INSTRUCTOR: Jim Johansen

LESSON: Rangeland Fire Rehabilitation

OBJECTIVES:

Upon successful completion of this lesson, the participants will be able to:

Have a broad understanding of the objectives, processes, and methods of typical rangeland rehabilitation projects.

OUTLINE:

I. Fire rehab objectives (BLM)

II. Processes (BLM)

1. Team makeup

2. Assembling data

3. Field inspection

4. Proposed action

5. Reviews and approvals

6. Funding

7. Implementation

III. Rangeland seeding

1. Drilling

2. Chaining

3. Harrowing

4. Seedling Planting

IV. Contracting

NARRATIVE:

I. Fire Rehabilitation Objectives

BLM's objectives and processes for fire rehabilitation are very similar to the Forest Service. Primary objectives include:

1. Protect life, property, soil, water (including water-dependent resources) and/or vegetationresources.

2. Prevent unacceptable on-site or off-site damage.

3. Facilitate meeting Land Use Plan objectives (per the Federal Land Management Policyand Management Act of 1976)and other federal laws.

4. Reduce the invasion and establishment of undesirable or invasive species of vegetation.

In the past, BLM seems to have been a little more liberal with fire rehabilitation dollars for accomplishing ecosystem stabilization than USFS but the gap between the two is apparently closing.

The struggle continues with definitions of rehabilitation versus restoration. The terms rehabilitation and restoration are often used synonymously, especially in relationship to the use of native species to revegetate burned areas. According to the BLM fire rehabilitation handbook, rehabilitation is the repair of a wildland fire area utilizing native and/or nonnative plant species to obtain a stable plant community that will protect the burned area from erosion and invasion of weeds. Restoration is the use of a diverse mixture of only native species to obtain a plant community that is similar in appearance and function to the historic vegetation. Total restorationof a burned area is not within the scope of the fire rehabilitation program, although the use of native plants to rehabilitate burned areas is strongly encouraged. Native plants are to be used on those soils and ecological sites where they are:

1. Adapted

2. Able to survive with weed competition and periodic drought

3. Compatible with other land uses

4. Reasonably priced relative to the land use and rehab plan objectives

In short, ecosystem stabilization is what many plans strive to accomplish. Whether the proposed treatments are classified as rehabilitation or restoration is often left to interpretation of the resource specialists and approving officials. Often times, fire rehab objectives are driven by land use plans that have very specific guidance as to the major concerns. The recovery of crucial mule deer winter range or sage grouse habitat may be the highest priority identified in the land use plan and all treatments will be tailored to be compatible with that objective in mind.

II. Processes

BLM typically does not call a BAER team unless the rehab includes multiple agency land ownerships or large complex fires where preparation of a plan is beyond the capability of the local staff. Most of the fires in a rangeland situation are handled at the field office level.

After a fire burns, local resource specialists go to work. Usually it is a multi disciplinary team effort including wildlife, range, soils, cultural, plant ecology, and operations as well as other specialists depending on the complexity of the situation.

Fire maps (GPS), land use plans, normal fire rehab plans, pre-fire aerial photographs, monitoring data, soil maps, and inventories are reviewed prior to a field inspection of the burned area. Aerial photography of the burn may be ordered to aid in evaluation of burn intensities and mapping of unburned islands and rocky areas. These may take a week or two to get back, but they are very valuable tools when assessing proper treatments.

The field inspection is where assessments are made to determine if:

1. Life or property will be threatened if rehabilitation practices are not implemented.

2. The vegetation that will reestablish is unacceptable, e.g., exotic annual grasses ornoxious weeds, or will not meet Land Use Plan objectives.

3. Adequate desirable vegetation will recover to stabilize soil and prevent on or off-site soilerosion problems.

The impacts of wildfire on rangeland health, T & E species, Native American or other cultural values, etc. is also evaluated for appropriate action.

One of the most important questions that must be asked is Will the burned area naturally recover or will seeding be required? Reseeding burned areas that would recover naturally is not cost effective and can lead to dominance of non-native plants that inhibit recovery of native plants. Underestimating the recovery potential of many native plant communities may be one of the most common mistakes made. Managers tend to play it safe by seeding into a healthy community just in case it does not recover as expected and alters the community by introducing non-native components. This often is the result of political pressure.

Once the interdisciplinary team evaluates the fire, makes contact with other agencies and affected publics, and agrees on recommendations, a plan is prepared and presented to the line manager. The manager may accept, modify, or reject the plan and gives direction to the team on whether to proceed with the plan or possible alternatives. Funding approval is authorized at various field office levels in different states but estimated costs over $100,000 have to be approved at the Washington Office.

Implementation of a fire rehab plan usually involves a combination of contract and in-house work. In BLM, two items that must be addressed as soon as possible are cultural clearances and seed acquisition. These are time consuming aspects that can hold up the entire project if not done early. Often, the preliminary work for these processes are initiated before the plan is even approved and funded so they can be expedited at a moments notice.

III. Rangeland Seeding

Seeding in rangelands has some advantages over mountainous terrain. Access of equipment to the burned areas is usually better which makes it easier to cover seeded species. However, the sites are usually drier so the choices of species to seed is narrower and seed coverage is very critical. Many areas are also infested with competitive annual vegetation (cheatgrass, etc.) that reduces the success of seeding.

Rangeland Drill - Seems to be the equipment of choice. Very durable and can cover large acreages. Drills often are tied together in gangs of two or three. Cost effective. Fairly available through BLM in Vale, Oregon. Other drills are scattered around various BLM and Forest Service offices. BLM has 150 drills with 93 residing in Vale, Oregon.

Disadvantages - Many types of seed do not feed well through the rangeland drill. Seeding depth is not very adjustable. Many seeds are buried too deep. Hard to seed diverse mixtures an many native species. New retrofit may help with this.

Grain Drills - May have to fall back to private grain drills if rangeland drills are not available. If ground is not too rough and soil is loose, grain drills will work very similar to rangeland drill.

Chaining - Works very well in rough and fairly steep country. Can go through juniper, standing brush, rocks, etc. Covers large areas. Various types of chains and configurations results in variable soil movement and seed coverage. Can reduce competition from existing perennials. Fairly available at various BLM offices.

Disadvantages - Fairly expensive because you have to seed in a separate operation (aerial, etc.) And it takes large equipment to pull the chains. Chains are very cumbersome to haul or move between sites. May cause more disturbance than desired.

Harrowing - Can be very effective on small areas. Different types of harrows give varying amounts of seed coverage.

Disadvantages - Pipe harrows seem most effective and durable but not very available. Most are fairly small. Probably have to seed in separate operation.

Seedling Planting - Often used to reestablish shrubs in critical wildlife habitat. Same process as planting trees. Can be very effective to get quick brush cover but it is very expensive.

IV. Contracting

If projects are fairly large and not too complex, contracting is usually the most cost effective way. Usually, the Government supplies the drills, chain, harrow, etc., and the contractor supplies the tractor and labor. Not recommended to have the contractor supply seed. Seed needs very close attention through a complex process to assure you are getting what you pay for. A sample drill seeding contract is included in the handouts.