DOCSLIB.ORG

Be Careful What You Wish For: the Legacy of Smokey Bear

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Be Careful What You Wish For: the Legacy of Smokey Bear REVIEWS REVIEWS REVIEWS Be careful what you wish for: the legacy of 73 Smokey Bear Geoffrey H Donovan1* and Thomas C Brown2 A century of wildfire suppression in the United States has led to increased fuel loading and large-scale ecologi- cal change across some of the nation’s forests. Land management agencies have responded by increasing the use of prescribed fire and thinning. However, given the continued emphasis on fire suppression, current levels of funding for such fuel management practices are unlikely to maintain the status quo, let alone reverse the effects of fire exclusion. We suggest an alternative approach to wildfire management, one that places less emphasis on suppression and instead encourages managers to balance short-term wildfire damages against the long-term consequences of fire exclusion. However, any major change in wildfire management, such as the one proposed here, will shift the costs and benefits of wildfire management, inevitably raising opposition. Front Ecol Environ 2007; 5(2): 73–79 or 60 years, Smokey Bear has successfully champi- sity of many stands to increase (Figure 1), particularly in Foned fire suppression in the United States, but his forest types that have historically experienced frequent, success has come at considerable cost. Indeed, it could be low-intensity fires. Third, the suitability of forests as likened to the British victory over American rebels at habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species has been Bunker Hill in 1775, about which it was said, “A few altered, as a result of changes in canopy cover and the more such victories would surely spell ruin for the vic- composition and productivity of understory communi- tors”. We examine the historical roots and consequences ties. Ecological restoration treatments in northern of US wildfire suppression policy. In addition, we criti- Arizona, for example, doubled the diversity of the but- cally assess current efforts to ameliorate the effects of a terfly community and increased the total abundance of century of wildfire suppression. Finally, we offer an alter- butterflies by three- to fivefold (Waltz and Covington native approach to wildfire management that places less 2004). In addition to direct ecological effects, wildfire emphasis on suppression. suppression results in a buildup of forest fuel, which in Decades of aggressive wildfire suppression have caused turn contributes to more extreme fire patterns. More a number of profound ecological changes in some of the intense fires can change the species composition of a nation’s forests. First, the composition of some forests is stand (Hessburg and Agee 2003) and destroy seed banks shifting toward less fire-tolerant species (Arno and (Busse et al. 2005) in some forest types. Allison-Bunnell 2002). For example, in the western US, Increased fuel levels, along with drought conditions Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var glauca) and grand and warmer temperatures in much of the western US fir (Abies grandis) are encroaching upon stands previ- (Westerling et al. 2006), have also resulted in an ously dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa; increase in wildfire suppression costs (Calkin et al. Agee 1993). Second, fire exclusion has allowed the den- 2005). Federal wildfire suppression expenditures in the US exceeded $1 billion for the first time in 2000 and did so again in both 2002 and 2003. These record-high costs In a nutshell: were accompanied by record levels of area burned • A century of wildfire exclusion in the US has substantially (Figure 2). altered many of the nation’s forests and resulted in wildfires that are more expensive and more difficult to control • Current corrective policies, which emphasize fuel manage- Historical origins of wildfire exclusion ment, are often underfunded or infeasible • We propose a fundamental change in the way wildfire sup- For people raised in the Smokey Bear era, a policy of pression is funded, which would encourage managers to con- aggressive wildfire suppression may be taken for granted. sider the beneficial effects of wildfire However, in the early 20th century, there was an active debate about the appropriate role of fire in forest manage- ment. This debate was particularly intense in the south- 1USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, 620 SW east and the west, where fire had commonly been used as Main, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205 *([email protected]); a management tool. Many landowners in these fire-prone 2USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2150-A regions recognized that, in some forest types, regular fire Centre Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80527 was necessary to remove fuel that would otherwise build © The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org The legacy of Smokey Bear GH Donovan and TC Brown 74 (a) (b) (a and b) courtesy of the Forest History Society, Durham, NC (a and b) courtesy