VIII. Suggestions for Management
<<
Previous
|
Table of
Contents |
Next
>>
The forests of lodgepole
pine in Crater Lake National Park vary in their characteristics, their
environment, their potential for supporting fir-hemlock forest, and
their apparent history. This variability existed previous to white man's
influence and must be reflected in the specific management plans
prepared for each area.
We feel that the only management tool reasonably available to the park is the
control or use of fire. Direct control of bark beetles and dwarf mistletoe is
neither desirable nor feasible for the large areas involved; following a return
to a natural fire regime, any deviations from primeval levels in these
biological factors should again eventually decrease.
We have divided the lodgepole pine communities discussed above into five
management units, each of which requires separate attention. Almost throughout,
the differences from the ponderosa pine system are extreme. The species differ
(long-lived and fire proof vs. short-lived and fire susceptible) and
their fire histories are usually different (frequent ground fire vs. the
five types, only one of which is like ponderosa). Thus management policy cannot
be transferred from ponderosa to lodgepole forests. Specifically, controlled
ground fire designed to release larger trees seems appropriate for only one type
of lodgepole forest, and even there only in patches. There are several reasons
for this. Such fires would be very difficult to produce with all but the
lightest fuel loads; most surviving lodgepole pines will be killed by bark
beetles or eventually succumb to heart rot. If it did prove possible, a series
of this type of fire would allow large mistletoe-infected trees to remain,
insuring heavy infection of most fire-stimulated reproduction and its subsequent
deformity. Indeed, in the one community where repeated light fires apparently
did occur the forest is in precisely this condition, and probably was so in the
primeval state. In other types, when fire occurred it killed the overstory,
removing the dwarf mistletoe from the site.
Fire seems also to be inappropriate to simulate or anticipate beetle- caused
mortality. Beetle kill and fire will produce very different effects on the
forest. Beetles "thin from above," killing the largest trees and opening the
canopy, accelerating growth of smaller trees, but not removing the litter. A
light controlled fire "thins from below" (any trees which survive are likely to
be the largest), killing reproduction of all species and removing the litter,
encouraging lodgepole reproduction.
The adoption of the "natural fire policy" by the park will greatly reduce the
need for man-initiated fire in the management of lodgepole pine forest, since
lightning was the predominant ignition source in most primeval lodgepole in the
Park.
The most obvious deviations from primeval structure were caused by white
man's promiscuous use of fire, so the suppression of man-caused fires has
already served as one very large step toward returning the primeval processes.
We suggest that fires obviously of man-caused origin continue to be suppressed
in all areas of the Park. They have been in areas and forest types in a pattern
which shows little correlation with natural ignition (see Fig. 1 in the Park
Fire Management Plan). Another large step has now been taken in the decision to
let some natural fires burn. In only a few types has the suppression of all
fires resulted in large enough deviations from the primeval conditions to
justify prescribed fire. In some other spots outside the natural fire area, it
may be necessary to prescribe fire to substitute for the absence of natural
fire, but these should be relatively few.
Some general suggestions for management we feel might be helpful are given
below; specifics for each area follow: (1) In much of the lodgepole pine forest
the time between primeval fires greatly exceeded that in the ponderosa area.
Plans for management must encompass long time spans, and perhaps provide for the
chance that natural fires are not solving all problems, on a long term basis.
(2) Any prescribed burning should be preceded by small scale,
experimental burns, whose effects need to be evaluated probably for
several years, before management burning. There is no need to rush the return
toward primeval conditions in any case, and less in the lodgepole than in the
ponderosa. We were disappointed that the slow, cautious, experimental approach
suggested for ponderosa was not followed, and hope it will be here. Simply
transporting the philosophy, methods and haste used in the ponderosa management
to lodgepole would, for about 90% of the area, cause more deviation from the
primeval conditions in a short time than all the man-caused perturbations of the
last 120 years. It is important to remember that repeatedly burning ponderosa
pine lightly will eventually reduce fuel loads; burning lodgepole will probably
always eventually increase them. (3) Since lodgepole pine at Crater Lake does
not have serotinous cones, seed supply may limit the rate of reforestation.
Since prescribed burning will probably kill most lodgepole, directly or
indirectly, small burning units with mature forest between would help aid
reforestation. Reports for lodgepole pine/sedge-needlegrass communities
elsewhere in Oregon indicate that regeneration will be sufficient (for forestry
purposes) only one tree height's distance into a clearing. (4) Much of the
danger associated with heavy roadside fuel loads (e.g. along Hwy 62 in Castle
Creek Valley) could be alleviated by keeping the wide shoulders of the roads as
fireproof as possible. Removing wood chips, grass, and trees which invade there
all would help. (5) Providing fire-ecology and fire-management information to
visitors and local residents is important, and should be even more vigorously
pursued. (6) Some major changes in vegetation since white man's arrival are
probably natural. For example, much lodgepole invasion of the Pumice Desert and
meadows occurred some years ago and trees are now large enough to be obvious.
