POSTFIRE LOGGING

1
POSTFIRE LOGGING
Tuesday, April 3, 2007 Dan Stark James McIver
and Lynn Starr. 2001. A literature review on the
environmental effects of postfire logging. West.
J. Appl. For, 16 (4).
2
What is Postfire Logging?

• Salvage logging primary objective of dead tree
  harvest is economic
• Postfire logging includes other objectives like
  fuel reduction and erosion control makes no
  assumptions about management objectives
• (McIver and Starr, WJAF, 2001)

3
SALVAGE LOGGING POLICY

• 1995 Emergency Timber Sale Program (Salvage
  Rider) Mark Rey, approved by Clinton
• - Temporarily exempted salvage timber sales on
  federal forest lands from environmental and
  wildlife laws, administrative appeals, and
  judicial review (Wilderness Society Fact Sheet).
  

4
SALVAGE LOGGING POLICY

• 1995 Emergency Timber Sale Program (Salvage
  Rider) Mark Rey, approved by Clinton
• - Directed the Forest Service to cut old-growth
  timber in the Pacific Northwest that the agency
  had proposed for sale but had subsequently
  withdrawn due to environmental concerns,
  endangered species listings, and court rulings.
• - Expired 1996
• Sound familiar?

5
POLICY (cont.)

• Healthy Forests Restoration Act 2003, Bush
• - Many similarities, to be continued...

6
FRAMING THE DEBATE

• Proponents mostly land managers, arguments based
  on economic, ecological, and administrative
  principles
• Opponents harvest operations cause damage either
  directly or indirectly

7
(No Transcript)
8
Environmental Effects

• Both positive and negative
• 2 types
• - activity effects
• due directly to logging activity
• - structural effects
• result of removal of merchantable material

9
Activity Effects

• Must consider significant effects severe fire has
  on soils and vegetation like...?
• Depends on site characteristics like topography,
  soils, revegetation patterns, and precipitation
  patterns

10
Activity Effects (cont.)

• Increase in sediment and water yields as a result
  of increasing catchment area and slope
• Roads can contribute to increased sediment
  production
• Increased sediment yields and soil disturbance
  depends on logging system used (ground-based log
  removal vs. aerial)
• Logging residue can reduce soil loss (esp. after
  needle fall)
• Can reduce insect build-up and resulting
  potential attack on adjacent green trees by
  removing vulnerable trees

11
Activity Effects (cont.)

• Outright killing of seedlings
• Most immediate effect on vegetation is removal of
  large woody structure both dead and alive
• Disturbed soil from logging can create beneficial
  site for regeneration of certain species (native
  and nonnative)

12
Structural Effects

• Alter structure, alter habitat (insects and
  wildlife)
• - structural removal of snags, or down wood
• - functional removal of food source (like
  beetles)
• Generally, postfire logging can enhance habitat
  for a particular species or diminish it for
  another. Hey, how about a mosaic?
• Reduction in intermediate-term fuel loadings? No
  studies to support.

13
DEBATE CONTINUES

• Donato controversy
• - data from Biscuit Fire 2002
• - Showed natural conifer regeneration much
  higher in burned vs. burned and logged sites
  (logging reduced regen. by 71)
• - Both fine and coarse woody debris loads were
  higher in logged areas vs. burned only
• - Conclusion postfire logging can be
  counterproductive to goals of forest
  regeneration and fuel reduction. WOW!

14
...and continues

• Aftermath
• - Oregon state professors tried to halt the
  publication of article
• - BLM cut-off final year of funding (restored
  after a week due to pressures in Congress)
• - character and ability questioned
• Bush administration and the Biscuit Fire loggers
  should move in quickly, cut marketable trees...,
  and replant a healthy forest (washingtonpost.com)

15
FURTHER READING

• James McIver and Lynn Starr. 2001. A literature
  review on the environmental effects of postfire
  logging. West. J. Appl. For., 16 (4).
• D.C. Donato et al. 2006. Post-wildfire logging
  hinders regeneration and increases fore risk.
  Science. V311.
• D. B. Lindenmayer et al. 2004. Salvage harvesting
  policies after natural disturbance. Science.
  V303.
• John Sessions et al. 2004. Hastening the return
  of complex forests following fire. J. of For.
  April/May.
• In Fires Wake, Logging Debate Inflames Debate.
  www.washingtonpost.com. Monday, Feb. 27, 2006.

