Deaths of trees 'catastrophic'
Lodgepole die-off imperils recreation, supplies of water
By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 12:30 a.m., January 15, 2008
Updated 01:20 p.m., January 15, 2008
Ken Papaleo / The Rocky
Thousands of trees in the Fraser area have been killed by pine beetle infestation. Beetle kill has hit this area hard and has moved into Front Range counties.
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Every large, mature lodgepole pine forest in Colorado and southern Wyoming will be dead within three to five years, killed in a mountain pine beetle infestation unprecedented in the state.
In 2007 alone, the infestation once centered on the Western Slope tore through another 500,000 high-elevation acres and embedded itself along the Front Range, exploding in Boulder and Larimer counties where affected acres grew by 1,500 percent.
State and federal foresters, calling the numbers "catastrophic," said recent aerial surveys reveal the dead and dying lodgepole acreage now has grown to 1.5 million since the first signs of outbreak in 1996.
With 22 million acres of forest in Colorado, the beetles won't kill it all, but they could do away with most of the "pure lodgepole" stands as well as many of the trees within mixed systems of lodgepole, spruce, fir and ponderosa that cover several million acres in the state.
It will take decades for the stands to return.
Rick Cables, the U.S. Forest Service's regional supervisor described the die-off as "a huge, unprecedented event" with major social and economic implications.
Rapid spread stunning
Perhaps most at stake are the state's water supplies. A lack of soil cover and the potential for forest fires as the dying trees dry out could leave reservoirs and rivers clogged with sediment more likely to pour off the landscape.
Recreation, too, is jeopardized, as campers and skiers are faced with spending their vacation time amid red-needled trees, or those with no needles at all.
Backcountry hikers will need to be more cautious about falling trees and mountain town economies could also be hurt by a browning backdrop less alluring to visitors.
The extent of the spread stunned even foresters who say the invasion is rewriting the scientific literature. Centuries-old lodgepole at the highest elevations, once seen as impregnable because of extremely cold temperatures that kill the beetles, are dying.
"We were surprised by the spread into high-latitude forests - it was very uncharacteristic for the mountain pine beetle to go that high up in elevation," said Susan Gray, a specialist in forest health for the Forest Service.
Colorado State Forester Jeff Jahnke blamed "an unprecedented combination of drought and warm winters" for stressing the trees and leaving them especially open to beetle-infiltration and too weak to ward off attacks.
Indeed, other pine beetle outbreaks have collapsed after weeks-long cold spells with temperatures under 20 degrees below zero. But Gray said it hasn't been cold enough long enough, to kill the sturdy, rice-sized beetles.
A natural process
Gray said the prediction of a complete die-off within three to five years is based on the infestation's current rate of spread and intensity. She said it covers the entire range of the tree in Colorado and southern Wyoming.
In other places, including parts of Summit and Grand counties, the pine beetle has so ravaged the forest that the infestation is finished, "because the host trees are already dead," Gray said.
Cables, however, emphasized that what is occurring is in many ways a natural event, fueled in part by uniformly older lodgepole forests and the role of the beetle in thinning.
He compared the situation to having a human population made up entirely of people in their 70s and 80s, when disease begins to affect large numbers.
"Mountain pine beetles are an agent of regeneration," Cables said.
He said the die-off is a reminder for forest managers of the need to use controlled fire and other means to create a "diversity of age classes" so that "one insect or one pathogen cannot destroy an entire forest at once."
Indeed, even as the outbreak moves into the Front Range's ponderosa pine forests, it's unlikely to create the same visual devastation as on the Western Slope. The ponderosa forests tend to have a better mix of tree species, as well as more age diversity, making it unlikely the beetles will find as many suitable hosts as in the pure 80-plus year-old lodgepole stands it has favored.
Trying to stop or even slow the infestation is a fool's errand, scientists say. Instead, local communities, landowners and the Forest Service can only target pockets where dead forests would pose a fire risk to homes, towns and water supplies. But those efforts total just tens of thousands of acres.
Warding off beetles
Landowners and local governments near national forests may be able to take certain precautions if a beetle strike appears imminent.
* Certain insecticides will prevent attack, killing beetles that bore into the bark.
* Insecticides are most practical on high-value trees, such as those that provide shade or ornamental value. The entire tree must be treated as long as the outbreak lasts.