Elsewhere in the Cascades, a similar wave of tree invasion has been related to
the dry period of late 1920s to late 1930s. It seems inappropriate to us to
eliminate such changes from the primeval which are not caused by man, in
response to the Leopold Report.
Specific Recommendations
Natural Fire Areas - Units I and II
In the discussion below, units I, II and III refer to the Park Fire
Management Plan; unit I has natural fire, unit II has natural fire except with
high fire danger, and in unit III all fires are suppressed.
A key to the five Management Types we suggest is given in Table 1. Their
general location in the Park is shown in Figure 2.
Given the natural fire policy, prescribed burning is neither necessary nor
justified for three of the five management types in units I and II, where
natural fires will burn.
Table 1. Key to Management Types listed on pp. 32-37. Suggestions for
management may vary depending on whether the type is inside or outside the
boundary of the natural fire area as shown on the Fire Management Plan. See the
text for details.
A. Less than 10% of tree reproduction is fir and hemlock.
I. Forest is quite open; fuels are generally discontinuous
..... MANAGEMENT TYPE C
II. Thickets of lodgepole pine are common; fuels are often continuous
and heavy.
... .MANAGEMENT TYPE E
AA. Greater than 10% of tree reproduction is fir and hemlock.
I. Subalpine fir is conspicuous ....MANAGEMENT TYPE
B
II. Subalpine fir is rare or absent.
1. Overstory is dense, primarily of lodgepole pine. Fuels are
heavy and often continuous
..... MANAGEMENT TYPE A
11. Overstory is relatively open, including other pines or shasta
fir. Fuels are discontinuous. Pinemat manzanita is often conspicuous
..... MANAGEMENT TYPE D
 |
|
Figure 2. Approximate location of lodgepole forests in Crater Lake National
Park, with suggested Management Type (A-E) noted. See text for definitions. X=
non-lodgepole type surrounded by lodgepole. The heavy line which more-or-less
parallels the park boundary is the inner limit of the fire suppression zone, as
shown on the Park's Fire Management Plan. |
Type A:
Fire history type
(1)Communities:
a) Shasta Fir-Mountain Hemlock/Sedge-Lupine
b) Mountain Hemlock/Grouse Huckleberry
Suggestions: No prescribed burning necessary.
Reasons: Presently, more of the park that can support fir-hemlock is in
lodgepole than during primeval time. Through time, lack of man-caused fire
will allow the balance of fir-hemlock to lodgepole to return toward an
equilibrium to be determined by the natural fire regime. Exactly what this
balance was in primeval times we cannot determine, but we are sure there was
less lodgepole pine. Use of fire to reduce the heavy fuel loads in these
types is not justified-- the resulting dead lodgepole would raise ground
fuels to even greater levels within a few years. The fire danger and beetle
kill now associated with these stands is the price to be paid for a return
toward primeval conditions.
Type B:
Fire history type (2)
Communities:
a) Subalpine Fir/Goldenweed/Aster-Blue Wildrye
b) Subalpine Fir/Collomia-Peavine
Suggestions: No prescribed burning necessary.
Reasons: Much of this area, on the west slope and in the Pinnacles
Valley, was burned since 1855, and is thus relatively early in its
development. A gradual encroachment of forest on meadow is probably the
"natural" condition, with small fires periodically eliminating some tree
islands and meadow reproduction. Hopefully, natural fire will fill this
role. Our interpretation of this system's dynamics is open to considerable
question, but unless a detailed re-examination shows it to be erroneous, no
use of prescribed fire should be necessary. In perhaps 30-60 years the
situation should be reassessed if these areas are not following the patterns
we predict or if natural fire has not occurred in at least some spots.
Type C:
Fire history type (5)
Communities:
a) Lodgepole Pine/Sedge-Needlegrass
b) Lodgepole Pine/Bitterbrush/Sedge
c) Portions of Lodgepole Pine/Sedge-Lupine
The more open areas, best represented in the following locations:
1) South and West of Timber Crater
2) SW of Sharp Peak
3) Upper Western Pinnacles Valley
Suggestions: No prescribed fire necessary.
Reasons: These forests are somewhat to very open, with light and
discontinuous fuel. It is doubtful that (1) fires have ever been large or
severe and (2) these areas will produce enough. fuel to support such fires
in the foreseeable future.
Type D:
Fire history type (3)
Communities:
a) Mixed Conifer/Manzanita
b) Mixed Conifer/Bitterbrush-Manzanita/Sedge
Suggestions: Prescribed burning should be carried out in the
not-too-distant future, perhaps following the higher priority areas in the
ponderosa pine (after priority 4). The fire should be a low-intensity ground
fire; it should miss many areas and be intense enough to scar, but not kill,
some lodgepole (if possible) and white pine. The ignition pattern should not
be so all-encompassing that all pockets of fuel burn in any one fire. This
type should be burned over a long period--perhaps 30 years--to produce a
variety of age classes. Fires could be repeated at 30-50 year intervals in
any given area. Areas burned by natural fire need no treatment.
