|
Fire Chronicle #7
|
Laura McCarthy, Forest Trust
|
Apr 01, 2002 16:24 PST
|
FIRE CHRONICLE: Stories of the National Fire Plan
Number 7
March 29, 2002
PERMITS REGULATE PRESCRIBED BURNING ON PRIVATE LAND
By Laura McCarthy and Bryan Foster
The use of prescribed fire as a tool to restore forest ecosystems and to
minimize uncharacteristically intense wildfires is embedded in the
national fire plan. For fire managers using prescribed fire, setting a
broadcast burn involves more than spilling diesel fuel on the ground and
lighting a match. In addition to meeting certain weather parameters,
thinning to reduce fuel loads to acceptable levels, and digging
protective fire lines, permits must be obtained to provide society with
some assurance that the burn will be safe.
The 2000 prescribed burn that escaped near the Cerro Grande in New
Mexico and burned into Los Alamos alerted the public to the use of
prescribed fire as a management tool and increased federal land
managers’ accountability for using fire safely. Prescribed burns are
widely accepted as a technique for managing federal forests. Yet,
prescribed fire is scarcely used on private lands outside of the South,
even though it is essential for all fire-adapted ecosystems.
Issuing permits for prescribed fire is one way that society has
increased its comfort with the use of fire as a restoration tool. Since
broadcast burns are infrequent on private lands in the Southwest, forest
managers encounter a maze of permitting regulations from agencies with
overlapping jurisdictions. For example, in New Mexico “open burn”
permits for broadcast burning are issued by the Environment Department
(NMED). NMED’s Air Quality Board also reviews permit applications for
prescribed burning on public lands and in some counties, the Fire
Marshall issues the permit instead of NMED. Although the application is
often approved in a day, there is confusion within NMED about how the
process is supposed to work, particularly for private land applicants.
Since few permits were issued in 2001 for prescribed burning on private
land, the agency has had no incentive to streamline its process.
The lack of clarity about the process for obtaining permits to use
prescribed fire is illustrated in the Forest Trust’s experience applying
for a permit to burn in the fall of 2001 on the Pritzlaff Ranch. This
private ranch adjoins the Santa Fe National Forest on the east side of
the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. The application gave contact
information, showed a map of the 50-acre area to be treated, and
described the oak and ponderosa pine fuel that would be burned. After
being told by NMED that a fire management plan was needed, the Forest
Trust prepared such a plan for the Pritzlaff Ranch. The Trust later
learned that no plan was needed for an open burn permit. Nevertheless,
the plan was useful because it increased the landowner’s comfort with
the fire.
As more forest managers undertake prescribed burns, agencies may
increasingly rely on the permitting process to provide society with a
sense of security about fire usage. In many areas, the current level of
permitting only covers air pollution. In areas without additional county
or municipal codes, fire managers are themselves responsible for
preventing run-away fires. A fire plan that spells out a strategy to
confine and contain escaped prescribed burns and naturally-ignited fires
coupled with an environmental assessment may be one way for private
landowners to share the responsibility for fire with public land
management agencies.
After the disastrous 2000 fire season, the public and Congress sent a
clear message that they have little tolerance for mistakes in prescribed
burning. Whether or not individual state burn permit requirements are
strict or lax, written plans will help ensure that fire managers think
potential fire scenarios through carefully and will increase society’s
ability to accept the inherent risks of forest restoration. It is
important for fire managers and foresters to build a track record of
successful prescribed burns to create long-term support for this
essential forest management tool.
FIRE CHRONICLE is edited by the Forest Trust. We welcome your comments
about the issue of defining the wildland-urban interface, as well as
stories and observations about how the national fire plan is being
implemented (just send a reply message and it will go to the list
moderator). To subscribe to FIRE CHRONICLE or to read past issues go to
http://www.topica.com/lists/firechronicles/ or send an email message to
lau-@theforesttrust.org
COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP COMMUNICATOR is an electronic bulletin that
provides information about the national Community Stewardship
Collaborative’s effort to find solutions to issues related to
large-scale watershed projects on the national forests and the national
fire plan. The bulletin is prepared by the Pinchot Institute for
Conservation and is available by contacting nra-@pinchot.org
PAST ISSUES OF FIRE CHRONICLE:
1. 2002 Fire Plan Appropriations will Benefit from 2001 Experience
2. Wildland-Urban Interface Definition a Barrier to Accountability
3. Stewardship Blocks: Innovative Tool Brings Fire Plan Benefits into
Community
4. Youth Training Needed for Fire Plan to Benefit Local Workforce
5. Grants Get National Fire Plan Money into Communities
6. Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Creates New Solution to
Gridlock
|
|
 |
|
