Controlled burns urged to foster healthy forests

[azdesertfather]

Preventing a repeat of Rodeo-Chediski Fire
Controlled burns urged to foster healthy forests
by Shaun McKinnon - Jun. 3, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

A series of small, controlled fires could help heal the scars of the massive Rodeo-Chediski Fire in the forests of Arizona's Mogollon Rim.

The U.S. Forest Service wants to use fire as part of a long-term effort to restore health to some of the 461,000 acres charred in the 2002 blaze.

The prescribed burns would help clear potential fuel from overgrown areas that survived the fire and could help manage the growth of brush and trees on damaged tracts of forest. If approved, the burns would take place over 10 to 15 years on selected sites across 150,000 acres. The area lies east of Forest Lakes between Arizona 260 and the Rim.

The Forest Service's proposal won't be finalized until December, after a public-comment period and additional environmental review.

Trees could be removed from some areas before fire is used, said Mark Empey, a fire manager for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. The goals are to reduce fire fuels, help the forest ecosystem recover from the fire damage and protect communities from another disaster. Controlled burns can help prevent large-scale crown fires like Rodeo-Chediski and improve conditions for firefighters by reducing the risk of intense blazes.

[azdesertfather]

What I don't understand is why they can't do this on wilderness land. I asked a guy who works for the BLM, and he makes the maps for them when they're fighting fires about the Baldy Wilderness, which is really bad in areas. Parts of Baldy we saw this weekend had as many downed trees as ones still standing up (http://hikearizona.com/phoZOOM.php?ZIP=97850). We'd climb over a half dozen trees in a row at times on the trail in places (http://hikearizona.com/phoZOOM.php?ZIP=97808). He said that because of the Wilderness Act they can only remove downed trees on the trail with a handsaw, no chain saws allowed (good luck with that). They can't do controlled burns at all.

[Dschur]

They can't even drop water on it from a helicoper either.....

[joebartels]

Why not, is this a new rule? I thought they did in the 1996 Lone Pine Fire in the Four Peaks Wilderness and a spot shot in the Superstition Wilderness that I recall too.

[azbackpackr]

They may have done, Joe, but they won't touch Baldy or Escudilla, at least not so far.

The people in Heber-Overgaard complained about the controlled burning that was being done every year near their towns--they said it was too smoky. That was BEFORE the Rodeo Fire. I know this because of that job I had for many years, where my boss's husband was in charge of fire for this entire forest. Anyway they would call and complain to the FS every time there was a controlled burn in that area, so the FS stopped doing it. Then the fire came and burned their towns!

[desert spirit]

One of the good environmental things the Bush Administration did (I know, bring the smelling salts) was to propose thinning in National Forests. Thinning has advantages to controlled burns, but also hard to regulate (which trees do you thin?). But any solution to this is going to have problems ... this seemed to be the best overall comprimise. I don't know whatever became of it. But of course it wouldn't apply to Wilderness Areas, either. But that raises the question ... if you're trying to manage it, is it really wilderness?

[Jeffshadows]

One of the good environmental things the Bush Administration did (I know, bring the smelling salts) was to propose thinning in National Forests. Thinning has advantages to controlled burns, but also hard to regulate (which trees do you thin?). But any solution to this is going to have problems ... this seemed to be the best overall comprimise. I don't know whatever became of it. But of course it wouldn't apply to Wilderness Areas, either. But that raises the question ... if you're trying to manage it, is it really wilderness?

I'm sure this "thinning" was going to be done by Georgia-Pacific or some other huge lumber conglomerate that contributed to his campaign. ;)

The Rodeo story is a very common one. One of my oldest friends was a Fire Fighter/Medic for Mt. Lemmon FD for many years leading up to the Aspen Fire. They went around to all of those homeowners and offered to come and thin around their cabins for free and most all of them refused, some vehemently. They came around again, this time explaining the danger of some of the growth and the density of fuel up there. Again they offered to thin for free and still the owners refused and some even threatened to sue. A couple of them tried to get the Fire Chief sacked for "Trying to destroy their pristine forest needlessly." After Aspen I was disgusted to watch some of them on TV complaining about how no one had warned them or done anything to protect them. My buddy quit and most guys I know refuse to work up there for those very reasons.

