 Fire Rehabilitaton Primer
(A 1996 Fire Season Case
Study)
The summer of
1996 was the most active, extensive, and devastating fire season ever experienced in Utah.
High summer temperatures, low humidity, strong winds, and an abundance of fine fuels
resulted in rapidly spreading, high intensity fire across landscapes that had not burned
in many decades. In Beaver, Juab, and Millard Counties alone, some 220,000 acres of public
land administered by the Bureau of Land Management burned. Before the fires were even
controlled, BLM staff began a massive planning effort to determine which burned areas
would require rehabilitation to partially mitigate impacts resulting from those fires.
 WHEN AND WHERE REHABILITATION IS
REQUIRED
WHY REHABILITATE FIRE AREAS
FIRE REHABILITATION METHODS
CONSIDERATION OF
OTHER RESOURCES
RELATIONSHIPS OF
FIRE REHABILITATION TO BLM PLANNING AND NEPA
WHEN AND WHERE
REHABILITATION IS REQUIRED
Not all fire areas require rehabilitation. In fact, some
sites respond better if no action is taken and nature is left to take its course. On the
other hand, there are those sites that require some type of rehabilitation in order to
retain the natural functions of the site. Factors which must be taken into consideration
when determining if a particular fire site must be rehabilitated include, yearly
precipitation amount and timing, soil types, presence or absence of rocks, existing
vegetation community and its condition, slope, and aspect. The dependent wildlife species,
resource and economic hazards of not conducting rehabilitation, and other values which
could be disturbed through rehabilitation such as historical and cultural values and
presence or absence of wilderness or wilderness study areas must also be considered.
In the three county area mentioned above, BLM determined
that 118,000 acres would require some form of rehabilitation. Vegetation communities
selected for rehabilitation included pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, mountain brush,
grasslands, and/or salt desert shrub habitats. Mechanical treatments were selected for
sites with slopes ranging from almost level up to 25-30 percent. Where rehabilitation was
required on slopes above 30 percent, aerial seeding alone was prescribed. 
WHY REHABILITATE FIRE
AREAS
1. Soil Loss:
The physical characteristics of the fire sites ranged
from lake terraces and alluvial fans, to shallow well drained soils with rocky outcrops.
As such they were extremely vulnerable to wind and water erosion. A 1996 report completed
by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for the fire areas in Juab County
illustrates the significance of the problem. The report states that if many of these soil
sites were left untreated, annual soil loss from wind erosion could range up to 70-80 tons
per acre. This would be up from pre-burn soil-loss conditions of 4 to 6 tons per acre.
Previous soil losses due to wind erosion is evident from a
site near the Twin fire of 1996. This particular site (Twin Peaks Fire of 1987) has very
similar vegetation and soil characteristics to those which occur over much of the Twin
fire area. Rehabilitation efforts at this site were delayed and not successful. BLM data
show that over the first three years following the fire, over eight inches of soil was
lost from the entire 2,855 acres of burned area. The NRCS has estimated that more than 2
million cubic yards of soil were eroded from this one fire area. Blowing dust caused air
pollution as far north as Salt Lake. Complaints regarding this situation were received
daily until the area was finally somewhat stabilized by invading cheatgrass and Russian
thistle.
The NRCS report states that the average annual soil loss
due to water erosion from the burn areas in Juab County, was estimated to be 0.5 tons per
acre under pre-burn conditions. Post fire erosion rates were estimated to be 3.5 five tons
per acre. Post fire erosion rates for untreated sites were estimated to be as high as 6.3
tons per acre per year.
For further reading refer to:
LeHouerou, Henry N. 1996. Climate Change, Drought, and
Desertification. Journal of Arid Environments: Vol 34 No. 2 (pp133-185).
2. Weed Invasion:
The introduction and spread of exotic plant species in
the Great Basin is now a major issue. This is particularly true of annuals such as
cheatgrass in salt desert shrub, sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper vegetation communities. As
these types burn, cheatgrass, being an aggressive winter annual, can and does out-compete
native plant species. Consequently, natural succession and even recovery can be
interrupted or effectively stopped. Also, cheatgrass is extremely flammable and its
presence increases fire frequency and the extent of individual fire areas. Large areas are
now annual grass monocultures which no longer support diverse biotic communities. Unless
rehabilitation interventions are made, these plant communities will continue to expand.
