Fire Hazards Exist in Cut Blocks

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 03:58 AM

In a study of recently logged areas, the Forest Practices Board found that fire hazard was reduced satisfactorily in most cases, but no licensees fully met the legal requirement to assess fire hazard as required by the Wildfire Act.

The study examined 111 randomly selected cutblocks, harvested from 2005 - 2007, in the Central-Cariboo and Okanagan-Shuswap forest districts.

The Wildfire Act requires licensees to assess fuel hazard and the risk of a fire starting as well as spreading, and to abate the fire hazard if necessary.

In many cases, licensees assessed the fuel hazard, but in no case did they assess the risk of a fire starting or spreading. Despite the lack of compliance, fire hazards were often abated by routine practices such as piling and burning slash and debris at the roadside.

( at right, debris left at the site where trees were processed at the stump)
"While results were generally good, we are concerned that some licensees are not recognizing high-risk situations, such as when trees are processed at the stump, increasing the fire hazard due to large amounts of slash left on the site," said board chair Bruce Fraser.

The report makes three recommendations for improvement to fire hazard assessment and abatement practices.

The Board recommends that:

Licensees consider requesting exemptions from fire hazard assessment requirements where it can be demonstrated that circumstances, conditions and practices make the request appropriate.
A simpler fire hazard and risk assessment process be developed to accurately assessfire hazard and risk under a wide range of field conditions. This process should include a clear definition of what constitutes a “fire hazard.”
Best management practices to abate fire hazard be developed and shared with licensees and professionals.

The Association of BC Forest Professionals has agreed to work with government and industry to address the recommendations.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 03:58 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Honestjoe on December 17 2008 6:55 AM

More bureaucracy trying to justify their existence!

Posted by: lostfaith on December 17 2008 8:18 AM

You might reconsider that comment after your house doesn't burn down due to a preventable forest fire.

Posted by: downnotout on December 17 2008 9:46 AM

Something that anyone should know. The slash left behind becomes the nutrients needed for the next growth of trees. Farmers need more and more fertilizer because they have taken the seed and straw or hay from their fields for so long that the nutrients are no longer there to grow the next crop. The same thing will happen in the forest. Ashes makes poor fertilizer.

Posted by: He speaks on December 17 2008 11:11 AM

I think your right downnotout.

We try to take everything out of the bush, thus we need to build up our topsoil, this is done not through chemicals but by rotting leaves and trees.

Yes there is a inherent risk of all this dead pine turning to fuel. But I am sure this is not the first time the beetle kill has happened. Didn't Simon Fraser witness a sea of dead trees when he came through here over 200 years ago.

We truly do not control nature, so lets not mess with her.

Posted by: lostfaith on December 17 2008 11:50 AM

Forest fires are a very beneficial part of mother natures way of renewal in the forests. New growth is one of the natural effects of fire. Fire is good for the forests.

HeSpeaks writes...
"Yes there is a inherent risk of all this dead pine turning to fuel"

A risk? How about all this dead pine IS FUEL.
Mega tons of extra fuel in the forests is not a good thing and it needs to be dealt with anywhere there is a risk of interface fire, period.

Posted by: northman on December 17 2008 3:18 PM

One should note that pine trees and fire have a symbiotic relationship as well. Pine thrives off of fire burnt areas because fire opens the cones up as well fires provide a valuble source of nitrogen that plants need. I say bring back broadcast burns in the cut blocks. Im sure lostfaith would love the O.T.. Cheers!

Posted by: Don Wilkins on December 17 2008 10:03 PM

That picture shows some debris left after logging. There is nothing wrong with that. We should be leaving a lot of course woody debris behind. The fire hazard is minimal and the benefit to a more bio diverse ecosystem is far more important.

Different forms of flora and fauna need the debris to survive. People need to understand the long term picture. The more material left behind the better. Think of it in 20, 40 or 60 years with the nutrients leaching into the soil to improve growth