09/02/00 -- Little Connection Between Wildfires and Declines in Logging

***********************************************

WORLDWIDE FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS

Little Connection Between Wildfires and Declines in Logging

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org

http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Archives

http://forests.org/web/ -- Discuss Forest Conservation

09/02/00

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY

A bipartisan United States congressional research group has found

that wildfires raging in Western states are not the result of

declines in timber harvests. The little Bush child and others in the

pockets of the timber industry have been wailing that only more

logging can prevent additional out of control blazes. The report

states that commercial logging leaves behind small "fine fuels" such

as twigs and needles that increase the rate of spread of wildfires.

This impartial study reinforces the clearly evident scientific

reality that commercial logging contributes to wildfires, and

reducing harvests to allow forests to exist in a more natural state

does not cause forest fires. The paper industry's response to the

report leaves no doubt that their only interest is in extracting more

timber, and not in forest health or reduced fires, as they state that

"it stands to reason that if there is more wood in forests, there is

a better possibility of a fire." Lets cut the forests to save them-

great logical thinking. Under no conditions should these fires lead

to more logging rather than pursuing an ecologically sound fire risk

reduction. Isolated thinning may be one of many policy responses in

certain areas. But absolutely no costly, widespread and

indiscriminate thinning, that is actually additional commercial

logging without environmental regulation, should be allowed.

g.b.

*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

ITEM #1

Title: Little connection between wildfires and logging declines

Date: September 1, 2000

An analysis by a bipartisan congressional research group found little

or no connection between wildfires and the decline in timber harvests

on federal land.

"The acres burned in any particular year appear to be at most weakly

related to the volume of timber harvested," according to the report

by the Congressional Research Service.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., requested the report and released it Thursday

to try to stem criticism about what is to blame for the worst

wildfire season in the West in 50 years.

"My sense is that this is a problem that cries out for an examination

that goes far deeper than the next election," he said.

Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush and GOP Montana Gov.

Marc Racicot have said the federal government shared some of the

blame for the blazes that have scorched million of acres.

Groups representing timber and recreation interests also have linked

the fires and Clinton administration forest policies.

Timber harvests have dropped about 70 percent in the last decade as a

result of lawsuits and Forest Service policy changes.

Wyden asked the Congressional Research Service to examine Forest

Service timber harvests and acres burned on agency land from 1980

through 1999.

The study found that two of the four worst fire years- 1987 and 1988

- occurred during the peak timber harvests of the last 20 years.

The Forest Service harvested nearly 12.7 billion board feet of timber

in 1987 and 12.6 billion board feet in 1988 across the 192 million

acres of federal land the agency oversees.

"Timber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that

can be coverted into wood products, but leaves behind the small

material, especially twigs and needles," report author Ross Gorte

wrote. "The concentration of these `fine fuels' on the forest floor

increases the rate of spread of wildfires."

The other two worst fire years, 1994 and 1996, occurred during low

timber harvest years.

Derek Jumper, a spokesman for the American Forest and Paper

Association, said the analysis does not change his view that the

decline in timber harvests has been a factor in the wildfires. He

said it stands to reason that if there is more wood in forests, there

is a better possibility of a fire.

"This year, as bad as it is, will probably pale compared to future

wildfire seasons," Jumper predicted.

ITEM #2

Title: Fire Management: Cutting the Trees to Save the Forest

Date: August 24, 2000

By: Cat Lazaroff

WASHINGTON, DC, August 24, 2000 (ENS) - More than five million acres

of forest have been devoured by fire this year across the United

States. Now, the U.S. government is proposing to protect 40 million

National Forest acres from devastating flames - by chopping down some

of their trees.

Since 1910, when massive wildfires ripped through three million acres

of the Bitterroot Mountains in Idaho, Montana and Washington, killing

85 people, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has fought to contain and

extinguish all wildfires almost as soon as they ignite.

The result: 90 years of little or no natural fire activity in many

areas, leaving millions of acres of unnaturally closely packed trees,

thick underbrush, downed limbs and other fire fuels.

Over the past decade, the USFS has struggled to redefine its fire

policies, lighting controlled burns and clearing underbrush to ward

off larger blazes. But when these projects are not carried out

properly, they can lead to the kind of fires they are meant to

prevent. In May, a prescribed burn in New Mexico's Bandelier National

Monument was driven by high winds to burn more than 42,000 acres,

destroying hundreds of homes.

Next month, USFS and the Clinton administration are expected to

propose a massive "thinning" project, intended to increase the

distance between trees and clear out underbrush to reduce the risk of

wildfire. The government says by removing small trees and bushes, it

can cut back on the available fuel for fires, without damaging larger

trees or the forest itself.

The plan builds on a draft fire management strategy unveiled by USFS

in April, which would include thinning, prescribed burns and

rehabilitation of forest lands on some 40 million acres of National

Forests. Over the next 15 years, the project would cost about $12

billion.

But many environmentalists warn the plan "looks more like logging

than ecologically sound fire risk reduction," said Matthew Koehler of

the Native Forest Network's Public Lands Project.