of the Forest History Society, Figure 1. (a) Photograph by William H Illingworth, taken on the 1874 expedition to explore the Black Hills of South Dakota led by Brevet Major General George Armstrong Custer. Looking down Castle Creek, tracks can be seen on the valley floor, indicating wagons had passed this location. Held by the South Dakota State Historical Society. (b) Repeat photograph of Castle Creek Valley taken by Richard H Sowell in ca 1974 from near the same position. This photo shows forest expansion in the area following a century of fire exclusion. Held by the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station. up and pose a risk of a more destructive fire, a view suc- The pioneering forester and conservationist, Aldo cinctly stated by GL Hoxie (1910): Leopold, applauded the explosion of small trees in a pon- derosa pine forest in northern Arizona that followed “Why not by practical forestry keep the supply of removal of light fires (Leopold 1920): inflammable matter on the forest cover or carpet so limited by timely burning as to deprive even “It is also a known fact that the prevention of the lightning fires of sufficient fuel to in any man- light burning during the past 10 years…has ner put them in the position of master?... Fires to brought in growth on large areas where repro- the forests are as necessary as are crematories and duction was hitherto largely lacking. Actual cemeteries to our cities and towns; this is Nature’s counts show that the 1919 seedling crop runs process for removing the dead of the forest family as high as 100 000 per acre. It does not require and for bettering conditions for the living.” any very elaborate argument to show that these tiny trees, averaging only 2 inches high, The majority of professional foresters, however, opposed would be completely destroyed by even a light the use of fire. Most had been trained at forestry schools ground fire.” in the eastern US, where the curriculum was heavily influenced by German forest practices, which emphasized Although the views of Olmstead and Leopold were a scientific, ordered approach to forest management. shared by many foresters, some took a more nuanced These foresters, who viewed fires as killing small trees view of fire, including, at least for a time, the second that they believed would otherwise grow to maturity, chief of the US Forest Service, Henry Graves pejoratively referred to the light burning approach advo- (Stephens and Ruth 2005), as well as some academics cated by Hoxie and others as “Indian” forestry, a perspec- (most notably Herman Chapman). However, a number tive forcefully expressed by FE Olmstead in 1911 (in of factors solidified the forestry profession’s opposition Carle [2002]): to any use of fire. Foremost was the 1910 fire season, when 2 million ha of Forest Service land burned and 78 “It is said that we should follow the savage’s firefighters lost their lives. Wildfire exclusion was also example of ‘burning up the woods’ to a small consistent with the conservationist ideal of the extent in order that they may not be burnt up to Progressive Era, which was inclined to view fire as a greater extent bye and bye. This is not forestry; another force of nature to be tamed, not as a potential not conservation; it is simple destruction…the management tool. Government, first of all, must keep its lands pro- Even after the Forest Service adopted a policy of fire ducing timber crops indefinitely, and it is wholly exclusion, some foresters privately admitted that fire impossible to do this without protecting, encour- could be useful (Carle 2002). The following prescient aging, and bringing to maturity every bit of nat- statement was written in 1920 by SE White (White ural young growth.” 1920): www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America GH Donovan and TC Brown The legacy of Smokey Bear “…keep firmly in mind that fires have 75 1000 700 000 always been in the forests, centuries 900 and centuries before we began to med- 600 000 dle with them. The only question that 800 remains is whether, after accumulating 700 500 000 kindling by twenty years or so of ‘pro- 600 tection’, we can now get rid of it 400 000 safely… In other words, if we try to 500 burn it out now, will we not get a 400 300 000 destructive fire? We have caught the 300 200 000 bear by the tail – can we let it go?…In 200 this one matter of fire in the forests, the 100 000 100 5-year mean burned (thousands ha) area Forest Service has unconsciously cost ($ millions) 5-year mean suppression veered to the attitude of defense of its 0 0 1984 1986 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 theory at all costs. There is no con- Year scious dishonesty, but there is plenty of cost area human nature.” Figure 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Rising Cost of Wildfire Protection
