fire to help with pine beetle and fuel loads

[woodtroll]

In our area of management there is an isolated parcel of Forest Service ground, around 1500 acres. It is surrounded by private and state ground.
This parcel is a special area, no timber harvests, limited management, "Bugs and disease are to run there course". There is a significances to the local tribes.
People (forest service managers) assume it has not been logged, it has just long time ago with cross cut saws and likely horses. Last bit of back ground, there is a significant build up of mountain pine beetle.
The forest service can not treat the bug trees directly, they would have to change one line in their forest plan (a $90,000 change).
So they are proposing a prescribed burn. Burn it off to the property lines. They would use aerial ignition, and want a fire hot enough to 1 kill the pine beetles 2 reduce the fuel loads.

We have been asked our opinions by the private landowners and the forest service district involved. So my reason for posting this is to sound out my thinking and to analyze my thoughts. So I would like to hear any questions or thoughts you all may have.
Here are my thoughts right now:
1 a fire hot enough to kill the pine beetle will destroy both developed regeneration and many residual trees that would be seed source, putting the restocking of the stand back many years. Pine beetle do not prefer the smaller pines.
2. the fire would not eliminate the pine beetle over all,
3. fire damaged trees are more susceptible to pine beetle attack,
4. The fire would reduce the number of stems per acre
5. The fire would reduce the fuel loading.
6. the fire could dramatically alter the conditions of the sight.
7. the project will be very expensive.
8. The surrounding area will still be hit with the pine beetles.

[BaldBob]

The whole thing sounds to me like a waste of taxpayer money and and incredible risk to the adjacent properties. I can't understand why they aren't allowed to cut the beetle bait sized trees, but would be allowed to cut out a fire line of the width that would be needed to contain the size and intensity of the burn that seems to be envisioned.
RE your point 1.: Since I assume we are talking about LPP, it would not likely be very intermixed with the larger trees, so if they believe they can safely burn this parcel without harming the adjacent landowners, they should equally believe that they can protect the patches of younger trees within the parcel. I fully concur with your other 8 points.

[WDH]

The fire may make it worse if it stresses the trees or they start to die.  Your points make sense.

[woodtroll]

It is 100% ponderousa Pine, large yellow barks to advanced regen of 2-3 inches. It is mixed.
Fire breaks would have to be hand made in the interior of the parcel and it is rough.
They (the fed) wants the private to put in fuel breaks.
My agency would have to set up.

[beenthere]

Must have a lot of that free tax money to throw away.
: :

[pappy19]

Very interesting question. I have been dealing with the mtn pine beetle since 1969 starting in Island Park, Idaho next to Yellowstone Park back in the days of USFS spraying for MPB in all of the adjoining states and counties along the border of YNP. Believe it or not, the "goop job" as we called it actually haulted the spread of MPB into the adjoinging forests. Of course, the NPS would not participate and the end result was the big fires in the Park in the 80's. What I observed over the many years is that almost any fires, whether they burned cold or hot affected the MPB in adjoining forest up to a point. In other words, there was a double affect, both by eliminating undergrowth and competition, and by the fire smoke "coating" the trees adjacent to the burn. Most of the "coated" trees did not get hit by the MPB for a few years after the fire.

That being said, there is a way to harvest western pine using the "green tree" method that captures the MPB & WPB(Western Pine Beetle) by cutting green trees and leaving them on the ground, sucking in the new hatch into the down trees. After watching the growth of the hatch, when the beetle is ready to fly, you cut more green trees which again sucks the new batch into your newly cut trees. On about the 3rd go, the remainder of the last hatch is in the green cut for the winter, then you take that to the mill and thus destroy that entire batch. This "green tree" method was used on the Boise NF back in the 70's & 80's by the old Boise Cascade foresters and the Idaho Land Department with great success. There is no reason it can't work now equally as well.

Pap

[BaldBob]

Pappy,
You are confusing the MPB with the Ips beetle. The "green chain" method you describe and we used (I was a BCC forester 1974-2000), although quite effective against Ips, works only marginally against MPB as they are not drawn to down trees nearly as strongly as Ips are.

