08/18/01 -- U.S. Announces Flawed Policy to Address Raging Natural Wildfires

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

FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY

U.S. Announces Flawed Policy to Address Raging Natural Wildfires

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

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc.

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

http://forests.org/links/ -- Forest Conservation Links

08/18/01

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Forests.org

Dozens of major wildfires are crackling their way across the Western

United States, as has occurred naturally for millennia. A new

agreement between federal agencies and the governors in 10 Western

states has been reached on how to prevent future wildfires. The plan

has some positive elements, including an emphasis upon managed burns

to restore natural disturbance regimes, that if properly implemented

may contribute positively to the well being of forest ecosystems.

But there are many environmentally regressive aspects to the plan;

and given the ecological ignorance of the Bush administration, it is

unlikely to be reasonably implemented. It is becoming widely

accepted that past fire suppression created unnatural fuel conditions

in our forests. The remedy under the plan is to mechanically thin

these forests to lower their fuel loads, the benefits of which are

far from certain. Recent research suggests that thinning as a means

to pursue fuel reduction is only likely to have an impact in forests

where crown fires were historically absent or infrequent. High-

intensity crown fires have long been known to be a natural occurrence

in higher-elevation forests in America's Western states. A

commentary piece below asserts, "we now know them to be a natural

part of lower-elevation forests as well. In fact, these fires are

essential to maintaining a healthy forest ecosystem."

In order to finance this dubious forest-thinning scheme, the Bush

administration is likely to allow the logging of large trees as well.

This is the real basis for the Bush/Norton forest-thinning remedy for

wildfires - political payback to extractive resource industries.

There is strong evidence that intensive logging causes fires to

increase in frequency and intensity. Commercial logging methods

increase the occurrence of wildfires by fragmenting forests and

opening up the forest canopy through road construction and removing

big, fire-resistant trees. Timber companies must not be allowed to

use fire prevention as justification for increased logging, which

would only exacerbate the problem.

The new wildfire policy ignores the reality that in many cases the

best policy would be to let the fires burn. Lightening strikes cause

most of the fires. Once started, firefighters and public land

managers can do little to stop some natural crown fires from

occurring. America's forests are naturally wild and often hazardous

places. We have chosen to protect them from development and must in

general accept the hazards along with the benefits that come from

such protection.

Only recently has residential development in the hazard zone near

public lands become problematic. Those constructing building next to

natural forests - in many cases to enjoy the rustic, natural scenery

- have a responsibility to use readily available techniques to

fireproof their homes. If their structures are not defensible, why

should the public bear the cost of protecting them, and firefighters

risk their lives? Why should the management of public forests be

changed to protect carelessly constructed private property? The $ 2

billion National Fire Plan effectively shifts the cost of protecting

what are in many case trophy luxury homes to the public and to our

forests.

This plan needs to be redirected to letting fires burn naturally,

widely using prescribed burns that are in line with historical

disturbance regimes as the primary means to reduce fuel loads,

scaling down plans for mechanical thinning and ensuring no logging of

large trees occurs. Again, under no circumstances must timber

companies be allowed to use fire prevention as justification for

chopping down large, mature trees. Amazingly, many newspapers are

increasingly advocating these reasonable policies that are based upon

ecological science and common sense rather than upon political

expediency. Below can be found a selection of the best recent

editorials and commentary. For full coverage of the most recent fire

season in America's West and American forest conservation issues in

general see Forests.org's "United States of America Forest

Conservation News & Information" at http://forests.org/america/ -

part of the largest and most frequently used Forest Conservation

Portal on the Planet at http://forests.org/.

g.b.

P.S. Media queries are welcome at 608 288-8102.

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

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

ITEM #1

Title: Bush plan catches fire

Date: August 16, 2001

Byline: Editorial

President Bush's feel-good tour of Colorado this week did call

attention to one serious matter: A new agreement has been inked

between federal agencies and the governors in 10 Western states,

including Colorado, on how to prevent future catastrophic wildfires.

Bush's staged photo-op in Rocky Mountain National Park, which showed

the president whittling away at a tree branch, didn't begin to

illustrate the complexity of the problem, however.

Last year, wildfires burned 8.5 million acres of national forests and

other public lands. In response, Congress set aside funds for fire

prevention efforts by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land

Management and other agencies.

Then on Monday, the Western Governors Association and the federal

agencies signed an agreement to address the wildfire issue. The 20-

page document is sadly lean on details, but correctly emphasizes fire

prevention. In that regard, the plan Bush so proudly touted does in

fact represent progress on a contentious issue.

Yet the most important question, how to achieve the desired reduction

in fire hazard, remains partly unanswered.

Scientists, environmentalists and timber executives generally

acknowledge that the Forest Service and BLM must let some small,

natural fires burn and ignite other controlled burns to clear out

potential wildfire fuel such as deadwood and thick brush. But they

vehemently disagree on whether, how much and what kind of logging

should be part of the plan.

Indeed, environmental groups offer credible evidence that traditional

logging methods actually increased fire dangers because the

operations removed big, fire-resistant trees and left intact the very

materials most apt to ignite.

If logging is used to reduce the fire hazard, it must concentrate on

removing the unnatural build-up of these smaller forest materials.

But few profitable markets exist for such materials. Timber companies

thus claim they need to cut the larger trees so they can afford to do

the fire-prevention work, too. Environmentalists view such claims as

an excuse for the logging industry to return to the bad old days.