* Thinning stands of lodgepole and ponderosa pine can minimize or prevent beetled-caused mortality. Burning or burying any infested trees is important to prevent the beetles from leaving the tree in the spring and summer and infecting others.
* "Pitch tubes" on the trunk are a sign of infection. Pitch tubes are masses of resin mixed with boring dust, just one-fourth to one-half inch wide. Boring dust found around the base of the tree is also a sign of infestation. Larger pitch tubes, three-fourths of an inch to an inch wide, suggest a tree may have successfully warded off an attack by "pitching out" the beetles.
* "Attractants" can bait and trap beetles, preventing their spread into susceptible trees and keeping beetle populations low in a small area such as a campground.
Lodgepole lowdown
* Where: High-elevation forests cover 6 million acres in the Western United States and 20 million acres in Canada. In Colorado, pure lodgepole stands cover 1.5 million acres, though it also is found with others, including spruce, fir and ponderosa pine. Lodgepole stands can be found from 6,000 to 11,000 feet elevation.
* Traits: Thrives in the aftermath of fire, producing pine cones that open in response to extreme heat and release seeds. Cones remain viable for decades.
* Population: Natural lodgepole regeneration in open, sunny areas produce dense stands of 20,000 or more trees per acre.
* Vitals: Lodgepoles can live for centuries, with 300-year-old trees recorded at high altitudes in Colorado. But at 80 years, the trees become more susceptible to disease. They are tall, but slender, growing 70 to 80 feet high but usually not more than 15 inches in diameter.
* Uses: They can be used as fence posts, corral rails, utility poles and railroad ties.
hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5048
Comments
Posted by PajamaPulitzer on January 14, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is the obvious result of over-management of our forests. Years ago outrage was the immediate result when the forest service recommended that a Yellowstone wild fire be allowed to burn naturally. Since that time the wild fires, which are the best forest management tool, have been vigorously attacked. The result is overgrown forests which are ripe for disease and infestation.
Of course the simpletons will blame global warming and call for even more Guvment management. Currently "scientists" are altering the chemistry of the Pacific Ocean off of the California coast in order to cool the planet. By the time these morons learn that the earth can best manage itself it may too late for the Earth to do so. By far the greatest threat to our environment are the bleeding-heart environmentalists.
Posted by tmsloan on January 14, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Eliminate the fire danger. Bring in a lumber company, sell the lumber off, and use the money to replant. It is good forest management and you can control the age of trees easier than hoping forest fires do it for you. Tell the tree huggers they are partially at fault and to get with the program.
Posted by benito83 on January 14, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I understand that, if we had caught it in it's early stages, pesticide could have resolved this problem; but the tree huggers protested. Guess they won't have as many trees to hug now.
Posted by Big_D on January 14, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's time to squeal the tires and light some fires. Controlled that is. I think the Ute used to burn the forest regularly and it worked. This seems like a good wet year to start some fires.
Posted by Big_D on January 14, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would say call the lumber company but that tends to make the problem worse. Controlled burns are better because they kill the insects and some trees survive and I just don't like trees planted in straight rows.
Posted by Squatch on January 14, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree they need to try and eliminate the beetles with fires since the weather hasnt done it.
Posted by RickyLee on January 14, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All it's gonna take is one moron flipping their ciggy-butt out
the car window.....
Posted by BMat on January 14, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The reason our forests are so prone to this type of damage is b/c we've had 50 years of tree-hugging, bunny-loving ultra Left Wing forest managers.
No burning, cutting or roads in these forests encouraged the growth of artificially dense forests with smaller and weaker trees. These trees are far more prone to death and disease and drought (read: Global Warming).
Same thing happens to deer and elk populations where hunting is banned. Higher numbers of smaller animals abound. Ask anybody that lives in Estes Park.
Now these monkies in the green shirts are telling us that there's nothing they can do? Then why the hell do we need a forest service? Maybe when there's no more trees we'll just start calling them the Barren Earth Service.
Now they're just lumping the whole problem on to global warming? What a cop out! It's b/c they're all a bunch of Gore-o-philes using this situation to advance a political cause instead of admitting fault and fixing the problem.
We're going to have to change our license plate colors to be a beautiful shade of earth toned rust-brown. A green plate is false advertising. So are the green shirts worn by the Forest Service. Thanks for nothing!
