, regardless of how they're started. In fact, alot of them are so much worse because of man putting them out and trying to prevent them in the years prior-the fuel builds and builds until it's a bomb ready to go off.

Intrusion into housing and urban areas needs to be controlled, but if 100,000 acres in the middle of Nevada wants to burn and it won't hurt anyone, let it. In fact, they often do.

Jeff

 

[GRTimberCO]

Over the weekend I read up on the 2002 Biscuit Fire and the subsequent Donato- Law study paper that was written about the salvage logging following that fire. Apparently Forestry is not so much big business as it is big politics in the NW. If you haven't read about it go to http://www.evergreenmagazine.com/index2.html and at least read the first few pages of the article. It's pretty eye opening.

 

[smokechase II]

salvage logging and fire risk

A couple things to be aware of in most any analysis of post logging fire risk.

1) There will almost always be an increase in fire risk short term with slash on the ground. Expect that slash to be there for one to two fire seasons if the sale is properly administered.
2) If that slash is not treated, the risk will be there for a long time.
3) If the fire killed plants are not salvage logged in some reasonable manner, there will be a delayed increase in the fire risk to the area when the trees start coming down that will generally exceed the risk posed in the first two points above. This delayed, no action taken, fire risk will vary in different geographic settings. The wet Oregon Coast will typically see major problems starting again in just 5 years. The drier Rockies might have their problems arise in 10-20 years and then they last until rot or more likely, fire does its thing.

1 & 2) Limb and top slash on the ground needs to be treated. Where the logging slash isn't cleaned up it also presents substantial long term concerns and deserves to be targeted by studies like Donato's. Where the USFS was proposing no slash treatment on Biscuit, it got nailed by this study.
3) Our big fires are rarely one cycle. Usually they are three events. First an insect or disease kill, then the first fire and later a second fire as all the trees killed earlier fall on the ground, (with much of their limb and top slash), and then burn hot enough to do soil sterilization etc.

The big fires like the Tillamook burns, 1910 fires of the big blow up were the first fire. They all had follow-ups.

Why, I was on the silver fire in 87 that was the fire before that gave the biscuit fire its place to shine.

What we need is a lot of acres burned lower intensity. To do this we need to be lowering the risk of a catastrophic wildfire. Then allow as many fires as we can under WFU teams (Wildfire Use Teams) or prescribed burning.

 

[jrizman]

its not always the huggers that create problems, there are many folks who object to any management on the national forest system.

I guess we should just let invasives take over. we should also let fuels build up to incredible levels then when everything is nuked cause the fire is too severe to deal with, we can just pave everything. then we can use roundup to get any living thing in the cracks. then everything will be great!

 

[smokechase II]

more photos

some more slash treatment and prescribed fire photos