    A Research Paper by The Rising Cost of Wildfire Protection Ross Gorte, Ph.D. Retired Senior Policy Analyst, Congressional Research Service Affiliate Research Professor, Earth Systems Research Center of the Earth, Oceans, and Space Institute, University of New Hampshire June 2013 The Rising Cost of Wildfire Protection June 2013 PUBLISHED ONLINE: http://headwaterseconomics.org/wildfire/fire-costs-background/ ABOUT THIS REPORT Headwaters Economics produced this report to better understand and address why wildfires are becoming more severe and expensive. The report also describes how the protection of homes in the Wildland-Urban Interface has added to these costs and concludes with a brief discussion of solutions that may help control escalating costs. Headwaters Economics is making a long-term commitment to better understanding these issues. For additional resources, see: http://headwaterseconomics.org/wildfire. ABOUT HEADWATERS ECONOMICS Headwaters Economics is an independent, nonprofit research group whose mission is to improve community development and land management decisions in the West. CONTACT INFORMATION Ray Rasker, Ph.D. Executive Director, Headwaters Economics [email protected] 406 570-7044 Ross Gorte, Ph.D.: http://www.eos.unh.edu/Faculty/rosswgorte P.O. Box 7059 Bozeman, MT 59771 http://headwaterseconomics.org Cover image “Firewise” by Monte Dolack used by permission, Monty Dolack Gallery, Missoula Montana. TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prineville Interagency Hotshot Crew Ochoco & Deschutes National Forests and Prineville BLM Central Oregon Fire Management Service
    Prineville Interagency Hotshot Crew Ochoco & Deschutes National Forests and Prineville BLM Central Oregon Fire Management Service OUTREACH NOTICE The Ochoco National Forest will soon be filling 2- GS-0462-04/05 Interagency Hotshot Crew Senior Firefighter positions. These positions are permanent seasonal positions with a tour of duty that includes full-time or less than full-time (guaranteed minimum 6 months/13 pay periods of full-time employment). If on a seasonal schedule, you will be placed in a non-pay status for the rest of the season. Duty station is located in Prineville, Oregon. OCRP-462-IHC/HCREW-4/5DP https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetail/328826500 Demo OCRP-462-IHC/HCREW-4/5G https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetail/328826400 Merit PLEASE NOTE: The purpose of this outreach notice is to determine the potential applicant pool for this position and to establish the appropriate recruitment method and area of consideration for the advertisement. Responses received from this outreach notice will be relied upon to make this determination. Reply due date to this outreach notice is January 28, 2013. THE POSITION: The position is located on a wildland fire crew (Prineville Interagency Hotshot Crew). The purpose of the position is wildland fire suppression/management/control as a specialized firefighter with responsibility for the operation and maintenance of specialized tools or equipment. Other wildland fire related duties may involve fire prevention, patrol, detection, or prescribed burning. These are permanent positions with varying tours of duty and may include weekend work. Some positions may have irregular and protracted hours of work.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining Dispatching Practices for Interagency Hotshot Crews to Reduce Seasonal Travel Distance and Manage Fatigue
    CSIRO PUBLISHING International Journal of Wildland Fire 2018, 27, 569–580 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF17163 Examining dispatching practices for Interagency Hotshot Crews to reduce seasonal travel distance and manage fatigue Erin J. BelvalA,D, David E. CalkinB, Yu WeiA, Crystal S. StonesiferB, Matthew P. ThompsonC and Alex MasarieA ADepartment of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA. BUSDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 800 E Beckwith Avenue, Missoula, MT 59801, USA. CUSDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 240 W Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA. DCorresponding author. Email: [email protected] Abstract. Interagency Hotshot Crews (IHCs) are a crucial firefighting suppression resource in the United States. These crews travel substantial distances each year and work long and arduous assignments that can cause accumulated fatigue. Current dispatching practices for these crews are supposed to send the closest resource while adhering to existing fatigue- management policies. In this research, we designed a simulation process that repeatedly implements an optimisation model to assign crews to suppression requests. This study examines the potential effects of using an optimisation approach to shorten seasonal crew travel distances and mitigate fatigue. We also examine the potential benefits of coordinating crew-dispatch decisions to meet multiple requests. Results indicate there is substantial room for improvement in reducing travel distances while still balancing crew fatigue; coordinating crew dispatching for multiple requests can increase the assignment efficiency, particularly when both fatigue mitigation and travel distances are jointly optimised. This research indicates implementing an optimisation model for dispatching IHCs is promising.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Fire Season and Wildfire Management Program Review
