U.S. Forest Service to suspend prescribed burns in Colorado

There's no way they can chip all the stuff mitigated in the national forests. And even if they could, chipping all that stuff back onto the ground makes me think of preparing kindling for the next fire. We rake up leaves and pine needles around the house so there is not as much burnable stuff. So we should chip our deadfall and make more?

I agree there needs to be a better way, and chipping it into trucks to haul it away sounds like something to look into. Once it's hauled out how would it be disposed of? We're taking a trailer load of stuff to the Rooney Road facility today but I have no clue what they do with it.

As a side note, you don't have to be a JeffCo resident to use the Rooney Road facility for slash. The fees go up tomorrow (from what's posted on their website for 2011 - http://www.rooneyroadrecycling.org/recy ... edule-2-2/ ). Category 1 materials will be $5.00/cubic yard, Category 2 will be $6.50. Also, their summer hours go into effect: 7 am to 5 pm, last load in at 4:45.

NOREEN: No time to give up on prescribed burns
April 07, 2012 12:00 PM
ShareThis| Print Story | E-Mail Story
BARRY NOREEN
THE GAZETTE
The prescribed burn-turned-forest fire that killed three people and destroyed dozens of homes west of Denver recently was certainly a tragedy, but that shouldn't stop up from setting fire to portions of the forest in order to manage it.

The practice of using fire as a management tool is controversial, and there is no doubt that mistakes were made that led to the recent tragedy. For now, Colorado is under a two-week ban on prescribed burns, but that’s a bit academic since very soon we’ll reach the season of the year in which prescribed burns are never done, anyway ­— the next prescribed burns likely would occur in, say, October.



Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/tragedy ... z1rTRDGoOz

Simple solution: Chip and spread back onto the forrest floor - done in many states

---

buy chippers - reduce number of fires- reduce number of firefighters

---

cheaper and safer.

This "natural sequence" is a myth

---

people are dying and homes are destroyed. LOS Alamos and Yellowstone should have been enough of this madness.

Prescribed Burns are a very useful tool in protecting those of us who choose to live in a Wildland fire area.
A great example of this is the Hayman Fire Case Study
People CHOOSE to live in this environment and as such need to take a certain amount of the responsibility of how we live here.
Controlled burns are an unfortunate necessity if we are going to occupy the forest here.
If controlled burns are done properly under the appropriate conditions, they will be very useful in protecting us from a catastrophic incident.
We don't know exactly what went wrong with the Lower North Fork Fire. I suspect that what went wrong was a combination of a lot of issues, which in my opinion, originate in a good deal of complacency on EVERYONE'S part.
Mitigate your property. Plan for a disaster. Leave if you feel threatened and don't wait for the government to tell you.

As we approach the 10th anniversary of the Hayman Fire.....this should be as must read for all of us.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr11 ... 01_032.pdf

I just used Google Maps to look at an overhead view of my place. It showed me that I really need to do some mitigation work - there's a line of trees straight up to my deck. From the ground, they don't look that close. From the air it shows that the crowns overlap all the way up.

It's kinda nice to see it from the top - it shows that in general I'm better at mitigation than my neighbors are, so at least I have that to feel good about

Thanks for the link Becky. I understand the importance of controlled burns. The problem is how sloppily some have been done. Those are the ones that get remembered, especially when 3 people die and homes burn. I don't see the forest service working on any of the adjoining Burland subdivision. It appears there are some other options. I am glad to see some logging and thinning in the national forest near Harris Park.

Did the homeowners in your subdivision do controlled burns or was most mitigated by other means? We used cutters and bow saws for smaller growth and chainsaws for the larger and since these were are larger parcels it was either chipped or buried and then covered with a lot of dirt.

The Fire Department would come in and cut and mitigate properties and when weather permitted, they did controlled burns of the slash.
We had several in the subdivision this past winter.

Is chipping and returning the chips to the property a better fire mitigation procedure than prescribed burning?

I don't know, but I believe there are many aspects to be considered.

Here is a study titled "Effects of Forest Thinning and Chipping on Soil Properties and Understory Vegetation at Heil Valley Ranch" that provides some interesting information regarding the effects of wood chips on resulting vegetation growth. It states that "The ecosystem effects of woodchip mulch applications to thinned forest remain largely unstudied."

Here is another study, titled "Mitigation Strategies for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks". It points out some of the difficulties associated with wide ranging chipping efforts.

Another viewpoint and option is provided here , titled "Disposal of Trees Affected by the Pine Beetle: The Dilemma and why Air Curtain Burners Should Be Used".

Does large scale chipping and broadcast of the resultant biomass create increased risk of fast moving surface fire in the treated area? I don't know, and have not found any studies on this.

IMO there is not a simple answer to what approach is best, and there most likely is not a one size fits all solution.

BTW - and done in many places - the chipped material is converted into fuel for power plants and pellets

---

well proven technology. Here we have a culture that promotes a firefighter infrastructure that is costly and as we see dangerous.

A standard position - if you do not like it

---

leave ----I expected much more on this www site.

Common

---

COMMON. Mitigation studies abound usually paid for by the FEDS

---

rarely independent.