***********************************************
WORLDWIDE
FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS
ACTION
ITEM: Fires in Western U.S. Prompt Calls for More Logging
***********************************************
Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org
http://forests.org/ -- Forest
Conservation Archives
http://forests.org/web/ -- Discuss Forest
Conservation
08/31/00
OVERVIEW
& COMMENTARY
A
national political debate is emerging regarding how best to manage
National
Forests in the United States. The
catalyst has been the 6.2
million
acres of forest and wildland that have thus far burned in 13
western
states. The timber industry is
attempting to gain support
for
more logging by claiming that they can stop the fires. This
comes
as a new study indicates that National Forests provide ten
times
as many benefits in terms of recreation, wildlife and water
quality
than for timber, minerals and cattle grazing.
A new
report commissioned by the Sierra Club finds that the 192
million
acres of federal forests are worth an estimated $234 billion
and
generate 2.9 million jobs from recreation, fish and wildlife,
water
quality and wild areas. In comparison,
commercial management
generates
some $23 billion and 407,000 jobs from timber, mining,
grazing
and other uses. And it is not
sustainable. Despite these
facts,
the Clinton administration is facing political attacks that
their
forest management policies are to blame for the fires. The
administration
is on the defensive and is facing pressure from
Congress
to support a massive landscape wide logging/thinning program
lacking
ecological criteria or adequate environmental safeguards.
However,
the final response of the Administration to the heavy
fire
season is not yet determined. There is
still time to support
an
ecologically sound forest restoration and fuels reduction
policy. First and foremost: the environmental
community must
challenge
the false assumption that logging will fire-proof the
forests. Below you will find an excellent set of
recommendations
from
American Lands to address the combustible state of Western
ecosystems
in a more ecologically based manner.
These include
detailed
recommendations that are multi-faceted to address a
complex
situation; including that the Forest Service conduct an
ecological
assessment to identify restoration priorities from a
broad
array of alternatives; steer funds to homeowner grants for
removing
brush and installing metal roofs; prohibit the use of
commercial
timber sales and stewardship contracts for fuels
reduction
projects; prohibit logging of old growth, entry into
roadless
areas and harm to endangered species habitat in any fuels
reduction
project; oppose any fuels reduction program that would
circumvent
environmental law or public review; and allow fuels
reduction
funds to be spent on fire planning and preparedness.
Below
is coverage of the fire policy debate and the Sierra Club
report
on the value of standing forests, as well as American Lands'
request
to contact U.S. government officials. I
suggest using all
these
materials as background items to also contact President Clinton
at
president@whitehouse.gov, or call the comments line at (202) 456-
1111. Ask the President to not bow to pressure to
allow widespread
logging
outside of the nation's environmental laws.
Apparently the
President's
email was bouncing messages recently, but this is the
correct
address. In addition, should be used as
background materials
for
writing letters to local newspapers. We
cannot let the myth that
commercial
logging saves forests go unchallenged.
g.b.
*******************************
RELAYED
TEXT STARTS HERE:
ITEM #1
Title: Loggers seize on fires to argue for more cutting
Source: c Copyright 2000 USA TODAY
Date: August 30, 2000
So far
this year, more than 6.2 million acres of forest and wildland
have
burned in 13 western states. The dollar loss has yet to be
calculated,
but there's no question today that the 2000 wildfire
season
will be one of the very worst on record.
The
logging industry and its political allies in the states and in
Congress
are adding insult to that grievous injury by seizing the
opportunity
to argue for more logging. The tactic makes political
sense.
The industry is facing increasingly tight limits on the amount
of wood
it can harvest from public lands. By claiming reduced logging
increases
fire risk, the industry seeks new ammunition for its
argument.
In Montana, for example, where logging has been reduced 75%
in the
past decade, Gov. Marc Racicot has complained that lower
harvests
have contributed to the current fires. The idea is that
thinning
forests by removing large trees improves fire resistance by
lowering
forest density.
The
truth is that in many cases, logging operations have compounded
the
problem. By cutting large, trees, logging opens up the forest
canopy.