    Review of Alberta Agriculture and Forestry’s Wildfire Management Program and the 2015 Fire Season Volume 1: Summary Report Prepared By: MNP LLP Suite 1600, MNP Tower 10235 – 101 Street NW Edmonton, AB T5J 3G1 Prepared For: Forestry Division, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 10th Floor Petroleum Plaza South Tower 9915 - 108 Street Edmonton, AB T5K 2G8 Date: December 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Alberta’s 2015 Wildfire Management Program ................................................. 1 2. The 2015 Fire Season ......................................................................................... 4 3. A Review and Evaluation of Alberta’s Wildfire Management Program .......... 7 3.1 Wildfire Prevention Program ................................................................................... 7 3.2 Wildfire Detection .................................................................................................. 12 3.3 Presuppression Preparedness .............................................................................. 14 3.4 Suppression .......................................................................................................... 16 3.5 Policy and Planning .............................................................................................. 18 3.6 Resource Sharing and Mutual Aid......................................................................... 20 4. Flat Top Complex Recommendations ............................................................ 23 4.1 Evaluation of Fulfillment of the Flat Top Review Recommendations
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Patterns and Physical Factors of Smokejumper Utilization Since 2004
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2014 SPATIAL PATTERNS AND PHYSICAL FACTORS OF SMOKEJUMPER UTILIZATION SINCE 2004 Tyson A. Atkinson University of Montana - Missoula Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Part of the Forest Management Commons, and the Other Forestry and Forest Sciences Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Atkinson, Tyson A., "SPATIAL PATTERNS AND PHYSICAL FACTORS OF SMOKEJUMPER UTILIZATION SINCE 2004" (2014). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 4384. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4384 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPATIAL PATTERNS AND PHYSICAL FACTORS OF SMOKEJUMPER UTILIZATION SINCE 2004 By TYSON ALLEN ATKINSON Bachelor of Science, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, 2009 Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Forestry The University of Montana Missoula, MT December 2014 Approved by: Sandy Ross, Dean of The Graduate School Graduate School Dr. Carl A. Seielstad, Chair Department of Forest Management Dr. LLoyd P. Queen Department of Forest Management Dr. Charles G. Palmer Department of Health and Human Performance Atkinson, Tyson Allen, M.S., December 2014 Forestry Spatial Patterns and Physical Factors of Smokejumper Utilization since 2004 Chairperson: Dr. Carl Seielstad Abstract: This research examines patterns of aerial smokejumper usage in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Behaviour As a Factor in Forest and Rural Fire Suppression
    Fire behaviour as a factor in forest and rural fire suppression Martin E. Alexander Forest Research Bulletin No. 197 Forest and Rural Fire Scientific and Technical Series Report No. 5 Other reports printed in the Forest and Rural Fire Scientific and Technical Series (Forest Research Bulletin No. 197) include: 1. Fogarty, L.G. 1996. Two rural/urban interface fires in the Wellington suburb of Karori: assessment of associated burning conditions and fire control strategies. 2. Rasmussen, J.H.; Fogarty, L.G. 1997. A case study of grassland fire behaviour and suppression: the Tikokino Fire of 31 January 1991. 3. Fogarty, L.G.; Jackson, A.F.; Lindsay, W.T. 1997. Fire behaviour, suppression and lessons from the Berwick Forest Fire of 26 February 1995. 4. Pearce, H.G.; Hamilton, R.W.; Millman, R.I. 2000. Fire behaviour and firefighter safety implications associated with the Bucklands Crossing Fire burnover of 24 March 1998. Cover Photographs: Upper left – Fire behaviour during the 1995 Berwick Forest Fire, Otago. Upper right – Whakamaru lookout in Kinleith Forest, Central North Island. Lower left – Aerial suppression during the 1994 Montgomery Crescent Fire, in the suburb of Karori, Wellington. Lower right – Fire suppression during a simulated fire exercise in Kinleith Forest, March 1993. Paper Reprint Fire behaviour as a factor in forest and rural fire suppression* Martin E. Alexander (Senior Fire Research Officer, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) This paper was originally presented at the Forest and Rural Fire Association of New Zealand (FRFANZ) 2nd Annual Conference, 5-7 August 1992, Christchurch, when the author was a Visiting Fire Research Scientist on a 12 month secondment to the New Zealand Forest Research Institute, Rotorua, New Zealand.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Fuel Treatments in U.S. National Forests Reduce Wildfire Suppression Costs and Property Damage?