Posted by ezekiel777 on January 14, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lets see... no logging means no roads and a pristine forest... means more dead trees that should have been burned in smaller forest fires had we not engaged in severe suppression (not to mention restricted logging).... means a larger pine beetle infestation because we would not let nature control them on its own terms... means bigger forest fires affecting more propery....means more roads into the forest needed to fight the fires..... so we can save the forest.
Posted by PajamaPulitzer on January 14, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ezekiel777. You nailed it, Brother.
Posted by tmsloan on January 14, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Burn the stumps and make 2x4 with the rest. Steamboat had a blowdown years ago and the tree huggers wanted to hug the downed trees. What happened? They were kindling a few years later.
BURN THE STUMPS
Posted by marge on January 14, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've seen the mess west of RMNP and know it is only a matter of time until the dead wood burns. Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet the lumber companies don't want dead trees and also don't want most lodgepoles, they aren't a great lumber tree, although they can make pretty beams, fences and good firewood.
FWIW Tree hugger's, e.g. environmentalists aren't the problem as much as fire suppression to maintain tourist income has been. Most western forests, expecially lodgepole require regular burns. Clear cutting doesn't help as the cones also need burns to release seeds, as does the soil bank in the forests.
As a environmentalist AND a hunter (hunters are the original environmentalists) I grieve to see what a short-sighted forest program of clear cutting and then monocultured forests have done to the west. In the process of "protecting" the forests for lumber companies and developers, we have destroyed the diverse age, species, and proper mosaic forests need to survive and for animals, including big game, to thrive. Our air, water and hunting quality is impacted by this and it will take a catestrophic event or ten and several decades to bring things back into balance.
Posted by BMat on January 14, 2008 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you've been to Grand County in the last three years you can see the devestation that awaits the front range.
The forest fire danger is very real b/c there are 500,000 acres of dead evergreen trees in Colorado. Even with a smoking/campfire ban you just can't ban lightning and the fuel is not going anywhere either.
Even if they tried to remove the standing dead wood it would take years to build enough roads to get the logging trucks into the back country. Plus clear cutting dead wood makes the land prone to erosion and silt build up in the water supply. So even if it were practical (which it isn't) it may not be advisable.
The Grand County fire will make the Hayman burn area look like a kid with a sparkler on the front lawn. Ever seen a 20 foot tall Roman Candle? Now picture 500,000 acres of them. It's not a matter of "if," it's when. The fuel and oxygen are already there. It just needs a park, any old spark.
I sure hope our brave new governor has a plan for what to do or we'll have folks in the mountains living in FEMA trailers like New Orleans. If Ritter hasn't talked to feds about the plan of action, he should do so post haste.
What are they going to call the town of Evergreen after the trees are all dead? Everbrown? Ever-rust?
Forest fires in rural Grand or Summit County are one thing. A fire in Jefferson County effects quite a bit more people and businesses.
But the Forest Service plan is just to wait it out? Gifford Pinchot must have just turned over in his grave!
Posted by youngman on January 15, 2008 at 4:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The fire is going to be catastrophic....and it will happen..lightning or a bunch of kids..it doesn't matter...do we protect ourselves by harvesting the lumber and creating fire breaks..or do you let the mountain communities burn to the ground along with all the jobs, industry, tourism that goes with it? This is the question the Enviromentalists will have to answer. The future is in their hands. It will be Katrina II
Posted by sqjnk on January 15, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the only good forrest is a chopped forrest according to most of the posters here. Most of us treehuggers, as opposed to "money huggers" (if we going to do the name calling thing), know that fire is natural part of a healthy forrest ecosystem. Has the forest been mismanaged? yes, but largely by a forrest service that sees our forrests as a resource to be abused or ignored depending on which protects the economic interests of those who really don't give a damn about much but money anyway. We humas have a extremely poor record when it comes to being stewards of our planet. Also the role of warmer winters is clear in this case, warmer winters=no sustained freeze to kill off beetles =more beetles=more dead trees. Global warming is here, some of us have pulled our heads out and acknowledged this while others remain stubbornly embedded.
