ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES in rocky mountain coniferous ...

foresters feel as though "It's 1 i ke a gas01 ine tank ready to explode out there"
(Kugl in 1980). However, in 1979, concerns that the dead lodgepole could constitute
an explosive fire hazard failed to materialize despite an unusually long and hazardous
fire season (Schwennesen 1979). Cl iff Martinka, research biologist in Glacier National
Park, indicates that the relationship between fire and the mountain pine beetle is
" . . , more complex than simply having an ignition source and a lot of dead trees"
(Schwennesen 1 979).
Early observations by Brunner (1917) might be an indication of what could
happen on the Flathead and other National Forests where mountain pine beetle-killed
trees are so numerous. In 1910 he observed the progress of two serious forest fires
burning in beetle-killed timber. The first was in the Little St. Mary region,
northeast of Be1 ton, within Glacier National Park, where Douglas-fi r had been kill ed
by the Douglas-fir beetle between 1904 and 1910. In the second case, a fire burning
in mountain pine beetle-kil led (but still standing) western white pine, Pinus monti-
Dougl., was so explosive that it jumped the north fork of the ~lathmiver
..nd burned several sections of timber in Glacier National Park. Brunner I s observa-
tions indlcate that the length of time trees had been killed influence the potential
fire danger. He says, "those which had been killed longest, previous to the fire,
were burned to snags and those which had been dead but a season had the bark burned
off to the very tops,"
While National Park Service managers view the mountain pine beetle as just
another protected species of wildlife (Kuglin ?980), Forest Service foresters are
developing management plans to salvage beetle-kil led trees as we1 1 as accelerate the
harvest of green lodgepole pine. On the Flathead forest alone, 160 mill ion board
feet will be harvested between 1980 and 1982. According to Flathead Supervisor John
Emerson, "It's time we start managing the beetle instead of letting it manage us"
(Emerson 1979). The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service has recently been criticized by
wildlife managers and co~servationists for ruling that a proposed 22 million board
foot salvage sale of beet1 e-ki 1 led 1 odgepol e pine would not jeopardize endangered
wild1 ife species such as grizzly bear and wolves (Schwennesen 1980).
In Oregon, the Forest Service is considering a 21-year, $133 mill ion project to
remove mountain pine beetle-killed lodgepole pine to lessen the chance that a massive
fire will cause further economic and aesthetic dqmage (Baum 1976). Over the 21 -year
period, potential resource damqge and fire suppression costs have been estimated at
$260 mil 1 ion (Western Cons, Jaur. 19761 ; the chance of a large fire is predicted to
be multiplied 10 times if the dead tree residue is not removed (Baum 1976). Opponents
argue that the expense of the salvage work is unjustified because the mountain pine
beetle is nature's way of harvesting overmature trees (Western Cons. Jour. 1976;
Baum 1976). It remains to be seen whether bark beetles have predisposed these
forests to fire through the creation of some 1.4 mil 1 ion acres of lodgepole pine
residue.
Defoliators
Some species of defoliating insects also produce forest residues that either
decay and provide humus- and soil-building components, or--it is believed by some--
fuel for wildfires. (Like bark beetles, outbreaks ~f defol iating insects a1 so
provide "fuel " for controversy. )