    Do Fuel Treatments in U.S. National Forests Reduce Wildfire Suppression Costs and Property Damage? JOSÉ J. SÁNCHEZ USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station [email protected] JOHN LOOMIS Colorado State University ARMANDO GONZÁLEZ-CABÁN USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station DOUGLAS RIDEOUT Colorado State University ROBIN REICH Colorado State University Abstract | This article tests two hypotheses on whether forest fuel reduction treatments (prescribed burning and mechanical methods) reduce wildfire sup- pression costs and property damages. Data were collected on fuel treatments, fire suppression costs, and property damage associated with wildfires in United States National Forests over a five-year period throughout the continental United States. The continental U.S. pooled data model results show that overall, prescribed burning reduces suppression cost and both fuel treatment types reduce property damages. Further analysis was done to separate the data into seven geographic regions of the United States. Results of the multiple regressions show that in California and the northern Rockies, mechanical fuel treatments reduce wildfire Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2019 Copyright © 2020 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA (Received 6 September 2018; accepted 10 June 2019) doi: 10.5325/naturesopolirese.9.1.0042 03_Sanchez.indd 42 09/06/20 10:51 AM Fuel Treatments, Wildfire Suppression Costs, Property Damage 43 suppression costs, while only in California did prescribed burning reduce the cost. The second hypothesis tested is that fuel treatments, by making wildfires less damaging and easier to control, may reduce property damage. This hypoth- esis is generally confirmed for hectares treated with prescribed burning in four out of five geographic regions that had a significant coefficient on prescribed fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Tradeoffs Between Wildfires and Fuel Treatments1
    Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: A Global View Evaluating Tradeoffs Between Wildfires and Fuel Treatments1 Philip N. Omi2 Abstract Wildfires continue to burn in the US despite rising concerns for the costs and losses associated with recurrent fire episodes. Prescribed fire and other fuel treatments have been proposed as potential solutions to US fire problems, though fire hazard reduction through fuels management can be controversial. Evaluating tradeoffs between wildfires and fuel treatments for a geographic area may sound straightforward, especially with a growing body of evidence showing fuel treatment effectiveness in reducing wildfire severity within a stand. However analytical problems in assessing treatment productivity are considerable, and may be compounded by deficiencies in the type of data typically collected by public agencies. Other problems are rooted by the relatively scant information available on treatments applied on a landscape scale. Further, public agency proxies for minimizing wildfire cost and net value changes may not link directly with societal values. Introduction The US has experienced episodic wildfire seasons in 1988, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002, and 2003, with significant fire incidents occurring annually. Over the years, policy makers, scientists, and various publics have labored long and hard to develop different alternatives to these recurrent outbreaks. The usual conclusion reached is that solutions involve a systematic approach to fire management, including a combination of fire prevention, fire suppression, fuels management, ecological restoration, and other activities. Traditionally, fire suppression has received the most focus by far. More recently, fuel treatments such as prescribed fire and mechanical thinning are often seen as a critical part of hazard reduction and resource management plans, though tradeoffs between wildfires and fuel treatment alternatives have proven elusive and difficult to establish.
    [Show full text]
  • Rehabilitation Following Wilderness Fire Suppression Activities
    Rehabilitation Following Wilderness Fire Suppression Activities The major goal of wildfire rehabilitation is: To mitigate or eliminate environmental resource impacts caused by the fire suppression effort and rehab the area to as natural conditions as possible. Agency policy emphasizes the need to rehabilitate areas disturbed during the fire suppression effort to as natural an appearance as possible. This goal coincides with the intentions of the Wilderness Act, which states: “....wilderness is an area effected primarily by nature, with human activity substantially unnoticeable....” In the case of wild- fire suppression, it is the human involvement that has the potential to be the damaging effect on the wilderness resource, even more so than the effects of the fire. Rehabilitation Suggestion Before starting rehabilitation task, walk through adjacent untouched area and observe appearance, arrangement and color scheme of a naturally evolved forest. Let your imagination be your guide— notice the variety/diversity of a natural landscape. The Resource Advisor should be available for advice and support with the crew(s) as well as quality control. Major areas of concern to address in a fire suppression rehab plan are firelines, helispots, camps, staging areas, and any actions taken related to the the fire suppression effort. For instance, the repair of trails or bridges damaged during pack-in/pack-out trips, or the collection of plastic flagging used to direct crews to the fire or location of spot fires. Fireline Rehabilitation: •After fire spread is secured, replace dug-out soil/duff; obliterate any berms and leave as natural appearing. •Provide some means for drainage to prevent erosion on firelines or trails created on sloped areas, i.e., shadow-depth water bars, or natural material to act as sediment dams.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Emergency Operations Plan ESF 4A
