Restoring a hardwood forest

[pistol pete]

In my little town, we have an old park that was dedicated as a nature park, 50 years ago or so. Around the end of the 90's, the park saw a downturn in usage. Since then, the park has become mostly unused. Many of the large trees have died, and are now laying on the forest floor or waiting to fall. Underbrush has grown up in most of the park, and has taken over where large trees have fallen. The fuel load on the forest floor is extreme, and I fear that a wildfire would devastate the remaining mature trees.

I have taken upon myself, to restore the park. My plan is to move the deadwood into large piles and reduce the amount of underbrush. After we reduce the fuel load, we will move fuel away from mature trees, and control burn the park. I then plan to raise money, for planting new trees.

I expect resistance, from those that believe the park should remain untouched. What I need are good arguments to convince the townspeople, that this is healthy for the park. I have been doing research on forest health, and the impact of suppressing wildfire. All my research will back up my plans, but how do I convince the people?

 

[Doug in SW IA]

Is there a local forester you can talk to? I have a small forest preserve (8 acres) and the area forester came out several years ago and developed a plan for my forest. It was free of charge, (I guess that is why I pay taxes.) Having a state forester on your side could only help and lend weight to your plans.

Doug in SW IA

 

[Doug in SW IA]

I would contact the Oklahoma Forestry http://www.forestry.ok.gov/ and talk with your local forester. It couldn't hurt to have them on your side. I had my local forester come to my small forest (8 acres) and put together a plan for a healthy forest and there was no charge. They might be able to draw up a formal plan for you that would help make your case. Good luck.

Doug in SW IA

 

[BeatCJ]

Why do you expect resistance? You may be surprised what people are willing to let you do, if they don't have to do the work or pay for it.

OTOH, does your vision match what the original sponsors expected from a nature park? Maybe letting nature run it's course IS the best thing.

I think Doug's suggestion to get foresters familiar with the area involved is probably the best way to go.

 

[pistol pete]

Why do you expect resistance? You may be surprised what people are willing to let you do, if they don't have to do the work or pay for it.

OTOH, does your vision match what the original sponsors expected from a nature park? Maybe letting nature run it's course IS the best thing.

I think Doug's suggestion to get foresters familiar with the area involved is probably the best way to go.

Thing is, settlement has forever changed "nature". In the wild, fires burn through hardwood forest. The fire kills off underbrush and vegetation, reducing competition. Letting wildfires burn through also reduces the fuel load. In a pre-settlement enviroment, frequent wildfires burn off dead trees. When wild fire are suppressed, the fuel load builds up. When the eventual fire does make it to the forest, the fire is so hot, that many mature trees are killed. In our little park, post oaks, are the dominant species. Post oaks can live up to 400 years, and we have 3, that might be that old.

Fire also alters vegetation structure. it allows prairies to remain prairies and crosstimber forests to flourish. In our little park, underbrush and invasive trees, have taken over areas left vacant by mature trees. Fire would have subdued the underbrush, and allowed hardwood trees time to mature. What we have now, is an unbalanced forest ecosystem. Since we altered it, we must restore it.

I expect resistance, because what we must do, seems radical. We should prepare the park for its first fire, and burn it every few years. People believe that any fire is bad, and I must convince them otherwise. Many will try to rule out the facts and the science, out of fear. Fear that a prescribed fire, will cause forest or property damage.

 

[slowp]

Prescribed burns get a bum rap because we only hear about the ones that get away. You might start out with statistics--how many acres are burned on purpose each year and the percentage that escape. The other complaint is about the smoke. A friend of mine was the person answering the phones and said she couldn't believe all the people complaining about the smoke from their prescribed burns. I explain that the smoke from a prescribed burn is only in the air for a day or two. The smoke from a wildfire can last for weeks.

The one thing that brought the anti-people around to being for something was a TV station airing a show about the Yellowstone fire a couple days before a show me trip.
We were proposing, and followed through, a couple of large scale timber sales with lodgepole as the main species to lower the fire danger. The documentary about the Yellowstone fire explained most of it for us, and most of the people had watched it.

 

[Gypo Logger]

Is there any chance that you could pasture out the wood lot with no more than say half a dozen cattle or sheep as opposed to fire?
Pasturing is a great way to reduce or eliminate the under story, making it easier to work the bush.
John

 

[BeatCJ]

I understand your points, Pete. But you make a good argument. How do you know that good people won't see that you are right. Have faith in yourself.

I don't know what system, group or lynch mob you need to convince. Start small, talk to individuals and make your points. Use the first people's argument. Again, get science behind you. One website I like is Wildfire Today. They show a lot of prescribed burning.

You can do it.
Good luck

 

[northmanlogging]

Just out of curiosity do you have a permit or at least the local gubamints approval?

Its your time, and money, frankly there are a number of parks round here I'd like to cut and burn... but I would probably be lynched despite my reasons.

 

[pistol pete]

Just out of curiosity do you have a permit or at least the local gubamints approval?

