BY GREG NAGLE, DAVE PERRY, RICH FAIRBANKS
Avoiding Crown Fires
Fuels reduction thinning can help
W
e have serious disagree-
ments with the Viewpoint
(11/1) by Tim Hermach on fire
ecology and fuels reduction with thin-
ning. We recognize that protection of
old-growth forests is necessary, since
enough old growth has been clearcut —
too much, in fact. Given the fact that
logging reduced Oregon’s old forests by
approximately 80 percent over the 20th
century, people are justifiably skeptical
about yet more logging in these forests.
However we also fear that we may
lose much of our remaining old growth
to fires, especially in the mid- and low-
elevation ponderosa pine zone of
Eastern Oregon. With early high-grade
logging and many decades in which
wildfires were suppressed, forest
canopies and fuel loads have changed
drastically in those low- and mixed-
An untouched pine forest (above)
and a thinned and treated
severity fire regime areas, even in wilder-
pine forest (below)
ness areas that have had no cutting.
In the most extreme weather condi-
tions, little will change fire behavior, and it is likely futile to attempt large-scale
fuels treatments in moister coastal and high elevation “stand replacement fire
regimes” where very infrequent natural fires tend to burn everything. However, in
Oregon’s drier forests with historically mixed- and low-severity regimes, fuels
treatments and thinning can have a significant impact on fire behavior.
It doesn’t follow that thinning and fuels treatments guarantee a crown fire will
be stopped; under severe weather conditions, almost anything will burn. The ob-
jective of such treatments is to lower the probability that a surface fire will turn
into a crown fire; in other words, they are a form of insurance. There are other val-
ues at stake — water, soils, habitat — and the challenge is to reduce fire risk without
compromising these.
In his column, Hermach said, “In fact, recent science demonstrates that forests
that were thinned before a wildfire, including the Biscuit Fire, ended up with more
dead trees than the forests that were left to nature. Not surprisingly, many of the
forests around Lake Tahoe had already been ‘thinned,’ some of them up to six
months before the fire, which — at best — did next to nothing to prevent the fire,
and — at worst — intensified the blaze.”
The published scientific study on the Biscuit thinning Hermach talks about ac-
tually said this: “The thinned and underburned treatment was burned in fall 2001
(one year before the Biscuit Fire). The Biscuit Fire burned all around it, but stopped
at the edge of the treatment.”
In fact, thinning and slash treatment have been successful in reducing severe
fire in eastern Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Tahoe, the Biscuit Fire and parts
of northern California. Studies show that when the slash from thinning is treated
by burning or crushing into small pieces, fires stay mostly on the ground with
canopy fire reduced considerably, but without such slash treatment, fires can in-
deed burn hotter. Thinning opponents have sometimes singled out areas without
treated slash to support their case. For example, ignoring the full range of treat-
ment effects at Tahoe, one of Hermach’s colleagues widely distributed pictures of
the one treatment area that had not had thinning slash treated, and consequently
burned severely, using it to argue that thinning didn’t work.
Tahoe illustrates some of the complexities and the dangers of drawing conclu-
sions without all the facts. There, heavy thinning treatments were less effective on
very steep slopes because fire is more easily carried from the ground into
canopies. In some forests, treating thinning slash alone may not be sufficient; we
might also need prescribed burns to reduce small surface fuels.
E
ven when we disagree, we respect opponents who present evidence
soberly and accurately, but we cringe when scientific literature is ignored
or misrepresented. We are not contending that thinning in all locations is
advised, helpful or even economical, but Hermach and others have blatantly mis-
represented studies of wildfire behavior in stands thinned for fuels treatments.
Whether due to sloppiness or purposeful cherry-picking to support a point of view,
such distortions do a disservice to those trying to understand how to best protect
our forests and rural communities.
Greg Nagle has a Ph.D. in forest science, learned field forestry as a former president of Hoedads Cooperative
and works as a teacher and research scientist at Cornell University. Dave Perry is OSU professor emeritus of
ecosystem studies and ecosystem management. Rich Fairbanks is the California/Nevada forest and fire program
associate for The Wilderness Society.
4 NOVEMBER 29, 2007
TO THE EDITOR
ROADSIDE SPRAYING AGAIN?
On Dec. 5 the Department of Public
Works will go before the Board of County
Commissioners to seek approval of its 2008
roadside management plan. This plan in-
cludes some use of herbicides in areas not
yet revealed. Why is anyone still using her-
bicides or any synthetic chemical?
Imagine it’s 1947 and we’re being asked
to consider a new tool for controlling vege-
tation; it’s called herbicide. Companies that
had produced chemical weapons for World
War II were looking for new markets. These
chemicals were comprised of molecules
that were never combined in the natural
world. In other words synthetic. Of all the
molecules that nature combines to make
everything, nature did not combine these;
and guess what, they’re toxic. These toxic
substances will become pervasive in our en-
vironment. They are designed to apply to
plants but will travel through our soils and
into our water. They will end up in the bod-
ies of animals. We humans will have multi-
ple synthetic chemicals in our bodies. They
will be in our blood and stored in our fat (see
National Geographic, October 2006).
Many people will suffer acute and
chronic disabilities, disease and early death.
These long-term consequences will not be
studied for decades. These are substances
that our ancestors did not have in their bod-
ies and, of course, were not part of the evo-
lution of life.
The question is why are we still doing
this? Why don’t we stop?
Jan Nelson
Eugene
OUT OF CONTEXT
Dear Erin Rokita (cover story 11/21):
Here’s an advice for you: Write your articles
shortly after the interviews you conduct, so
you’ll reduce the chances of misquoting
people. It would also be a good idea to have
your articles proofread by an unbiased third
party.
In the article “Timberrrr!,” you quote me
saying that “in an urban setting trees need to
be removed because they represent a risk.”
Do you realize what you wrote? Do you
think that for one minute, Eugene Tree
Foundation — which you barely mentioned
— would have me as their president if I had
such a view on trees?
Might as well quote me saying: “Let’s
remove all the trees in Eugene so there will
be no risks!” And thank you for mentioning
that arborists are also “paid to cut them
down.” That’s a perfect touch to your one-
sided story.
Certified arborists also plant, consult and
educate people on the beauty and value of
their trees. In my book, if an arborist does
not have respect and love for trees, he or she
should switch to something else and leave
the trees alone; unfortunately, some are still
around.
The company I work for has also do-
nated a full day of work with five arborists
to maintain and recable the gorgeous Owen
cherry some years ago. But it seems that we
are never or barely acknowledged for such
behavior! It’s much juicier to feed on the
dramatic part of the equation: the removal
of trees.
Just as much as most Eugeneans, I don’t
like when a tree is removed, but I agree with
Mark Snyder; I couldn’t live with myself if
someone was killed by a hazardous tree that
was under my care. My expertise is also
sought by citizens when a tree is believed to
be dangerous and they need a professional
opinion. In that case, I am the one that will
help them making the decision and, ironi-
cally, most of them will feel relieved be-
cause they share the guilt of killing a tree. I
have been known to turn down calls for re-
movals because the reasons were pure
human convenience and not hazard related.
Now, for the benefit and credit of
Eugene Tree Foundation: We also plant
trees and since 1998, have put in the ground
more than 1,500 all over town — with just
volunteers!
Here is a call for whoever was angry at
“the city” after reading “Timberrrr!” last
week: Our planting season starts soon and