This dries out the forest floor and promotes the growth of
underbrush
and smaller trees. The brush provides fuel for fires; the
smaller
trees provide ''ladders'' for flames to reach the tops of any
bigger
trees left behind. Moreover, logging roads invite deeper
excursions
by off-roaders, hikers, hunters and campers, with
devastating
effects. On average over the past 10 years, lightning has
caused
about 14,000 forest fires a year; humans have caused 100,000.
Fire is
essential to forest health. It clears out underbrush and
windfall,
provides nutrients to the forest soil and, for some species
of
trees, is essential for propagation. But this is a relatively new
understanding,
and it comes after 90 years of aggressive fire
suppression
that, more so even than logging, has increased fuel loads
and
weakened forests.
Gradually,
forest managers have learned that the best response is to
redirect
firefighting efforts away from remote wilderness and focus
them
around developed areas. Since wildfires incinerated much of
Yellowstone
National Park in 1988, managers also have increased the
use of
deliberately set ''prescribed burns'' to clear out the
combustible
forest understory.
But the
solution requires more than strategic fire setting and
firefighting.
The Clinton administration is working up a strategy
that
also will include a campaign to educate homeowners and
developers
how best to prevent losses. Among the obvious suggestions:
Don't
use shingles; don't stack firewood against the house; don't
build
on ridgelines.
More
controversial is a proposal to begin large-scale mechanized
clearing
of the forests, hauling out brush and cutting down smaller
trees.
Environmentalists oppose anything that calls for more cutting.
Logging
proponents oppose anything that hinders access to big trees.
And the
cost is steep. Crude preliminary estimates place the cost at
several
hundred million dollars a year.
Restoring
balance to the nation's forests is going to be expensive,
exhausting
and painful. But with rare exceptions, new logging is the
wrong
answer. The problem isn't too little logging. If anything, the
reverse
may be true. But the most primary culprits are hot weather
and
fire suppression strategies that have clogged the forest with
fuel.
In the face of a growing calamity, the industry's claim to a
role in
restoring forest health sounds less like altruism than
opportunism.
ITEM #2
Title: Loggers seize on fires to argue for more
cutting
Source: Copyright 2000 The Associated Press.
Date: August 29, 2000
WASHINGTON
(AP) -- National forests are far more valuable for their
recreation,
wildlife and water quality than for timber, minerals and
cattle
grazing, according to a report released Tuesday by the Sierra
Club.
The
forests are worth an estimated $234 billion and generate 2.9
million
jobs from recreation, fish and wildlife, water quality and
wild
areas, according to an economic consulting firm that prepared
the
report for the Sierra Club, which opposes commercial logging in
national
forests.
By
comparison, the nation's 192 million acres of federal forests
generate
$23 billion and 407,000 jobs from timber, mining, grazing
and
other uses, said the firm, ECONorthwest.
"Leaving
trees standing in most cases can contribute far more to
local
state and national economies than logging," said Ernie Niemi, a
co-author
of the report and an economist at the Eugene, Ore., firm.
A
timber industry official challenged the report, saying the Forest
Service
can allow logging in forests and still produce benefits from
recreation,
water quality and fish and wildlife.
"We
need to make sure we're balancing all the values of all the goods
and
services these forests provide," said Chris West of the Northwest
Forestry
Association in Portland, Ore.
The
ECONorthwest study relies on a 1995 Forest Service analysis to
conclude
that recreation in forests would contribute $108 billion to
the
national economy and 2.6 million jobs by 2000.
The same analysis
concluded
that fish and wildlife in forests would provide $14 billion
and
330,000 jobs by 2000.
The
Forest Service analysis also predicted timber would generate $4
billion
for the economy and 76,000 jobs by 2000, and that minerals,
grazing
and other activities would generate $19 billion and 331,000
jobs,
the ECONorthwest report said.
ECONorthwest
used a Forest Service study from this year to estimate
that
water in national forests is worth $4 billion. The firm used the
findings
of a limited study by some Forest Service economists from
1997 to
estimate that roadless, wild areas have a value equal to
recreation
on forest lands, or $108 billion.
