There are certain issues centered on Fire for Resource Benefit. The big ones are Government Acts and Policies. In a 1999 report from the General Accounting Office it was predicted that the cost to adequately reduce all areas at risk of initiating sever fire behavior, after ignition, would accumulatively total $12 billion from then to the year 2015—that’s $725 million annually. In the 2000 USDA Forest Service, Agency Strategy for Fire Management, it stated, “Alternatives to a comprehensive problem require comprehensive solutions, and not just simply a Band-Aid.” In 2004, implications of the National Fire Plan resulted in more than three million acres of forest fuel buildup to be eliminated. But, the 2005 Interagency Quadrennial Fire and Fuel Review stated that for these measures to eliminate the threat of large fire situations 10-12 million acres must be treated annually. By 2007 the GAO estimated that over 200 million acres of United States forestland were still overgrown, and at risk of burning in future fires.
The Cohesive Strategy Phase I of 2011 defines risk management by the evaluation of exposure to the extremities, versus the overall gain of said exposure. For overall practicum, flame for resource benefit joins the wildland with the urban in a comprehensive endowment that states: fire is ecologically beneficial to the land (Kilgore 1984; Arno 1993; Agee 1993). Ecologically, as a statement that forest health sometimes needs its litter floor swept clean in order to continue on, without falling susceptible to the natural hazards overgrown forests provide. These hazards are not limited to fire alone: bug species infestation and mold or fungus to name a few. Both disturbances currently pose serious threats to the genus of white-bark pine. (Arno 1986; Murry et al. 2000)
With the appeal of suppression efforts that are displayed across the periphery, in multiple media avenues, the public is still at odds with itself to recognize: the practices of purposeful burning, or not aggressively attacking a fire, are not new strategies, nor are they necessarily bad (Dombeck et al. 2004). If as an entire body, those wishing to know more about the practice, were afforded a chance to understand its rational then the practice of burning would be accepted (Yaffee & Wondolleck 1997; Shindler & Neburka 1997). Since it is impossible for scientific revelation to speak to the lay audience, however (Jamieson 1994), how to present this information on the public has been in controversy for quite some time (Manfredo et al 1990; Carpenter et al. 1986; McCool & Stankley 1986).
A 1981 study found, the expertise of the individuals conveying information or the credibility of their agency protocol added an appeal to the topic (Petty and Cacioppo). Thus the general public was more apt to retain the information if the source was reputable.
Funny thing: even with people generally recognizing the information better if it was presented from a reliable source. The most influential individual representing the Forest Service still became a fictional character, “Smokey Bear” (Towman et al. 2006). In 1969 he was even more known than the United States President (Pyne 1982).
Building a system of trust, it seems has been the best means to identify a situation, and receive the public’s support for recommended actions. This is a particularly pragmatic understanding, because there are so many levels of trust (Kramer 1999). Since it has been found that very few individuals fully trust the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (Shindler et al. 2002), and the mythical image of a bear has become the agencies’ trusted front man, how will the public decide to trust the current message?
In almost all documentation describing one aspect of the forest as correlated with fire, a statement that too much dead, dying, or diseased fuel is in the forests, is included. An information set that rang like an echo in reports from the GAO in ‘99, to reports of a Cohesive Strategy Oversight Committee in 2011: stating the long-term effects from a century’s aggressive nature to suppress forest fire succeeded only in allowing brush and small trees to flourish. It allowed trees to encroach on grasslands (Arno & Gruell 1986), allowed trees to grow where fire normally would have weeded them out (Scott 1998). These areas are now prepped to accommodate uncharacteristically intense fire through their diminished ecosystem health and lowered resilience to bug infestation.
For these purposes the 108th Congress passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (H.R.1904), of 2003-2004. This act is intended to help foresters and fire agencies reduce the overabundance of fire fuels in the forests, by authorizing certain fuel-scape reduction projects on Federal, and non-Federal lands.
H.R. 1904 is in full swing, and has been in full swing for quite some time. In Arizona the White Mountain Stewardship has been running steady for years (Bostwick et al. 2011). The same is the case in the Boise National Forest of Idaho, (Dynamac 2003; Tenneson 2006).
Under the policy, areas of federal land in the wildland-urban interface are authorized for treatment. Areas designated at condition class 2-3 located close to municipal water supply systems—reservoirs, streams, etc. . . are also authorized.