    Colorado Emergency Operations Plan ESF 4a Wildfire Suppression Emergency Support Function #4a Colorado State Emergency Operations Plan LEAD AGENCY: Colorado State Forest Service SUPPORTING AGENCIES: American Red Cross; Colorado State Fire Chiefs’ Association; Colorado Volunteer Organizations Active in Disaster (COVOAD); Department of Corrections; Department of Law; Department of Military and Veterans Affairs; Department of Natural Resources; Department of Public Safety/Division of Fire Safety; Department of Transportation; Division of Emergency Management. I. PURPOSE The purpose of this ESF is to provide procedure for the response to wildfires within he state that exceed the capabilities of local and county resources to manage. II. SCOPE The scope of this ESF is to describe the general response of the Colorado State Forest Service and other supporting agencies in response to an emergency wildfire incident in Colorado. III. SITUATION Wildfires occur as unscheduled emergency events in wildland fuels (prairie or forest vegetation) and also in fuels that include a combination of wildland and man-introduced fuels (houses and improvements). Wildfires involve or threaten human life, residential housing, other improvements, and natural resources. Due to natural fuels build-up and increased population in wildland urban interface areas, wildfires exceeding the control efforts of local and county resources are becoming more common and more complex. Wildland firefighting in Colorado is interagency in nature involving state, county, local, Federal, and tribal partners. Colorado State Forest Service is the organizational bridge between Federal agencies and county/local partners. IV. PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS A. Wildfires which exceed the capabilities of local and county resources will occur. B. Wildfires will threaten lives, property, and natural resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Mountain Fire Lookout Relocation
    NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA #OR-010-2004-05) AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) FOR GREEN MOUNTAIN LOOKOUT The Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, has analyzed a proposal and several alternatives to replace the existing fire lookout facility located on Green Mountain in northern Lake County, Oregon. An EA and FONSI have been prepared to document the potential impacts of the proposed action. Copies of the documents are available for review by writing to the Lakeview District Office, 1301 South G Street, Lakeview, Oregon 97630, or by calling Bob Crumrine or Paul Whitman at (541) 947-2177. The documents are also available on the BLM‟s website at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/index.php. Those wishing to provide comments on the proposal must do so, in writing, by May 14, 2009. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Green Mountain Lookout EA# OR-OIO-2004-05 The Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, has analyzed a proposal and several alternatives to replace the existing fire lookout facility located on Green Mountain in north Lake County, Oregon. The new lookout would include water and shower systems, security systems, heating, bathroom, structure improvements, fire-finders, and interior furnishings. The alternatives vary in the amount ofnew access road or road realignment work that would be required. The proposed project is in conformance with applicable land use plans and policies. There are no flood plains, wetlands, riparian areas, water quality, fish or aquatic habitat, threatened, endangered, special status or sensitive species, prime or unique farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, areas ofcritical environmental concern, research natural areas, designated wilderness, wilderness study areas, or other lands with wilderness characteristics, or wild horses in the project area.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-20-52, WILDLAND FIRE: Federal Agencies' Efforts to Reduce
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters December 2019 WILDLAND FIRE Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Reduce Wildland Fuels and Lower Risk to Communities and Ecosystems GAO-20-52 December 2019 WILDLAND FIRE Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Reduce Wildland Fuels and Lower Risk to Communities and Ecosystems Highlights of GAO-20-52, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found Wildfires have been increasing in size Five federal land management agencies—the Department of Agriculture’s Forest and severity, exacerbated by Service and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of abnormally dense vegetation, drought, Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service—use and other climate stressors. several methods to reduce fuels (vegetation) to help lower the intensity of Development in and around wildlands wildland fires on lands they manage or administer. These methods primarily also continues to increase, placing include mechanical treatments, which use equipment to cut and remove more people at risk from wildfires. To vegetation, and prescribed burns, which are deliberate, planned fires set by land reduce vegetation that can fuel such managers. The agencies have long-standing research programs designed to fires, federal land management further develop their understanding of how to implement effective fuel reduction agencies implement fuel reduction projects, including conducting assessments to evaluate project effectiveness. projects on public lands. Officials said the research helps the agencies to improve how they design and GAO was asked to examine the federal implement fuel reduction projects to address site-specific conditions. government’s preparedness, response, and recovery efforts following the In fiscal year 2018, when allocating fuel reduction funds, the agencies wildfires and other natural disasters of considered information on wildfire hazard potential, the location of communities, 2017.
    [Show full text]