Its your time, and money, frankly there are a number of parks round here I'd like to cut and burn... but I would probably be lynched despite my reasons.

I have started talks with the head of parks and recreation, about restoring the park and bringing back the annual, nature park chili cook off. One of the main reasons the park is unused, is due to the poison ivy that lines the trails. I have asked to control the poison ivy and have the approval of the city manager and the park and tree board.

After spending some time walking around the park, it is evident that the forest is unhealthy. I simply want to restore it, to it's former glory.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[madhatte]

I agree with all other posters who have encouraged you to enlist the help of a local forester. I also suggest that you contact a well-regarded fire agency such as The Nature Conservancy and look for local expertise. Your local DNR and DFW should be of use as well. Most importantly, you will not likely be able to accomplish anything without a well-documented plan, and that plan should include input from all available interested agencies. Talk to everybody. Know the rules locally for herbicide use, for smoke management, and for waste disposal. If you ask specific questions here, there are lots of folks who can offer you advice.

 

[SliverPicker]

You seem to be using the terms "park" and " forest" interchangeably. There are huge differences between those two things.

What is the evidence that your " forest" is unhealthy?

 

[pistol pete]

You seem to be using the terms "park" and " forest" interchangeably. There are huge differences between those two things.

What is the evidence that your " forest" is unhealthy?

What would you call a 15-20 acre area of land covered with trees, that receives no maintenence? I would also argue that most of the untouched forests in the US, are contained within the boundaries of a "park". So, please elaborate on what you mean, by saying that forest and park are vastly different.

I have already pointed out that it is unhealthy, due to the absence of fire. This has created an environment that encourages underbrush. The park is being taken over by briars, poison ivy, and various other woody species (everything but mature trees).

 

[pistol pete]

I agree with all other posters who have encouraged you to enlist the help of a local forester. I also suggest that you contact a well-regarded fire agency such as The Nature Conservancy and look for local expertise. Your local DNR and DFW should be of use as well. Most importantly, you will not likely be able to accomplish anything without a well-documented plan, and that plan should include input from all available interested agencies. Talk to everybody. Know the rules locally for herbicide use, for smoke management, and for waste disposal. If you ask specific questions here, there are lots of folks who can offer you advice.

I have enlisted the help of our local forester and an agent from the nrcs. Both agree that the deadwood needs to be removed. The forester for fuel load reasons, and the nrcs for river and stream health.

I am going to be putting together a presentation for the park and tree board. I plan to give the same presentation, to the city manager. I don't expect much resistance from the city, because this is all volunteer work. That is, until I bring up starting a fire. I am going to prepare a simulated fire plan, in case the controller burn gets shot down. Mulching everything may be a healthy alternative to fire. I expect the most resistance, from certain people in town.

 

[madhatte]

"Forest" and "Park" are land-use classifications more than they are ecological ones. "Park" land use focuses on people, where "Forest" land use focuses on ecological structure, and the economic drivers inferred by the same. The question you are being asked is this: do you want to restore this park to "Park" use, or to "Forest" use? The pathways are very different.

 

[spindrift7mm]

Pete another thing to check is how the land was acquired, many older parks that where donated for that use and must be maintained as such or revert back to donating familys. Might help leverage some help or support.

 

[BeatCJ]

I have enlisted the help of our local forester and an agent from the nrcs. Both agree that the deadwood needs to be removed. The forester for fuel load reasons, and the nrcs for river and stream health.

Sounds like you should have all the ammunition you will need. Emphasize that controlled burning is a short term impact, but creates long term benefits. Mention planning to reduce air quality impacts. See if you can involve those that you are concerned may be negative, try to find a cause they can get behind.

Sounds like thing are going well.

 

[treeslayer2003]

hmm, i would say if this was on the east coast here that it was simply in an ugly stage of its cycle. but that salvagable timber should be harvested. trees don't live that long here, a 100 year old oak could be 5' or more in diameter if it lives that long.
i do however understand that fire is a part of life and regeneration in some places. what should happen is the recomendations of the forest service should be followed to maintain a healthy wood lot. that means partial harvest most times. the general public is always against that.......they are misinformed. it sounds to me like it has been let go for far to long. good luck to you.

 

[SliverPicker]

There are far too many unanswered questions here.

Is naturally caused fire a normal part of the ecosystem where this land is located? What do you mean by "mature trees"? You mentioned many invasive species. What are they? Etc etc. etc.

madhatte and ts2003 are speaking wisdom

At any rate, good luck with your project. With enough determination you will achieve your goals for this parcel.

 

[Gologit]

This is a good thread. Lots of good advice. People will be opposed to fire and I think that will be the mail hurdle. Getting local or regional foresters on board will help. Listen to them.
The OP may have to take a back seat and let other people run with his idea but if the results are good it doesn't matter who gets the credit.
Everyone involved will have a slightly different idea as to methods and outcome but if you wind up with a nice park that otherwise would have been wasted ground the compromises will be worth it.