Federal land where over-accumulation of blown-down trees, or the existence of diseases or insect kill, or where threat exists to ecosystems along with forest or rangeland resources, have been authorized. This is inclusive of federal or other lands displaying these characteristics adjacent to federal land.
Federal land that contains endangered species habitat, are include in the H.R. 1904 initiative; endangered species as nominated in the 1973 Endangered Species Act. With one stipulation, that the project enhance forest health to help it withstand wildfire, for the species.
Of course, all these treatment projects are supposed to be conducted in accordance with resource management plans, and administrative policies, with the inclusion of endangered species habitat, and other areas.
Land not to be treated for resource benefit includes: any National Wilderness area, a wilderness study area, or where the removal of vegetation is in opposition to an act of Congress. There is also a Presidential proclamation thrown in as a subsidiary loupe-hole. Though according to Section 102, (4)(A) of H.R. 1904, if a management direction was established before December 15, 1993 that older directive is still in effect, as long as the project identified maintained a contribution toward the restoration and health of old growth forests.
Basically the total area approved for hazardous fuel reduction is 20,000,000 acres. Yet, as we have learned in Forestry 491, even the Wilderness areas, though excluded from the initiative, are not excluded from Fire for Resource Benefit. This includes a vast expanse of the fuel-scape.
I’ve witness thousands of trees killed and purposefully burned. It’s called lop and pile, lop and scatter, and prescribed burning. A premise behind these thinning projects is removing the smaller biomasses will cut the costs of fighting fire, by eliminating the overabundance of small, dying, or down trees. Most of these biomasses are then purposefully burned in the spring or fall. This is called prescribed burning.
Public knowledge of it lacks certain sets of data. If people knew the diametric process involved in the carbon cycle, they would understand that whether a tree dies of its own accord or is felled, and whether that tree is left to rot in the forests, or is purposefully burned, it will still add particulates to the atmosphere. In the one scenario, rotting is known as decomposition (Depro et al. 2007). In the other, burning is known as rapid-decomposition (French et al. 2010). The only real difference is the time frame. One occurs over a short period of time, and the other over a longer time period (Anger et al. 2010).
For instance, take a kettle of water and set it on the range. It soon starts to boil. After a short time all the water is boiled out. Yet, set that same kettle of water in the windowsill and let it sit there for some time. Eventually the water will disappear. In other words, these water vapors end up in the atmosphere whether they are boiled off by mechanical convention, or let to evaporate. This is called the natural water cycle. The carbon cycle, and wood decomposition works on the same set of physics (Riebeek & Simmon 2011).
If everyone took the time to look thoroughly at both sides, and to dig into that understanding, from both angles; frankly, I believe getting the true data set to as many people as possible, in the right context is the main conflict. The political agenda appears as one of the greatest conflicts with these issues. Releasing smoke, particle emissions are a major concern, but people don’t understand that those particulates will be released either way. That’s why Public thinking appears befuddled with confusion.
This begins in personal beliefs, from what the media may or may not have spoon-fed the world. One example: Smokey Bear lied when he said “Only you can prevent forest fire,” at least in the Rocky Mountains.
Renowned fire scientist James Agee, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington writes, in Fire Ecology of the Pacific Northwest, “57 percent of all wildfire ignitions, in the Rocky Mountains, are caused by lightning storms.”
With that understanding, the current policy authorizing Fire for Resource Benefit is not about stopping wildfire, it’s about stopping the large infernos that have blazed across the fuel-scape in recent years.
References:
Agee, J. 1993. Fire Ecology of the Pacific Northwest. Print. Island Press. Washington, D.C. 53, 135-36 p.
Anger, A.A. Finney, M.A. McMahan, A. Cathcart, J. 2010. Measuring the effect of fuel treatments on forest carbon using landscape risk analysis. National Hazar4ds Earty Syst.Sci. 10, 2515-2526. Doi:10.5194/nhess-10-2515-2010. U.S. Forest Service.
Arno, S.F. 1993. History of fire occurrence in western North America. Renewable Resources Journal. Vol. 11(1) 12-13 p.
Arno, S.F. 1986. White bark pine cone crops—a diminishing source of wildlife food. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 1(3) 92-94 p.
Arno, S.F. Gruell, G.E. 1986. Douglas-fir encroachment into mountain grasslands in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. Vol. 39, No. 3. 272-275
Bostwick, P. Menakis, J. Sexton, T. 2011. How fuel treatments saved homes from the 2011 Wallow fire. Frames Resource Cataloging System. Web. Accessed Dec. 03, 2011. U.S. Forest Service. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5318765.pdf
Carpenter, E.H., J.G. Taylor, H.J. Cortner, P.D. Gardner. M.J. Zwolinski, and T.C. Daniel. 1986. Targeting audiences and content for forest fire information programs: J. Environ. Edu. 17(3):33-42.
