|
Fire Chronicle #23
|
Laura McCarthy, Forest Trust
|
Jan 23, 2004 08:22 PST
|
FIRE CHRONICLE: Stories of the National Fire Plan
Number 23
January 23, 2004
SCIENTISTS TELL AGENCIES: “SALVAGE OF DEAD PINYON PINE MAY BE
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE”
Public land managers are planning fuel-reduction treatments in
pinyon-juniper woodlands across the U.S. Southwest. Such treatments are
authorized and funded through the National Fire Plan and the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act, which expedites approval of projects that
remove trees killed by insects and disease. But a group of prominent
scientists has written a letter to the secretaries of the Departments of
Agriculture and Interior saying that such projects may be harmful to the
very forests and communities they are meant to protect. The “perfect
storm” of tree death that is sweeping the Southwest’s pinyon-juniper
woodlands cannot be stopped, they say, and has an ecological silver
lining. They conclude that the removal of the dead trees for fire hazard
reduction or ecological restoration is unnecessary and probably
counterproductive, and advise the agencies to exercise caution and
restraint.
The thirteen scientists from Colorado State University, Northern Arizona
University, and other research institutions describe the major
ecological event that is currently transforming the Four Corners region:
climate-related death of millions of pinyon trees across an enormous
swath of the Southwest. They attribute this ongoing event to a deadly
combination of wet weather, drought and insects. Increased tree growth
rates during the wet years of 1976-1995; a severe and prolonged drought
since 1995 that stressed trees’ capacity to resist insect attacks; and
native insects whose populations are growing exponentially as a result
of unusually warm weather in the past five years have combined to create
a “perfect storm” of tree mortality, killing as much as 90% of all
pinyon trees in some areas.
The scientists told the Secretaries that “there appears to be little or
nothing that managers can do at this time to prevent or influence the
course of this mortality event.” They predict that trees will continue
to die until precipitation and temperatures return to more "normal"
conditions in the Southwest. But their good news is that the
tree-killing insects are thinning the forests and that, even though the
dead trees will increase fuel loads, the likelihood of severe fire will
actually decrease after the needles fall off the trees, usually in six
months to one year following death.
The scientists’ core message is that agency managers should “resist
pressures to launch ambitious salvage or tree-removal operations in the
mistaken assumption that the dead trees constitute a serious fire
hazard.” They warn that “efforts to salvage or otherwise remove the dead
trees over extensive areas, in an attempt to reduce future fire hazard
or to restore ecological integrity, are generally unnecessary and would
likely be counter-productive,” while acknowledging that “…localized fuel
reduction may be needed to protect vulnerable structures or resources.”
The letter authors identify two sets of unintended negative consequences
to salvage operations. First, salvage removal of the dead trees will
disturb soil and very likely accelerate soil erosion and stimulate
invasion by non-native weedy plants. Invasion by the non-native
cheatgrass, for example, could lead to unnaturally frequent and damaging
ground fires, as has occurred in the Great Basin. The scientists note
that “it would be ironic and unfortunate if we actually increased the
risk of destructive fire in these stands by enhancing the spread of
cheatgrass through well-intended but misinformed salvage efforts.”
The second possible consequence of removing dead pinyon trees is that
the ground disturbance may interfere with forest regeneration. Without
active management, pinyon will regenerate through the growth of existing
seedlings and through dispersal and caching of seeds by pinyon jays,
Clark’s nutcrackers and other animals. Removing dead trees could expose
seedlings to excessive sun and desiccation and eliminate the cover and
landmarks needed by seed-burying animals. The scientists explain that
the presumed benefits of removing dead trees from large areas “would be
doubtful, but the likely damages would be significant.”
Plans to thin and prescribed burn overly-dense pinyon-juniper woodlands
on public lands made sense prior to the drought, the pine beetle
epidemic and the ensuing die-off. The thirteen scientists posit these
fuel treatments are no longer prudent. They conclude that the most
serious concern today is “the regional scarcity of healthy pinyon
trees,” a resource that is important to wildlife and to the communities
that depend on these trees for food, firewood and as a source of cash
income. The scientists suggest to the Secretaries that, “rather than
removing any of the pinyon that have survived the effects of drought and
insects, we probably should preserve all of the remaining trees.”
Forest managers have always understood the need to tailor management
practices to the forests and sites they are treating. In the case of the
pinyon-juniper forests and woodlands of the Southwest, research
scientists have provided strong guidance to managers through their
letter to the agencies. The National Fire Plan and Healthy Forests
Initiative may authorize fuels reduction and dead tree salvage as tools,
but in the case of the pinyon-juniper woodlands, the science reveals
this approach does not fit the circumstances.
THE LETTER was signed by these thirteen scientists:
William H. Romme, Professor of Fire Ecology, Colorado State University
Randy Balice, Forest Ecologist, Los Alamos, New Mexico
Peter Brown, Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research
Neil S. Cobb, Northern Arizona University
Tom DeGomez, University of Arizona, Forest Health Specialist
Lisa Floyd-Hanna, Prescott College
Peter Fule, Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona
University
David W. Huffman, Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona
University
Bruce A. Hungate, Northern Arizona University
George W. Koch, Northern Arizona University
Margaret M. Moore, Northern Arizona University
Melissa Savage, professor emeritus, University of California at Los
Angeles
Eugene W. Schupp, Utah State University
FOR MORE INFORMATION: The full text of the letter may be downloaded from
http://www.theforesttrust.org/whatsnew.html Questions may be directed
to Dr. William H. Romme at rom-@cnr.colostate.edu and 970-491-2870.
FIRE CHRONICLE is edited by Laura McCarthy at the Forest Trust. 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.
PAST ISSUES OF FIRE CHRONICLE can be downloaded from
http://www.theforesttrust.org/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
14. Funding Gaps Prevent Completion of Hazardous Fuel Reduction
15. Agencies Propose to Streamline Environmental Review for Hazardous
Fuel Reduction Treatments
16. National Fire Plan Provides Economic Opportunity for Rural Residents
17. Bark Beetles Heighten Wildfire Concerns
18. Small And Local Businesses Cite Barriers To Reaching National Fire
Plan Goals
19. Federal Report Fuels Public Debate Over Healthy Forests Act
20. New Report Evaluates Efficacy Of Fuel Reduction Treatments
21. Slow Progress to Set Treatment Priorities for National Fire Plan
22. Better Accounting of Fuels Reduction is Needed
|
|
 |
|