For further reading, refer to:
Wright, Henry A. 1985. Effects of Fire and Grasses and
Forbs in Sagebrush Communities. Rangeland Fire Effects, a Symposium, USDI BLM and
University of Idaho.;
Monson, S.B. and Stanley G. Kitchen. 1994. The Competitive
Influence of Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) on Site Restoration, General Technical
Report INT-313 USDA Forest Service.
FIRE REHABILITATION
METHODS
Site conditions play a significant role in determining the
most suitable method of fire rehabilitation. Variables include such factors as elevation,
precipitation levels, soils, aspect and existing vegetation communities. Plant communities
such as salt desert shrub, sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper generally occur from the more
xeric zone up to the more mesic mountain bush and ponderosa zones. Lower precipitation
levels in the P-J, sagebrush, and salt desert shrub zones, limits potential rehabilitation
success from simply broadcasting seeding without further seedbed preparation. Most seeds
must be covered in order to germinate and establish themselves. Higher precipitation rates
provide a larger margin for success. This is simply not the case in the P-J, big
sagebrush, and salt desert shrub communities of Utah.
In terms of seedling establishment the most effective
method of seeding in the P-J, big sagebrush, and salt desert shrub zones is a standard
rangeland drill. This method of course, is not possible where slopes are excessive,
surface rock features exist or where standing shrubs, trees or other features exist.
Rangeland drills allow a continuous and standard seeding rates at desired depths.
The next most successful process involves broadcast seeding
followed by seed covering. Research has shown that broadcast seed must be covered in order
to provide a reasonable chance of seeding success. Researchers report that post fire
treatments such as drilling or chaining increase seeded species establishment over
aerially broadcast seeding alone. In a Juab County, Utah example, seedling establishment
improved 98 percent where aerial broadcast seed was single chained as directly compared to
similar sites that received aerial seeding alone.
Several methods for covering broadcast seed are available.
These include trampling by livestock, dragging harrows, running bulldozers over the area,
and covering seed by dragging anchor chains between two bulldozers. All these methods have
been successfully utilized in fire rehabilitation situations. Each has its advantages and
disadvantages. For example, livestock trampling can be very effective on smaller fire
sites where livestock can be herded and supplementally fed. On larger areas, the number of
stock, herding and support requirements becomes much more difficult to properly
administer. Harrow dragging can also be effective on sites where there is not a lot of
standing dead trees and shrubs. Dragging an anchor chain between two bulldozers is the
most cost efficient and historically successful method of covering broadcast seed over
large areas. The objective is not to simply knock down fire killed trees and shrubs but
rather to provide a suitable seedbed for germination and establishment of seeded species.
The size and configuration of various chains allows more or less aggressive soil
disturbance depending on rehabilitation objectives.
For further reading refer to:
Clary, W.P. and Fred Wagstaff. 1987. Control, Plant Succession and Revegetation in Western
Juniper Woodlands. Proceedings Pinyon-Juniper Conference, USFS General Technical Report
INT-215.;
Clary, W.P. 1988. Plant Density and Cover Response to
Several Seeding Techniques Following Wildfire. Research Note INT-384, USDA, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station.;
Evertt, R. and Warren Clary. 1984. Fire Effects and
Revegetation on Juniper-Pinyon Woodlands. A Symposium USDI BLM, and University of Idaho.;
Farmer, Mark E.; Kimball Harper, James N. Davis. 1997. The
Influence of Anchor-Chaining on Watershed Health in a Juniper-Pinyon Woodland in Central
Utah, Ecology and Management of Pinyon-Juniper Communities within the Interior West - a
Symposium; Proceedings.;
Monsen, Stephen B., Mike Pellant. 1997. Seeding Burned
Shrublands by Aerial Broadcasting and Anchor Chaining. Ecology and Management of
Pinyon-Juniper Communities within the Interior West - a Symposium; Proceedings.
CONSIDERATION
OF OTHER RESOURCES
BLM is keenly aware of it’s responsibility to consider
and properly manage other resources when planning for and carrying out fire rehabilitation
practices. For example, existing wilderness areas and wilderness study areas are not
considered for motorized mechanical treatment.