To add a little more insight, I was up volunteering on a controlled burn near Spencer one year and we had car after car stop and complain about the smoke and how we were slowing traffic down. Not one person said thank you or even tried to acknowledge what was trying to be done. Public perception is the issue, here. The mob is fickle and unsophisticated. Trying to tell them about fire cycles and biodiversity is like trying to teach a toddler calculus. What we need to do is explain how you won't have a place to go park your lifted truck, blast your stereo, and drink beer if Rose Canyon Lake gets burned to a crisp, etc.

[azdesertfather]

They may have done, Joe, but they won't touch Baldy or Escudilla, at least not so far.

The people in Heber-Overgaard complained about the controlled burning that was being done every year near their towns--they said it was too smoky. That was BEFORE the Rodeo Fire. I know this because of that job I had for many years, where my boss's husband was in charge of fire for this entire forest. Anyway they would call and complain to the FS every time there was a controlled burn in that area, so the FS stopped doing it. Then the fire came and burned their towns!

Are they still complaining about it out there? If the townspeople saw it they might reconsider. Of course, I'm not sure how good it is to control burn the wilderness land if the White Mountain Apache Nation doesn't do anything about their side...as Rodeo-Chediski showed, with part of the fire starting on their land.

[Dschur]

Okay got the facts on fighting in Wilderness from wildland fire dispatcher/trainer including air attack....

The firefighters have to observe "wilderness" rules, that involves not using any kind of power at all, no chain saws, no vehicles or drip torches to backfire. They can only use hand tools, hand saws, shovels and so on. No bull dozers. It is more dig dirt and cut limbs and trees then throw them in to the oncoming fire. There is more monitoring than anything else. They usually have like 3 levels of preparation so if plan a fails, move to plan b and so on. If the fire has the potential to come out of the wilderness and threaten communities, they will take "wildfire" tactics, and fight it like any other fire. They can use airplanes but only drop water, no retardant...unless it becomes a wildfire, then retardant can be used.

[joebartels]

Good info

[azbackpackr]

OK, several of you are a little out of the loop as to the current thinning/prescription burning activities on the A Bar S (Apache-Sitgreaves) and the FAIR (Ft. Apache reservation.) I don't know about the other national forests, though.

First of all, thousands of acres of thinning have been completed on the A-S: all around Greer, Eagar, Alpine and Nutrioso. I think this thinning also is going on around Pinetop, Lakeside and Show Low, although I don't hike over there very often, I have seen signs of it now and then. And much more is to be done, and a lot of it is being done right at this very moment. It is sort of amazing (and a bit disturbing) to drive up the Big Lake Highway, 261, and see it all thinned out. You sometimes don't even recognize where you are any more unless you know all the bends in the road, it looks that much different.

Secondly, if the Apaches hadn't done so much thinning and controlled burning, then the Kinishba Fire in 2003, a year after the Rodeo Fire, would have totally torched Pinetop and Lakeside. And as I recall, the people of those towns FORMALLY THANKED the Apache Tribe for doing the thinning/burning. That fire was controlled just before it reached the NON-thinned areas of Pinetop! The Apaches thinned relentlessly and quickly after the Rodeo Fire. They had no lawsuits from environmental organizations to combat, for one thing. All around Hon-dah Casino you can see it very well. It does look a lot different around there, too.

On the A-S the thinning is being paid for by your tax dollars, to get small timber companies in there, and the companies are being paid a whopping $650 an acre to do the thinning. Plus then they can sell the trees, most of which are the small-diameter kind. A lot of energy has gone into finding markets for these trees, also. We have a mill here in Eagar using those trees, but I am not sure what they are doing with them. They used to burn them to make electricity, but now I think they are milling them for vigas, log cabins, fence posts, Navajo hogans, and anything else you can think of you could use a thin log for. We burn them for firewood in winter, too.

Personally I don't like how they are doing it. There is now far too much hot sun shining on the ground, and they are still grazing cattle up there, so the biodiversity is actually going to be less, I believe, due to the added heat and dryness of the soil, plus the cattle eating everything. However, the FS has a lot of PR people trained to argue on this point, and you just can't win that argument. They have it down.

[Dschur]

They have been thinning around the Payson area and put the wood in piles then burning them. There is about 1/2 of Payson and have seen quite a bit at Pine for them. They are using mostly Hot Shot crews in the off season as well as some prison (I think it is Gila County Prisoners) to do some of them. None of the wood that I have seen has been used for anything other than slash piles( most of them are the P and J trees though). They are also using goats to get rid of some of the brush from the indian reservations for the scrub oaks and so forth.