ITEM #3
Title: Action Needed to Influence Fire Policy
Source: American Lands
Date: August 29, 2000
By: Steve Holmer
Just as
fire is an active process that fosters ecological change,
fire is
also a potent agent of political change.
Whenever there
is a
heavy fire season the political balance shifts and - like
someone
with an ace up their sleeve - the timber industry can
suddenly
gain support for more logging by claiming that they can
stop
the fires.
The
Senate has approved a staggering $240 million for fuels
reduction
in the urban wildlands interface and Sen. Domenici (R-
NM) has
indicated that this thinning program should not have to
comply
with normal environmental review (Salvage Logging Rider
II). "Fire conditions in the West are so
severe that Congress
intends
to specify that measures to reduce fire hazard won't
require
the usual federal environmental review," said Steve Bell,
Chief
of staff for Sen. Domenici.
The
Senate will soon consider county payments legislation which
proposes
to spend another $70 million a year on land management
projects. And the Forest Service has floated the idea
of spending
$825
million a year over the next fifteen years to thin 40 million
acres
of National Forests at risk as part of a new fire program to
be
unveiled in September.
However,
none of this has been signed into law by the President
and the
Administration has not yet decided what their final
response
to the heavy fire season will be. There
is still time
for
activists to convince the White House to support a
ecologically
sound forest restoration and fuels reduction policy.
Due to
political attacks that their forest management policies are
to
blame for the fires, the Administration is on the defensive and
is
facing pressure from Congress to support a massive landscape
wide-thinning
program lacking ecological criteria or adequate
environmental
safeguards.
To his
credit, Chief Michael Dombeck has proposed limits on the
use of
emergency fuels reduction funds. In a
letter to Sen. Jeff
Bingaman
(D-NM) Dombeck says projects would be carried out by
service
contracts in non- controversial areas of the
urban/wildlands
interface and designated municipal watersheds with
a
twelve-inch diameter limit.
However,
the Administration is embracing "the Flagstaff model" of
thinning
which has been criticized by conservationists for
excessive
logging. "This approach is extreme
and untested," said
Sharon
Galbreath of the Sierra Club.
"This should not be billed
as 'if
you do this, you the save the forests of the West.' If you
do
this, you might set back the forests of the West by 100 years."
There
is also an important debate underway on how to define the
urban/wildlands
interface. Dombeck's letter proposes
two possible
definitions
that would lead substantially different programs. The
first
definition includes urban and suburban areas directly
adjacent
to unpopulated wildland areas where population densities
exceed
400 people per square mile. The second
definition includes
areas
where houses are scattered in wildland areas with a density
ranging
from 40 to 400 per square mile. The
second definition
includes
significantly more acres and could include interior
forest
areas far from any city or town.
The
environmental community needs to respond by publicly
challenging
this false assumption that logging will fire-proof the
forests
and by directly pressuring the Clinton Administration to
adopt a
sound fire management strategy that would be applied to
the
Domenici Amendment and the upcoming Forest Service fire
policy.
Many
thanks to Matthew Koehler (mailto:koehler@wildrockies.org) of
the
Native Forest Network and others for responding in the media
to the
many false claims made by the timber industry and their
political
minions. American Lands and others are
working in
Washington
to educate lawmakers and Administration officials about
the
threats posed to the National Forests by large scale
commercial
thinning operations. Working the media
and educating
lawmakers
are essential tasks that every activist can help with.
For
additional resources please see
http://www.wildrockies.org/wildfire,
contact Mike Petersen at
mailto:mpeters@televar.com,
or Timothy Ingalsbee at
mailto:fire@efn.org
The
Forest Service continues to misrepresent the historic
condition
of ponderosa pine forests in their use of photos and
educational
posters. The agency claims that a 1909
photo of a
recently
logged area on the Bitterroot National Forest represents
the
natural condition of the forest. This
misleads people to
believe
the forests were naturally "open, park-like stands" in the
canopy
as well as the understory and is being used by the agency
to
justify intensive thinning. Keith
Hammer of the Swan View
Coalition
has documented this abuse in a report available at
http://www.wildrockies.org/swanview/
The Administration
will be making decisions concerning fire policy
in the
coming weeks. Activists are encouraged
to contact the
officials
listed below and provide detailed information about
fires
and the impacts of commercial logging and thinning in your
area. Here are some policy ideas for you to
consider passing
along
to the Administration:
1.