Reasons: This area has low fuel loads except in spots. Small scars on
living lodgepole give evidence of ground fires. The only scars with 2 fires,
on white pine, had a 30-year interval. The relatively great ages and heavy
dwarf mistletoe of these stands indicate that fires which destroy the entire
stand are rare.
Type E:
Fire history type (4)
Community: Denser parts of Lodgepole Pine/Lupine-Sedge, best represented
at:
a) East of North Entrance
b) Lower Western Pinnacles Valley
c) ESE of Bald Crater
Suggestions: Prescribed fire appears justified and desirable in some of
this type, with a goal of its all burning (by nature or prescription) within
the next 70 to 100 years. The first burns (following preliminary
experimental work) could begin any time, and should be aimed at breaking the
extensive areas of this type (1) between Timber Crater and the north
entrance road, and (2) in lower Pinnacles Valley into smaller units, to
decrease the hazard of very large, intense fires. After that, burning should
be periodic, in Unit III first, to fulfill the 70-100 year burning cycle and
provide a mosaic of stands of several different ages. After the first
burning cycle, in which prescribed fire will help remove the accumulated
fuel and thickets that fire suppression has allowed, a natural fire regime
should be sufficient. Even now, prescribed burning should be applied only as
necessary to assure that new stands are generated more or less evenly over
the next 70-100 years, assuring that areas of high fire danger remain
relatively small and discontinuous at any one time. Prescribe-burning large
areas, or the whole area within a few years, will only result in a probably
unnatural concentration of fire danger both now (large expanses of dead
fuel) and at some future date (extensive thickets of mature forest again).
Reburning after snags fall (10-20 years) will be necessary to keep fire
danger low. Extreme caution will be necessary.
Reasons: It appears that these areas burned in intense fires in primeval
conditions, destroying the old lodgepole forest, and replacing it with a
young one. Fuel loads are very heavy in extensive areas; prescribed burning
to break up the expanse will reduce the danger of a wild fire here moving
over large areas or out of the Park. Only in this type has the fire
suppression since 1902 allowed fuel build-up to exceed our perception of
primeval conditions in a lodgepole type whose area does not need to be
reduced.
Fire Suppression Area - Unit III
We suggest that prescribed burning in Unit III be concentrated at first in
the ponderosa and lodgepole pine types, in a pattern which isolates Units I and
II from surrounding lands. This should eventually allow the expansion of Units I
and II and thus reduce the amounts of prescribed burning necessary in most
types. Recall that, in lodgepole (1) a repeat burn will be necessary after snags
fall and (2) living fuel loads will rapidly increase after fire in the dense
seral stands, even though ground fuels will be reduced.
Type A (Unit III only):
Communities:
a) Fir-Hemlock/Sedge-Lupine
b) Hemlock/Grouse Huckleberry
c) White Fir/California Brome-Lupine
Suggestions: There is no way to estimate the exact proportion of the
whole area capable of supporting fir-hemlock which really was lodgepole in
primeval times. We are certain, however, that it was smaller than at
present. We feel that prescribed burning should be kept to a minimum for the
present. Clearing of heavy ground fuels (for firewood) might help reduce
fire danger along highways. Assessment of the role of natural fire in these
forests will be possible after a long enough time under the natural fire
policy. Some re conversion of primeval lodgepole to lodgepole certainly
occurred; this gives a natural rationale for some prescribed burning in
these lodgepole types.
Type A is represented in Unit III at many places. (1) Several are small
and away from the boundary; we suggest no treatment; (2) In the following
areas, burning across the narrow spots in the types near the Park boundary
should be sufficient: S of Castle Creek, NE of Bald Crater, E of the North
Entrance (where burns should coordinate with those in Type E). (3) Along Hwy
62 S of Cold Spring, between the highway and the canyon, seems a good place
to experiment with fire in this type. It might also serve as a visitor
exhibit. (4) The White Fir community NE of the panhandle should be treated
only along the boundary, also.
Type B (Unit III only ):
Communities: a) Subalpine Fir/Goldenweed/Aster-Blue Wildrye
b) Subalpine Fir/Collomia-Peavine
Suggestions: In Unit III, this type is quite young, and the forest
patchy. No treatment is necessary at present, except perhaps in its denser
parts which are right along the Park boundary. Later assessment of community
change, as in Units I and II, will be necessary.
Type C (Unit III only):
Communities:
a) Lodgepole Pine/Sedge-Needlegrass
b) Open areas of Lodgepole Pine/Sedge-Lupine
Suggestions: These have very sparse litter. As long as this remains
true,no treatment is necessary.
Type D and Type E:
Prescribed burning should proceed as in Units I and II. Unit III should
have higher priority.