16
Why mitigate post fire effects?
Waterman Canyon, Oct 25, 2003 Old Fire 92,000
acres Two months later
Waterman Canyon has had a slide, in one form or
another, within a year of every fire since
1932 Other hill-slope scenarios very similar
throughout the western US
17

• Most of southern California (and huge portions of
  Bay Area flatlands) are built on alluvium from
  surrounding hills
• Large derived during post-fire storm events

Harrison Canyon Catchment Basin (1983) Spring
Creek Debris Flow (1999). Both San Bernardino
County, both are from USGS SCAMP director Doug
Morton.
18
Source

• Robichaud, Beyers Neary, 2000. Evaluating the
  Effectiveness of Postfire Rehabilitation
  Techniques. RMRS-GTR-63
• Download from class webpage

19
B.A.E.R.Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation

• Formal Authority 1974
• Originally for
• 1) Threat Reduction
• 2) Soil Water Loss
• 3) Water Control
• 4) Water Quality
• Reassessed 1998
• Addition assessment for needs concerning
• Evaluation of run-off control
• Minimization of downstream post-fire effects
• Assess impacts on ecosystems ability to recovery
• Compare Hillslope v. Channel mitigation effects
• Assess economic, social and environmental costs
  benefits (including no treatment)
• Treatment Transfer How can one successful
  treatment be employed elswhere
• Identification of information gaps

20
Process

• BAER initiates during Type 1 project fire events
• Requested by Type 1 Overhead
• Own authority
• On request by area-of-concern managers
• (usually Forest level)
• Team is in-place well before containment
  control begins immediately on soil water
  rehabilitation, usually during suppression
  activities

21
Staff

• Team Leader (just like a Type 1 Incident
  Commander)
• Disciplines
• Hydrology
• Soils
• Timber Management
• Wildlife
• Engineering
• Range Management
• Archaeology
• Fire Management
• Geology

22
BAER

• A. Primary Objectives
• Health Human Safety
• Watershed Stabilization
• Both fire-effected area downstream
• Should address both alluvial colluvial mass
  movement
• B. Secondary Big question
• Is there any treatment that could be performed
  that will significantly increase ecosystem
  recovery?

23
BAER

• Limited to rehab work and significant
  improvement over natural recovery
• For instance
• Cannot build new facilities with BAER (but you
  can repair old ones)
• Cannot alter long-term silvicultural goals (but
  can provide for some seeding, if significant
  improvement is indicated)
• Cant set up tasked, event-specific research

24
BAER

• GTR-63 provides
• Fire effects review
• How to acquire analyze data
• How to describe results of assessment
  monitoring
• Discusses BAER assessments treatment
  effectiveness
• Makes conclusions regarding BAER process
• Makes recommendations about BAER process

25
HILLSLOPE TREATMENTS
First line of defense

• Broadcast seeding, including grasses
• Exotics cheap, fast growth
• Natives Expensive (20x to 50x), slow growth
• Most BAER treatments are shying away from
  inexpensive seeding, but Private, County State
  agencies (except CDF) not.
• Mulching
• Contour trenching
• Contour felling
• Fencing contour check-dams
• Lopping scattering of slash
• Hay, straw wattles, Jute meshing, etc

26
Channel Treatments

• Within any order stream
• Check dams
• Logs
• Hay Bales
• Rock Dams, Rock Cages, Weirs
• Tend to fill w/ debris

27
Road Treatments

• Target increase the water and sediment
  capabilities of roads road structures
• Culverts
• Out-sloping
• Overflows
• Crossings
• Bridges

28
QUESTIONS

• Briefly discuss the Fire Impacts that GTR-63 is
  concerned with.
• What are the three primary types of erosion
  control treatment categories?
• Why isnt broadcast seeding such a good idea
  anymore, and what vegetation community is most
  affected by this treatment?
• Are no treatment costs more or less than
  specific treatment alternatives? Why or why not?