The example both sides use to illustrate the thinning plan is the

Fort Valley timber sale in the Coconino National Forest near

Flagstaff, Arizona. Commercial loggers have removed trees, underbrush

and logging debris.

What they have left behind resembles a tree plantation - not a living

forest. While the thinned forest might be inhospitable to wildfire,

it may also be hostile to wildlife.

"The results of these demonstration sales are adverse for wildlife

habitat and visually unappealing," said Bryan Bird, executive

director of the Forest Conservation Council and a board member of the

National Forest Protection Alliance (NFPA). "Because of the

commercial incentive attached to these demonstration timber sales,

the outcome resembles in many ways that of traditional logging

operations."

The Fort Valley timber sale has become a focal point in the National

Forest restoration debate, Bird said. The Forest Conservation Council

challenged the timber sale and requested that the logging alternative

be compared to a restoration alternative that excluded commercial

timber harvest. USFS is required by law to make these comparisons.

Stonewalled for months, the groups filed a successful lawsuit in

federal district court, arguing that the USFS thinning project could

actually increase fire danger.

The suit claimed that USFS ignored evidence indicating that logging

often increases - rather than decreases - the risk of fire through

changes in microclimate and accumulation of logging debris. The suit

also claimed that USFS failed to protect sensitive species.

USFS settled the lawsuit out of court, admitting they should have

solicited further input. The conservation groups involved in the suit

intend to push for a new fire reduction plan for Coconino National

Forest, avoiding commercial timber harvest and promoting protections

for wildlife habitat and water quality.

"Ironically, the Forest Service is carrying out just such non-logging

restoration projects elsewhere on the same National Forest, yet

plainly refuses to entertain such a proposal in the Fort Valley

area," said Bird. "Logging in any form is simply not necessary to

restore our National Forests, reduce the risk of forest fire or stop

insect infestations. Most often logging exacerbates these

situations."

Many government experts agree. "Timber harvest, through its effects

on forest structure, local microclimate and fuels accumulation, has

increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity,"

said a 1996 report to Congress by the federally funded Sierra Nevada

Ecosystem Project.

The problem is that commercial loggers want large, valuable trees.

But smaller trees - with trunks 12 inches in diameter or less - are

far more likely to go up in flames. Though the new USFS fire

management plan is expected to target these smaller trees, timber

companies are unlikely to jump at the chance to harvest these less

valuable trees.

Because the USFS depends on timber harvests to fund some of its

programs - including fire management - this presents the agency with

a dilemma.

"Because the US Forest Service's budget is directly tied to cutting

down of our National Forests, the Forest Service has a long history

of doing what is best for their bottom line, and not what is best for

our National Forests, clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat,"

said Koehler of the Native Forest Network. "If we ever hope to have

our National Forests managed in a responsible way, we need to end the

commercial timber sales program."

A 1999 report from the Government Accounting Office (GAO), the

investigative arm of Congress, concluded that "most of the trees that

need to be removed to reduce accumulated fuels are small in diameter

and have little or no commercial value."

The GAO report, "Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is

Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats," found that when

addressing projects designed to reduce the risk of fire, USFS

managers, "tend to (1) focus on areas with high-value commercial

timber rather than on areas with high fire hazards or (2) include

more large, commercially valuable trees in a timber sale than are

necessary to reduce the accumulated fuels."

In June, three university scientists testified before the House

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, arguing that logging of

large trees and roadless areas is not necessary to reduce the threat

of unnaturally intense forest fires in the West. Dr. Penny Morgan and

Dr. Leon Neuenschwander of the University of Idaho, and Dr. Thomas

Swetnam of the University of Arizona testified logging is not an

ecological substitute for fire, that large trees are important for

wildlife and do not pose a fire threat, and that restoration efforts

should focus on the recent encroachment of small trees even though

they are of little value to the timber industry.

"We need an aggressive program of fuels management including both

prescribed fire and mechanical treatments," the scientists testified.

"There are many places where the economic and ecological costs of

mechanical treatments are not needed prior to prescribed burning.

Whether the fuels are reduced mechanically, by prescribed burning, or

by use of both tools, enough of the small trees and accumulated fuels

must be removed to accomplish the objective, but the large trees

should remain uncut."

Next month, when the USFS releases its new plan, the public will

learn whether the agency has listened to its own experts - or to the

timber industry, which continues to argue that commercial logging is

necessary for forest health and fire management.

"Until the forest products industry stops trying to insist that

clearcutting our public lands is necessary for the health of those

lands, we will make no progress in restoring those lands," said Dr.

Thomas Power, a University of Montana economist. "Equating forest

health with timber company profits condemns our forests to either the

commercial ravages of the past or the management paralysis of the

present. Both are bad for our forests and for those of us who have

chosen to live in beautiful, but naturally dangerous, forested

landscapes."

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###

This document is a PHOTOCOPY for educational, personal and non-

commercial use only. Recipients should seek permission from the

source for reprinting. All efforts are made to provide accurate,

timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all

information rests with the reader. Check out our Gaia's Forest

Conservation Archives & Portal at URL= http://forests.org/

Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org