[Texas Ranger]

I am getting a whole new education on Ips and Pine Beatles, down here, downed timber drys to fast to afford sanctuary to the beetles.  On standing dead trees they can survive for a while with the oleoresin pressure in the lower stems, but not for long.

We cut and sprayed SPB infected timber until Boyce Thomson Institute did a study and discovered cutting at the head and beyond and letting it lay did a better job.  they developed a lure, Frontelure, that would attract the SPB in a direction they wanted, and to even attack hardwoods, unsuccessfully I might add.

Ips have never been a real problem down here until this year with all the stressed out timber from hurricanes and drought.

Still, Ips have, and still don't, create the problem we have had with SPB.

[pappy19]

Pappy,
You are confusing the MPB with the Ips beetle. The "green chain" method you describe and we used (I was a BCC forester 1974-2000), although quite effective against Ips, works only marginally against MPB as they are not drawn to down trees nearly as strongly as Ips are.

That wasn't my experience on the Payette, MPB and WPB all dove into the fresh cut trees, including Ips. I saw it work many times and kept the pine beetle population almost in check in fairly large drainages.

Pap

[Woodwalker]

Ips have never been a real problem down here until this year with all the stressed out timber from hurricanes and drought.
Still, Ips have, and still don't, create the problem we have had with SPB.

They been a problem for me. I've been cutting Ips killed trees for over two years now.

[Texas Ranger]

Yep, I have never seen them like this, but, stress in the trees are causing this current problem, no  resistance, not enough of that oleoresin pressure to push em out.

[woodtroll]

Pappy, I remember using trap tree when I worked for IDL, (that was awhile ago).
Here we have used the green trap method on ips.

With MPB there seems to be variability within the species and where they are at. They all did not read the same book on how they are to act.
Here in the black hills the green trap method would not work well.
There life cycle is annual, one per year, so green trap trees would have to be cut in July through Oct to get them to hit. I see little evidence in them hitting downed trees. Damaged trees, yes (lightning or blow down with roots attached) but not downed cut timber. Ips sure will.
Lastly cutting the in-feasted trees and either salvaging any product or just chunking up the wood, works for the small pockets.

And to the original problem, the feds can't cut their trees down. They can burn them but not cut them.

This year we have had alot of moisture, but our trees are not throwing much pitch. Not many pitchout trees. So that results in what we call blind hits. The beetles bore in but there is very little if any pitch to see on the tree. Many times I have found a bug tree and then looked around and have walked by many blind hit trees.
I will try to post some pictures.

[mad murdock]

What is going on with pheromone disrupters?  The company I work for has done experimental testing of helicopter applied pheromone for prolly the last 10 years. The first couple years was liquid, and the last several were flakes. Rests were very good, and some area managers applied to larger areas. This year bough there were no contracts put out for bid in our region(PNW). I figure either there is no $$ in their budgets, or no one wants to suggest something that will actually work for fear of being furloughed? Who knows? Only thing I know is that it turns my stomach to see the vastness of the mismanagement of our " public" resources so. Only seems to get more blatantly ignorant year to year, not any better.

[woodtroll]

The only pheromones I have seen or have heard about is in packets.
The packets look like a huge tea bag and get stapled to the tree, two per tree.
The pheromones signal that the tree is full of pine beetles, move to the next tree. It costs $20 /tree and needs to be repeated every year.
The success is varied.
I have seen both Park Service and BLM use these to protect their tree's. There is a group putting them on the White Bark Pine in the higher elevations. I could see a home owner putting them on yard trees or high value trees, but they do not seem practical for a stand wide management practice.
My concern is it only pushes the beetle to a different tree.

An aerial disruptor would be interesting to know more about.

[woodtroll]

Some pine beetle pictures.
Imagine looking for these trees.
Needles are green still, some trees will have pitch tubes most do not.
Many times I walk half way through a patch before I see them.



 
Infested pine beetle tree notice no pitch tubes.


 
Pitch out, the beetles were unsuccessful this tree will live another year.



 
Spring time, larva are fat and sassy, but will die soon from the warm weather and other bugs.