[Jeffshadows]

Thinning isn't meant to promote biodiversity, quite the opposite.

[desert spirit]

There is now far too much hot sun shining on the ground, and they are still grazing cattle up there, so the biodiversity is actually going to be less, I believe, due to the added heat and dryness of the soil, plus the cattle eating everything. However, the FS has a lot of PR people trained to argue on this point, and you just can't win that argument. They have it down.

Then somebody there is misunderstanding the concept. "Thinning" does not mean "denuding". The Forest Service directive lays out exactly what "thinning" means, and what is supposed to be "thinned" ... all they have to do is follow it. It's not perfect, but it beats having catastrophic crown fires every five years.

As far as cattle grazing, that's a separate topic entirely and has nothing to do with thinning, per se. Personally, I hate seeing cattle in the National Forest, too. What, overgrazing BLM rangeland isn't enough, they gotta do it to the forest, too?

[dysfunction]

I'm not sure that anything man does beats naturally occurring things like fires. Nor am I certain that any Forest Service directive is beneficial to the environment simply because it was put together by the Forest Service. Then again, I grew up with the DNR being the "Do Nothing Right"... I admit to being biased.

[azbackpackr]

This thinning, which I do think is too drastic, around our towns will probably prevent a lot of towns or parts of towns from burning to the ground. However, in Greer, which is hugely at risk, you do see that many, many property owners have not followed the advice of the FS and fire department, and property owners still have a LOT of trees right up against their cabins. That whole place is going to torch one of these days. I'm glad I live where I do, where the forest is a 10 minute bike ride away, but it's not right in my yard. During droughts I can still sleep at night!

We have enjoyed knowing our neighbors who continue with the traditional ranching life, while at the same time we see that it is probably not the best use or a wise use of our forested areas. The riparian areas particularly take a beating, although at least some of them are now more protected than they were 10 years ago when I first moved here. The grazing areas and the allowed number of cattle have both been reduced, and some of the riparian areas fenced off.

One of few women up here "on the mountain" who I admire greatly is a rancher, Sug Peters. She is tough and smart, and has a great sense of humor. She must be at least 70 years old, but is very strong. She's out there with her herd sometimes where I go hiking, and I enjoy talking to her. I always have mixed feelings about this cattle thing because for me ranchers are not just people I read about in environmental books or magazines, but real people that I know.

[Jim]

From a general perspective of ponderosa pine forest health, thinning while leaving a mix of large old trees (not crappy big diameter ones left over from high grading) and a mix of vigorous young trees is good, fire in almost any capacity is good, and more sun light on the soil is good. These things open up growing space and allow for increased herbaceous growth, which is where ponderosa forest diversity is, or was. Fewer trees is better, because they are still probably leaving too many. I'd be happy with 5 or 6 good stems on an acre. Cattle grazing is bad, in almost all forms, but its not going away any time soon.
Spruce-fir on Baldy and other places doesn't burn often and those forest don't need much attention since they have not had much change since white settlement. Mixed conifer and ponderosa are the 2 areas of AZ on the plateau that need the most attention.

[azbackpackr]

There used to be quite a hobby of berry picking around here. Between the droughts and the cattle you'll have a hard time finding very many berries these days. Cattle eat the berry bushes right down to the ground when there isn't enough better feed for them, and then they don't tend to grow back. At least, that is what people are saying happened to the berry bushes.

[Jim]

What kind of berries? I never see anything around here at any elevation, but it would be nice to know what kind of fruit might have been, or may still be available. I don't expect to get wild blueberries, or any wild tree fruits as you sometimes could find back east, but it would be nice to find wild blackberries (rubus spp.). Back in NJ I used to pick and eat wild and domestic blueberries, and in FL I was able to go out along power lines and stuff myself with tens of dollars worth of blackberries that always tasted great. Nothing lot warm fresh sweet fruit.

[chumley]

I've seen wild blackberries (at least I'm pretty sure they are blackberries) along both Fossil Creek and Haigler Creek. Neither however are at that high of an elevation, 4300 and 5100 feet respectively. Wild strawberries and blueberries should grow well at higher elevations, but both need a fair amount of rain. I would think the White Mtns would provide a hospitable environment for those two to grow.