The need to understand and protect cultural and historic
values on the 118,000 acres (118,000 acres represents a land area over 6 miles wide and 30
miles long) scheduled for some type of rehabilitation treatment led to negotiations with
the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding inventory and protection
requirements under Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. This led to an inventory
strategy of sampling only those sites which were considered to have the highest potential
of actually containing cultural or historic sites. In order to implement this agreement,
in Millard and Juab Counties, BLM hired 25 temporary employees. These people, along with
regular BLM staff conducted a class III (100% inventory) on selected areas of high
probability that were within areas proposed for surface disturbance through drilling or
chaining. Cultural and historic sites found were flagged for avoidance. This inventory
resulted in expenditures of over $400,000. In Beaver County, a class III inventory was
completed on all lands proposed for disturbance.
Some aerial seeding/chaining projects and drilling projects
were completed by mid October, 1996. About this same time BLM management was informed that
archaeological densities were much higher than anticipated with sites being found where
none had been expected. It was then determined that the sampling protocol was not meeting
needs and that it would be necessary to abandon that strategy and pursue Section 106
compliance on a project by project basis. Several chaining projects were then halted in
order to allow time to complete archaeological inventories under a new standard.
On November 1, BLM sought and received a verbal concurrence
from SHPO in a Determination of Effect for several chaining projects, which were then
implemented. Later in November, BLM consulted with SHPO on approximately 16,000 acres of
rangeland drill seeding. SHPO concurred with BLM’s No Effect determination on
November 15, 1996 and drilling continued until all projects were completed.
On December 13, 1996 the Utah SHPO informed BLM that they
could not concur with a No Effect determination on the remaining chaining projects and
suggested that BLM consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which was
initiated later in December. Negotiation meetings were held on January 6, 1997. As a
result of the meetings with the Council, BLM prepared an agreement in which BLM agreed to
conduct monitoring studies to determine impacts to cultural resources from alternative
rehabilitation methods as proposed and also establish control sites, were no surface
disturbance would be undertaken to determine the effects of ambient soil erosion. Weather
permitting, aerial seeding/chaining was then resumed under the provisions of BLM’s
agreement with the Council. Aerial seeding was applied to all of the remaining project
sites. On March 19, 1997 the Southern Paiute Consortium and the Kanosh Band of Southern
Paiutes sued BLM in Federal Court to stop further chaining, SUWA also filed an appeal with
IBLA to stop BLM from further chaining.
A ten day Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued
March 22, against BLM by a Federal Judge in Salt Lake City. All further chaining
operations then ceased. In testimony before the Judge, BLM had indicated that the window
of opportunity for successful rehabilitation would soon be lost if they were forced to
suspend operations. The TRO meant that BLM had to issue suspension notices to several
chaining contractors. At the end of the ten day TRO, BLM informed the Judge that the
opportunity to conduct further successful operations was indeed lost. Given the late date,
it was felt that seedlings would not sufficiently establish prior to the onset of the late
spring and summer dry period. About 30,100 acres of chaining projects were not completed
as a result of the suspension in operations.
RELATIONSHIPS
OF FIRE REHABILITATION TO BLM PLANNING AND NEPA
Two types of plans/environmental review are part of
BLM’s planning and NEPA compliance process:
- 1. Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plan (NFRP)
- 2. Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Plan (EFRP)
The goal of these plans is to restore and maintain the
stability, productivity, diversity, and integrity of public lands following wildfire.
These plans are tiered to Land Use Plans and associated activity plans such as Habitat
Management and Allotment Management Plans. Development of Fire Rehabilitation plans are
guided by the resource management objectives, general management practices, and
constraints found in the appropriate Land Use Plans.
The NFRP is a programmatic fire rehabilitation
plan/Environmental Assessment (EA) developed at a landscape level prior to wildland fire
occurrence and is prepared by an interdisciplinary team with public input. The NFRP
contains information on those areas where wildland fires are most likely to occur, where
and type of rehabilitation treatments needed and an EA of the impacts of rehabilitation
practices and taking no action. The NFRP reduces the repetitive preparation of individual
rehabilitation plans for wildland fires thereby reducing time and costs.
A site specific EFRP is developed for wildland fires
requiring rehabilitation in those areas not covered by a NFRP. The EFRP contains a site
specific EA with opportunity for public input. This documents are prepared where wildland
fire size and/or frequencies do not warrant a NFRP.
A finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or a Record of
Decision (ROD) is required for all NFRP’s and EFRP’s.
For further reading refer to:
Draft Fire
Rehabilitation Handbook (H-1742-1.
Introduction
/ Fire Rehab Primer / Photo Story
/ Myths vs Facts / RAC Recommendations
Subgroup Report / State Director's
Policy / News Releases / Fire
Rehab Handbook
|