Posted by greenleaf on January 15, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey guys, You are absolutely correct! The tree huggers are to blame! BUT..... so are the pioneers , miners, lumber interests, Forest Service, wealthy second home owners, ski resorts, global warming, drought and a bunch of other things I haven't thought of! I'm sorry, but ANYONE who thinks one group or another is totally to blame for this needs to face reality. Who's to blame? We all are!
The time to point fingers and assign blame to someone else is over and we are all going to pay the price. It's time to reach across the divide, quit the childish name calling and try to figure out what the natural world is telling us.
As I have said in other blogs recently, I am increasingly worried about the world we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.
Posted by timloco on January 15, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The forest got along just fine without our interference for thousands and thousands of years. We come along and put out all the fires so the timber could be harvested and this is what happens, and large forest fires are the result of this "management". We should have been letting it burn and because we haven't this is the result. We will have large uncontrolled fires and there's absolutely nothing that can be done now about other than watch it burn.
One positive thing is that the woodpeckers are very well fed right now!
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on January 15, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let it burn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by MereMortal on January 15, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One piece of nature (beetle) at work, fixing another piece of nature's (human) mistakes. In nature's terms, this will be over in the blink of an eye. Man is impatient, and intervenes in nature. However, man is just as much a force of nature as the beetles, just not as strong. Tune in next week when man installs a thermostat on planet earth to control the temperature. That won't work either, but man is stubborn and will keep trying to control nature.
Posted by Wes on January 15, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not only a tree hugger but am on a first name basis with my lodge pole pines. I have a fifty year old out back that I call Bubba and next to him is his cohort in sunshine Jeb. The notion that tree-huggers are to blame for the condition of our forests is a bunch of rot.
Forest management science like any other science is a growing body of knowledge. As we understand ecosystems better we can see that past practices did not yield the healthy forests results that we expected. The solution is not to do nothing which is the only idea that conservatives (not to be confused with real conservationists) propose on every issue (climate change, Iraq, health care, our forests). If we overprotected our forests in the past the solution is not to under protect them now. Man has interfered with the natural cycle of forest regeneration so to pretend that you can step away from the problem and it will correct itself could be a fatal fantasy. What I think we need is a comprehensive forest fire/forest management plan and includes all levels of government and private citizens and that plan includes prescribed burns as well as mechanical thinning. I agree with the conservatives (not to be confused with real conservationists) that government alone is an ineffective solution. We need volunteers who can donate their time to help replant devastated areas or who can help with fire mitigation projects along the front range. We need our professional foresters who are government employees to determine areas of need and then mark the trees so that private organizations like the Colorado Mountain Club or the local Sierra Club chapter can mobilize volunteers to do the grunt work. It is possible even with man's involvement to maintain and protect the health of our forests regardless of their state of transformation.
Posted by MereMortal on January 15, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When all the trees are dead, the beetles will have no food and will starve. That will be catastrophic for the beetles. I mean, all of nature is like an interconnected web and no part is any more important than another, dude. Other states should donate trees to feed the starving creatures. Save the beetles! Everyone should commit to adopt a thousand beetles, bring them into their home, and let them gnaw away on the furniture and our Birkenstocks. It's the least we can do for our little friends.
Posted by greenleaf on January 15, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wes,
As a Botanist I agree that the answer isn't to sit by, let the forests burn and then consider the problem solved. Wasn't it Nero who fiddled while Rome burned? Most people agree that he was mad!
I see long-term opportunity and benefit here. The current forest IS doomed, I think that anyone driving the 1-70 corridor can vouch for that. We can work WITH nature for a change on the next forest. Monoculture is out, diversity is in. Thinning is in, as is the re establishment of old growth forests with large trees and thick fire-resistant bark.(hopefully global warming will permit this). Prescribed and natural burns are in. Vacation and other mountain homes and structures are out unless owners build or retrofit with fire resistant materials and maintain buffers between the forest and their buildings. Logging will have to be part of the equation. Thinned trees that are too small for lumber can soon be used for cellulosic ethanol or mulch to conserve water.
Where I disagree with Wes is in using all volunteer labor. I'm afraid that you will never get enough buy in to accomplish something of this scale. Volunteers can help when and where they can, but government, home owners, industry and even tourists will need to be brought into the mix. I would also open the volunteer force to hunters, fishermen, off roaders, skiers and anyone else. We are all part of the problem but can work together on solutions. Let's get started!
