Timber Sale Administration
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
59 TIMBER SALE ADMINISTRATION Slash Disposal Piling and burning of slash (mostly brush) on timber sales was recognized to be essential for land management very early in California. The files do not document when this requirement began, but when the San Francisco Office was organized (1908) it was a standard procedure. On October 12, 1907 Wm. T. Cox, Assistant Forester, wrote to C. A. Coleman, Supervisor, Shasta National Forest as follows: “In view of the fact that there are large quantities of unburned slash on the Shasta National Forest, I am sure you will be glad to know that there is a fund now available for burning brush. “Please report as soon as possible the approximate number of acres on your Forest upon which the brush should be burned together with the definite recommendations, and an estimate of the total cost based on about 25 cents per acre. “Since this work will probably be done largely by labor outside the regular ranger force, explicit instructions should be given to all new men employed. On account of the short duration of favorable weather it may be necessary to employ quite a large force. Please wire if the necessity for the increase in allotment seems urgent. “I enclose for your careful consideration suggestions for the disposal of brush on timber sale areas.” Supervisor Coleman replied on October 23 to effect that he was nearly up to date on brush burning and the rest would be handled by the purchasers or could be done with existing allotments. He did, however, ask for $300 to burn some brushland to try an experimental broadcast seeding project. (Even these “early timers” never missed a chance to request additional funds.) Cox’s attachment to the above letter indicates that the Service was attempting to develop procedures and contract requirements for brush piling and burning. The questions to be resolved were, should the Service do the burning, or should the burning be done by the purchaser? Apparently both ways had been tried. As early as May, 1909, the Sierra National Forest was of the opinion that brush burning should be the responsibility of the Rangers and said: “The successful burning of slash of this Forest is difficult, even to our most experienced rangers. It should never be left to the operator who cannot be expected 60 to equal, much less excel the rangers in interest, knowledge, patience and skill where (conifer) reproduction, seed trees, and fire are concerned.” Woodbury’s reply, May 18, 1909, to the Sierra stated: “It is not the intention to require operators to burn brush without careful supervision on the part of Forest Officers. If this requirement is inserted in any of your sale contracts, it should be understood that the operators are to stand ready to furnish men to perform the greatest part of the manual labor connected with brush burning, but that this labor will be performed under direct supervision of the Forest Officers, and that the Forest Service will assume the liability of carrying out the work properly. “I believe that this experiment should be tried if you have occasion to make a sale to reliable operators who are willing to agree to this clause.” Sierra Nevada Wood and Lumber Company sale, Tahoe National Forest, 1909. Slash remaining after cutting largely Jeffrey pine limbs lopped from tops and carelessly scattered. The issue of requiring the purchaser to furnish men for brush burning remained unresolved until 1911 when Cox wrote to the District Forester in February: “After obtaining the consensus of opinion of District Foresters in regard to the advisability of requiring purchasers to furnish labor to burn brush, when that method of disposal is to be followed, I feel that the policy should be to make this requirement 61 whenever it is reasonable and practicable, but not necessarily uniform. When the requirement is made it should be definite and not left to the discretion of the Supervisor.” Wm. B. Greeley replaced Cox in the Washington Office, and on September 22, 1913 wrote the District Foresters in part: “It has come to my attention that considerable areas of piled brush, under old contracts where burning was to be done by the Forest Service, have not been burned. It is my desire to have such slashings cleaned up uniformly in accordance with the original plan of management prepared and adopted at the time when the sale was made.” Greeley also requested a report from each District listing the amount of unburned slash, the cost of doing the work, and specific recommendations for handling the matter in each District. Lassen Lumber and Box Company, 1924. Left to right: Forest Officers T. D. Woodbury, A. E. Wieslander, and W. B. Greeley (Chief Forester). Company officials: McGowans, Frizzio, and Brietweiser. Woodbury replied that he thought comparatively little such brush remained unburned in D-5 and what was there could be handled with existing funds. This request by the Forester’s Office for a status report stimulated Woodbury to take a more active part in slash disposal. On October 25, 1914 he sent brush burning torches 62 made of 1 ½” pipe to the five timber sale Forests in northern California. The District Forester also suggested to the Supervisors that: “In order to do their work as easily and economically as possible, I suggest that when conditions are right each Supervisor who has much brush to handle in any amount, declare a “Protection Bee” and devote as large a part of his force as possible to do this work. I would be willing to approve the retention of your fire guards for a few additional days on this account and use your fire organization in this brush-burning, since it is purely protective work.” It had been standard practice to have funds deposited into the cooperative work fund by purchasers to do brush burning by the Service. In an opinion rendered on August 14, 1914, the Solicitor advised the Forester that in his judgment, the provision of the appropriation act for 1915, in regard to contributions towards cooperative work, did not authorize the insertion of a clause in timber sale contracts by which the purchaser agrees to deposit stated sums in the District depository to be expended by the Forest Service in the disposal of brush and other debris arising from logging operations under the timber sale agreement. Following this opinion by the Solicitor, D-5 revised the timber sale contract to provide for payment of bills incurred by the Forest Service burning to be paid by the purchaser up to a stated amount per M feet for the total scale of the timber cut under the agreement. This agreement was short-lived as Congress passed the Brush Disposal Act of August 11, 1916, which provided for deposits to be made by the purchaser to cover the cost of doing the work. This act remains in effect and is still in use on timber sales where slash burning is done. Piling and burning of slash on timber sale areas remained the D-5 standard for many years. There were many problems encountered by field personnel in getting the work done to a satisfactory standard. The piling work done by purchasers usually left much to be desired and the burning work done under supervision of the Service tended to lag behind schedule, and many times the burning caused considerable damage to the adjacent established reproduction from escape fires. 63 A statement by Woodbury on October 6, 1916, was typical of many reports and later annual summaries of the work indicated the same results: “For the past two or three years at this season we have attempted to dispose of brush which has accumulated on sales as an improvement projects. Each year we have been only partially successful, due to somewhat unfavorable climatic conditions or insufficient funds. As a result of this, in a good many localities quite a large amount of brush has accumulated”. In 1915, 2,483 acres were burned with 2,759 acres remaining to be burned. In 1919, 5,982 acres were burned and 2,706 acres remaining to be burned. The first challenge to the policy of complete piling and burning of timber sale slash came from S. B. Show, Forest Examiner (Research) on November 7, 1919: “During the past two field seasons I have had an opportunity to see a number of the timber sales on this District, and the outstanding thought in my opinion is the tremendous damage to reproduction which has been, and is being done, as a result of our methods of brush disposal. It is certainly a serious situation when sale areas cut over under Government administration have had high percentages of the advance reproduction destroyed, while adjoining areas of private land cut over entirely, regardless of reproduction, still retain essentially a complete stand of young stuff. This condition exists on an alarmingly high percent of our areas and may be traced directly to our adherence to the traditional system of brush piling and burning. On the sale to the Lassen Logging Company, for example, the brush burning in the Fall of 1918 destroyed almost completely the splendid stand of yellow pine seedlings on considerable areas, and on the eastern part of the Plumas the same thing can be seen. “It seems to me imperative that we recognize and admit that to a large extent our policy of brush burning has been disastrous, and that we should accordingly change it. I do not propose that the present method should be give up entirely, but certainly where advance reproduction covers most of the area and it is certain from our past experience that brush burning will destroy a large part of it, we should not attempt to burn the brush.