Conduct an ecological assessment to identify restoration
priorities
before any restoration or fuels reduction activities
take
place. This assessment should involve
the public and provide
a broad
array of alternatives - not just thinning - to address
priority
needs in the area. For many areas,
removing roads,
invasive
species, and cows combined with prescribed burning would
be a
better prescription for ecological restoration.
2. Conduct an economic assessment comparing
strategies for
effective
fuels reduction in the urban/wildlands interface.
Forest
Service research "Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to
Homes"
by Jack Cohen shows that removing fuels from within 40
meters
of a structure and reducing the flammability of the
structures
are more effective and efficient than landscape wide
thinning
to reduce fire risks. "The
evidence suggests that
wildland
fuel reduction for reducing home losses may be
inefficient
and ineffective. Inefficient because
wildland fuel
reduction
for several hundred meters or more is greater than
necessary
for reducing ignitions from flames.
Ineffective because
it does
not sufficiently reduce firebrand ignitions," said Cohen's
report. This assessment could steer funds from
commercial
thinning
to homeowner grants for removing brush and installing
metal
roofs.
3.
Prohibit the use of commercial timber sales and stewardship
contracts
for fuels reduction projects. The
primary problem with
current
thinning projects is the commercial incentive to log large
trees
to pay for the sale. By banning
commercial logging and the
use of
"goods for services" stewardship contracts, the financial
incentive
for abusive logging under the guise of thinning can be
reduced. All fuels reduction projects should be paid
for with
appropriated
dollars. Any material of commercial
value must be
sold in
a separate contract and all revenues must be returned to
the
Treasury.
4. Prohibit logging of old growth, entry into
roadless areas and
harm to
endangered species habitat in any fuels reduction project.
Additional
environmental safeguards such as diameter limits and
riparian
buffers should be included and be based on the ecological
analysis
for that area. For example, the
twelve-inch limit
proposed
by Chief Michael Dombeck that may make sense for some
areas
in Colorado, may not make sense for the lodgepole forests of
Montana. Diameter limits used in the Eastside
Screens and the
Interim
Sierra Nevada guidelines have helped reduced the logging
of old
growth trees and could provide greater assurance that fuels
reduction
will not become the new buzzword for "business as usual"
logging.
5.
Oppose any fuels reduction program that would circumvent
environmental
law or public review. Sen. Domenici is
calling for
the
$240 million in fuels reductions funds be exempt from normal
environmental
review. This could result in a replay
of the
infamous
Salvage Logging Rider and must be stopped.
6.
Allow fuels reduction funds to be spent on fire planning and
preparedness. To date the agency has failed to comply
with the
1995
Federal Wildland Fire Policy which requires the creation of
fire
plans for every burnable acre. The
agency report "Policy
Implications
of Large Fire Management" concludes that fire plans
are
needed to efficiently respond to wildifires.
"Estimates have
shown
that for every dollar of appropriated preparedness dollars
received,
there is a savings of five to seven dollars in fire
suppression
and emergency rehabilitations funds spent," according
to the
report.
7.
Define the urban/wildlands interface as urban or suburban areas
directly
adjacent to wildland areas with a population density
exceeding
400 people per square mile.
Please
contact: George Frampton, Council on Environmental Quality,
Washington,
D.C. 20501, phone 202/456-6224, fax 456-2710 and 456-
0753;
Sec. of
Agriculture Dan Glickman, USDA, Washington, D.C. 20250,
phone
202/720-3631 or 202/720-7173, fax 720-4732
Chief
Michael Dombeck, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 20250,
phone
202/205-1661, fax 202/205-1765
Steve
Holmer
Campaign
Coordinator
American
Lands
726 7th
Street SE
Washington,
D.C. 20003
202/547-9105
202/547-9213
fax
mailto:wafcdc@americanlands.org
http://www.americanlands.org
###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