Posted by Wes on January 15, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Where I disagree with Wes is in using all volunteer labor. I'm afraid that you will never get enough buy in to accomplish something of this scale. Volunteers can help when and where they can, but government, home owners, industry and even tourists will need to be brought into the mix.
Posted by greenleaf on January 15, 2008 at 12:43 p.m.
Thanks for your comments greenleaf. I need to qualify my position regarding volunteers. My position on volunteers is that they can augment this effort to prevent a mega-inferno along the Front Range that could lead to an irreversible degradation of our land. Instead of placing the burden entirely on government or home owners make it cool to help replant trees or be on a slash clean up crew. Government officials at local, state and national levels can use the additional manpower and it doesn't raise taxes which is the holy grail of do nothing conservatives. I liked your idea of opening it up to everyone who has ever spent an afternoon in an aspen grove marveling about the beauty surrounding them. My point is that we are not helpless in dealing with this event. We can't prevent it but we can manage it for the next generation of forests and humans. It is our responsibility and to shrug it off with a "let the forest take care of itself" attitude is totally unacceptable to me. Ich bien ein Coloradan to paraphrase JFK.
Posted by willie_warthog on January 15, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I live at ground zero of this beetle epidemic, just outside of Grand Lake. I have live here for 22 years. I realized early on that this mature lodgepole pine forest was at its "climax" stage. The lodgepoles were 100 years old and were canopying to compete for the sunlight. The trees were infested with mistletoe. I knew that they would die off. It is the natural process of a lodgepole pine forest. I started to plant aspen, pine and fir trees to replace them. In the absence of a forest fire, it is natural for these trees to take over as they get more sunlight. My aspen, spuce and firs are now 15-20 feet high. I have cut down over 70 beetle-killed trees on 2/3 acres in the last three years. Some were over 150 years old. Yes, I cry a little every time one comes crashing down. But man cannot control the the natural progress of nature. We were have a vibrant new forest in short order.
Everyone thinks that we will now burn. But there has always been a forest fire danger. That is why they are called forest fires not dead tree fires. Dead lodgepoles are being taken out by the hundreds of thosands in Grand County. Our forest fuel load is greatly deminished. A case in fact is the fire that started at the YMCA outside of Granby. The area had been cleared of all trees over 8" in diameter and the fire was soon contained. Five years ago that fire would have taken out dozens of buildings and hundreds of acres. We could still have a big fire in the national forest or in Rocky Mtn. National Park, But the risk of it spreading fast into developed areas is not nearly as high as it was just three years ago.
This is still one of the most beautiful places in the state to live. I do not even notice the dead trees anymore. It is just a part of nature!
Posted by Scott on January 15, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wes & Greenleaf,
You two have nailed it dead on.
A number of months back I was watching a Discovery, TLC or similar channel that stated that the suppression of all forest fires started back during World War I. That's right the First World War. The issue was that the country needed the timber for the war effort. Therefore, the U.S. Forest Service's no burn policy started almost 100 years ago.
Suggestion for the "volunteer" labor force. Re-institute something similar to FDR's CCC or WPA. You want that welfare check? Fine, you have to give Uncle Sam a fair days labor. My suggestion is not a cure-all for the "volunteer" force, but it would be a start. Also, when the person was done they would be employable in the timber industry!
Scott
Posted by greenleaf on January 15, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
willie, That's the spirit!: You replaced monoculture with diversity. The plants you used were appropriate for the situation. Your little part of the forest is making a comeback! Maybe your neighbors are already learning from your example. The rest of us certainly can! You are a good steward much as my farmer relatives were when they kept part of their farms in wood lots and their fence rows in a natural state.
Wes: I agree, planting trees is cool! School kids and strong individuals can do that, others can organize, get the word out and sell the concept. Obviously, some homeowners are with the program even before there is a program!
What about some of the rest of you who call names and cast dispersions: do YOU have constructive ideas? Let's hear some of them. We need your buy in too!
Posted by Stonehouse on January 20, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK.OK already. You are all right in some sense. We need management and it needs to include as many ideas and parties as is possible. So how do we start? Is this the job of the county?-state? I don't see any plans or equipment suppliers when I look for a comprehensive course of action for an individual or small group/family to pursue. It seems to me that we all have a mental model of what it looks like, publish and promote it!! Stop talking and do something.
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.