|
Fire Chronicle #14
|
Laura McCarthy, Forest Trust
|
Nov 26, 2002 12:42 PST
|
FIRE CHRONICLE: Stories of the National Fire Plan
Number 14
November 26, 2002
FUNDING GAPS PREVENT COMPLETION OF HAZARDOUS FUEL REDUCTION
Fuel reduction projects on public land usually take several years to
complete. Most treatments also require follow-up maintenance to prevent
new fuel accumulation. Three years is usually the minimum time needed to
accomplish mechanical thinning and disposal of the woody debris from
thinning. Some prescriptions take four or five years to complete,
especially if the weather is uncooperative and the treatment calls for
prescribed fire. Sometimes delays occur because Forest Service personnel
are called for fire suppression, or because funds are diverted to cover
emergency wildfire costs. Once the initial treatment is completed,
maintenance treatments are usually needed every 10-15 years to prevent
new fuel loads from accumulating.
The USDA Forest Service, which conducts most of the thinning that takes
place under the National Fire Plan, does not have a budget mechanism in
place to ensure that multi-year projects will be completed once they
have begun. Two problems are created by the lack of consistent funding
to implement fuel reduction treatments. First, if the treatment is not
finished--for example, mechanical thinning takes place, the slash is
lopped and scattered, but funding is not available to burn the
slash--the fire risk is actually increased. Several studies have shown
that slash left on the ground increases the fire hazard (Weatherspoon
and Skinner 1995; Lindenmuth 1962; Vihanek and Ottmar 1993). Second,
after the treatment is finished the site needs periodic maintenance to
avoid the buildup of fuels. Such maintenance is often conducted with
prescribed fire or thinning, however there is guarantee that funds will
be available when the time comes.
One example on the Tres Piedras District of the Carson National Forest,
near the community of Tres Piedras, illustrates the problems caused by
incomplete funding. Thinning of this site took place in 2000 and 2001.
Fire lines were dug for prescribed burning. Then, in 2002 there was no
funding available to undertake the burn. Until the slash is removed, or
decomposes of its own accord, the fire hazard on this site will be
greater than it was before the initial treatment. Even if the prescribed
burn had taken place, there would still be no assurance of future funds
for maintenance to preserve the public investment in fuel reduction on
this site.
The Forest Service faced a similar problem 70 years ago with timber
cutting that required intense follow up to ensure adequate tree
regeneration. Like fuel reduction, reforestation takes several years to
accomplish. After trees are harvested, forest managers must dispose of
the leftover slash, prepare the site for reforestation, and then plant
trees, sow seeds, or wait for natural regeneration. Sometimes the
planting and seeding must be repeated--once or several times--until the
stand is fully-stocked with seedlings.
The solution came in 1930 when Congress created a multi-year funding
mechanism to ensure that there would be money available to complete
reforestation activities. Authorized by the Knutson-Vanderberg Act, this
legislation allows the Forest Service to require deposits from the
purchasers of national forest timber so that it will have funds to plant
trees, sow seeds, or improve the forest in cut-over areas. The K-V
deposits are placed into a special U.S. Treasury fund and held for
reforestation activities until the funds are expended or the
reforestation completed.
Clearly, there are significant differences between the reforestation
issues and today’s need for multi-year funding of hazardous fuel
reduction projects. One key difference is that the Knutson-Vandenberg
Act provides a mechanism for the Forest Service to include the cost of
reforestation in the price of the timber. By contrast, the value of the
wood removed for fuel reduction purposes is usually so low that the
Forest Service must pay through a service contract to accomplish the
thinning. Despite these differences, the concept of providing a
mechanism to ensure dedicated funds to cover the costs of a multi-year
prescription is relevant, and could possibly be adapted to fit the
circumstances that hinder hazardous fuel reduction treatments.
The Forest Service is immersed in the short-term challenge of starting
the National Fire Plan program and demonstrating that the extra funding
from Congress is reducing the risk of wildfire. Yet to get results, the
Forest Service will need to devise a solution to the problem of annual
appropriations for projects that take several years to complete. Taking
no action could result in half-finished fuel reduction projects that do
not have any lasting fire protection value.
It may turn out that a dedicated fund for multi-year fuel reduction
treatments is not needed. The same benefits might be achieved through
changes in the Forest Service’s budgeting process, establishing a
working capital fund for fuel reduction projects, or by requiring that
funding for multi-year projects be carried over until the treatments are
complete. Whatever the ultimate result, the Forest Service and its
conservation partners need to figure out how to ensure that fuel
reduction treatments are finished and maintained.
LITERATURE CITED
Lindenmuth, A.W. Jr. 1962. Effects on fuels and trees of a large
intentional burn in ponderosa pine. J. of Forestry 60:804-810.
Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors
associated with damage to tree crowns from the 1987 wildfires in
Northern California. For. Sci. 41(3):430-451.
Viahanek, R.E. and R.D. Ottmar. 1992. When logged units burn in a
wildfire, does slash treatment mitigate effects?: In: 12th Conference on
Fire ad Forest Meteorology, October 26-28, 1993, Jekyll Island, Georgia.
Pp. 709-714.
FIRE CHRONICLE is edited by the Forest Trust and written by Laura Falk
McCarthy, Forest Protection Program Director. The Forest Trust welcomes
your comments, 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 go to
http://www.topica.com/lists/firechronicles/ or send an email message to
lau-@theforesttrust.org.
FOR MORE INFORMATION visit the Forest Trust web site. Other recent
publications by the Forest Trust, including the September report “A
Comparison of Two Government Reports on Factors Affecting Timely Fuel
Treatment Decisions,” are available http://www.theforesttrust
PAST ISSUES OF FIRE CHRONICLE can be downloaded from
http://www.theforesttrust/forest_protection.html#fire
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
7. Permits Regulate Prescribed Burning On Private Land
8. Accountability Remains a Key Issue for National Fire Plan
9. National Partnership Advances Landscape-Scale Forest Restoration
10. Poor Communities Most Threatened By Wildfire
11. A New Model To Fire-Proof Forest Homes
12. Consensus Over Fuel Reduction Treatment Dissolves
13. Wildland Urban Interface Definition Needed For Effective Policy
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
|
|
 |
|