Cohesive Strategy Oversight committee: A national cohesive wildland fire management strategy. Wildland Fire Leadership Council. 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.
Depro, B. M. Murray, B. C. Alig, R. J. Shanks, A. 2007. Public land, timber harvest, and climate mitigation: Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands. ScienceDirect. RTI International. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.10.036. www.sciencedirect.com.
Dombeck, M. P., J. E. Williams, and C. A. Wood. 2004. Wildfire policy and public lands; integrating scientific understanding with social concerns across landscapes. Conserv. Bio. 18(4):883-889.
Dynamac. 2003. Wildland fire mitigation plan Boise County, Idaho. Boise county wildfire group. Garden Valley Idaho. 26,31,36. http://www.idl.idaho.gov/nat_fire_plan/county_wui_plans/boise/boise.pdf
French, N. H. F., et al. 2011. Model comparsons for estimating carbon emissions from North American wildland fire. J. Geophys. Re3s., 116, G00K05, doi:10.1029/2010JG001469.
GAO. 1999. Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is needed to address Catastrophic Wildland Fire Threats. U.S. General Accounting Office, 1999. 41p.
GAO. 2007. Wildland fire management: Better information and a systematic process could improve agencies’ approach to allocating fuel reduction funds and selecting projects. United States General Accountability Office. Report to congressional requesters. GAO-07-1168. 10 p.
H.R. 1904. 2003-2004. Healthy forests restoration act of 2003. 108th Congress. Bill Text. Web. Accessed Dec. 10, 2011. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:7:./temp/~c108i9io4a::
Integration Panel for final review: Quadrennial Fire and Fuel Review report. 2005. U.S. Agriculture, Forest Service.
Jamieson, D. 1994. Problems and prospects for a forest service program in the human dimensions of global change. In breaking the mold: Global change, social responsibility, and natural resource management, eds. K. Geyer and B. Shindler, 23028. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service research report. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
Kilgore, B.M. 1984. Restoring Fires Natural Roll in America’s Wilderness. Western Wildlands. Vol. 10(3):208, 6 p. Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Kramer, R.M. 1999. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50:569-598.
Manfredo, M.J., M. Fishbein, G.E. J. Haas, and A. E. Watson. 1990. Attitudes toward prescribed fire policies: The public is widely divided in its support. J. For. 88(7):19-23.
McCool, S. F. and G. H. Stankey. 1986. Visitor attitudes toward wilderness fire management policy---1971-84. Research Paper INT-357 Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
Murray, M. P.; Bunting, S. C.; Morgan, P. 2000. Landscape trends (1753-1993) of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests in the West Big Hole range of Idaho/Montana, U.S.A. Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, Boulder, USA, Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 32, 4, pp 412-418, 45 ref. 1 p.
Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. 1981. Attitudes and persuasion; Classic and contemporary approaches, boulder, Co: Westview Press.
Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America; a cultural history of wildland and rural fire. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey.
Riebeek, H. Simmon, R. 2011. The Carbon Cycle. Earth Observatory, N.A.S.A. Web. Accessed Dec. 13, 2011. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
Scott, J. 1998. Fuel Reduction in Residential and Scenic forests: a comparison of three treatments in a western Montana ponderosa pine stand. USDA. Research Paper. Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-RP5. Pp.1
Shindler, B. and J. Neburka. 1997. Public participation in forest planning; Eight attributes of success. J For. 95(1):17-19)
Shindler, B., M. Brunson, and G. H. Stankey. 2002. Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: A problem analysis. PNW-GTR-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station
Tenneson, M. 2006. Analysis of fuel treatment alternatives for the pine creek area. Technical fire management TFM-20. Washington Institute Colorado State University. National interagency fire center.
Towman, E. Shindler, B. Brunson, M. 2006. Fire and fuel Management communication strategies: citizen evaluations of agency outreach activities. Taylor and Francis. Society and Natural Resources, 19:321-336
USDA Forest Service: An agency strategy for fire management. National Management Review Team. 2000.
Yaffee, S. L. and J. M. Wondolleck. 1997. Building bridges across agency boundaries. Creating forestry for the 21st century, eds. J. Franklin and K. Kohm, 381-396. Washington DC: Island Press.
Comments