By Kenneth C. Baldwin
For decades, land managers successfully suppressed wildfires without realizing that this would increase live and dead fuels to hazardous levels, which under warming and drying conditions would result in large, severe fires. Many now recognize the necessity of reducing the extent and volume of fuels in order to reduce the severity of fire. Most fire managers favor the use of controlled fire for this purpose. Scientists are also showing us that periodic fires are necessary for maintaining the fire-adapted ecosystems found in California.
Many second growth forests, including plantations, are not in a suitable condition for applying some types of controlled fire, particularly broadcast fire, without sustaining unacceptable damage to desirable trees. Plantations in particular need to be thinned to lower tree density and sometimes to reduce surface fuels. Older second growth forests sometimes need to have surface fuels removed that would carry fire into the forest canopy or damage the roots or trunks of overstory trees. Fuels that are removed are commonly referred to as biomass and can be utilized to offset at least some of the cost of removal.
Forest managers are finding ways of physically and economically removing and utilizing forest fuels. The Forest Guild has recently documented over 45 of these attempts in “Synthesis of Knowledge from Woody Biomass Removal Case Studies” by Alexander M. Evans. This is a small but representative sample of what is currently being done to create healthier and more fire resilient forests that will protect watersheds and wildlife habitat, reduce smoke impacts from wildfires, provide forest products, a source of renewable energy, and employment in economically depressed rural areas, and mitigate the effects of climate change.
Kenneth C. Baldwin is the Pacific West region director for The Forest Guild.
Comments