If the newly inked fire prevention plan is to carry any credibility,

state and federal agencies must deal with this issue directly. Timber

companies must not be allowed to use fire prevention as justification

for chopping down large, mature trees, unless for some unusual reason

such trees present a wildfire hazard in a specific location. Instead,

the government must encourage development of sustainable markets for

the smaller forest materials.

Ultimately, what's needed to resolve the disagreement is top

leadership. If he cares about the West, as he proclaimed in his

recent visit, Bush will keep wildfire prevention on his presidential

agenda.

ITEM #2

Title: A fire season debate

Date: August 16, 2001

AN AREA 10 times the size of San Francisco is burning in California,

Oregon and Nevada. A total of 20,000 firefighters is wielding

shovels, driving bulldozers or piloting planes to douse flames at a

cost of $4 million per day. The costly and risky fire season has

begun.

The first response is safety. Fire crews are properly rushed to

danger points to contain wildfires before homes and humans are

threatened. A growing population has steadily moved into once-remote

areas and made the rescue job bigger than ever.

Now comes the hard part: planning for a future that minimizes forest-

fire damage. The current blazes are nearly all caused by lightning,

meaning the source won't go away. What can be done?

Some scientists and environmentalists favor letting some fires go

unchecked. The results replenish the soil, clear away underbrush and

restore nature's rough hand. A decade ago Yellowstone National Park

was allowed to burn, and regeneration is a spectacle worth seeing.

But for families who lost everything in last year's Los Alamos burn,

when foresters badly miscalculated, a natural burn was a searing

experiment. Also, timber companies want to log trees that might

otherwise burn.

Western governors and the Bush administration want a cautious

approach. The two sides signed a 10-year agreement to remove brush,

trees and combustible debris and teach fire safety to landowners.

There's no mention of letting fires run free because the notion

unsettles rural residents.

This is a welcome start but the follow-through will be crucial.

Timber firms should not exploit the notion of fire suppression to

engage in widespread logging.

Though political leaders are loath to talk up the idea, naturally

occurring fire could work in some cases. Firefighters will likely be

needed in many others because human habitation demands it. The West's

forests clearly need a new fresh approach to preserve their health.

ITEM #3

Title: Should we protect private homes from forest fires?

Date: August 16, 2001

Byline: William L. Baker, GUEST COMMENTARY, Laramie, Wyo.

In the last few years, there have been serious, property-damaging

fires in the West in what has been dubbed the wildland-urban

interface, including large fires in Colorado, Montana and recently

near Jackson, Wyo. Millions of dollars in property remain at risk of

future fires.

Federal land management agencies have responded by allocating almost

$ 2 billion to deal with the problem. But should public forests be

altered and firefighters put at risk to protect nearby private

property?

Projects are proposed on public land in the Front Range to protect

property on adjoining private land in the wildland-urban interface,

primarily using thinning and fuel reduction. The public forest area

that would be affected, if every home in the interface is to be

protected, is potentially very large.

But recent research suggests that thinning and fuel reduction may be

at odds with the ecology of our forests, and may also be rather

futile. Our research group at the University of Wyoming has found

that ponderosa pine forests in Rocky Mountain National Park were

naturally subject to periodic, high-intensity crown fires during the

centuries before settlement by Euro-Americans. Research by Dr. Thomas

Veblen at the University of Colorado-Boulder suggests that high-

intensity fires may also have occurred before settlement throughout

the ponderosa pine forests of the Front Range, except at the lowest

elevations near the plains.

High-intensity crown fires have long been known to be a natural

occurrence in higher-elevation forests in our region, but we now know

them to be a natural part of lower-elevation forests as well. In

fact, these fires are essential to maintaining a healthy forest

ecosystem.

We have been hearing that past fire suppression has created unnatural

fuel conditions in our forests, and the remedy now is to thin these

forests and lower their fuel loads. But this is really only known to

be true in forests where crown fires were uncommon or absent

historically. Thinning a forest naturally subject to high-intensity

crown fires might also, in theory, prevent some crown fires from

starting, but the actual evidence that this works is limited,

particularly when fire weather is severe.

More certain is that, once started, crown fires typically spread with

flames that can be 100 feet or more high. When these flames bend over

under the force of strong winds, as we often have in the Front Range,

they can easily cross large gaps, including those inside thinned

forests. Under extreme fire weather conditions, as we have seen in

some recent years and as has occurred at times in the past, natural

crown fires will occur in the forests of the Front Range wildland-

urban interface. Even if thinning our Front Range forests really

could lower the chance of natural crown fires, that is not

restoration any more than a flood-control dam on a river is

restoration.

Employees of the federal agencies have a fine and honorable record of

fighting fires, with a remarkable dedication and willingness to take

risks. But firefighters and public land managers can really do little

more to stop some natural crown fires once started than weather

forecasters can do to stop a major flood. Public land management is

neither the source of the problem nor the source of the solution, as

our forests are naturally wild, hazardous places. We chose long ago

to protect them from development and to generally accept the hazards

along with the benefits that come with protection. Only recently has

development in this hazard zone near public lands created a problem.

We now face a reckoning about public and private rights and

responsibilities in the wildland-urban interface. Private property is

a sacred American value. But conservation of our valuable public

lands is also as American as flags, apple pie and barbecues. It's

time for private and public responsibilities in the interface zone to

be recalculated.

It is at best irresponsible to shunt the cost and burden of difficult

fire protection for private property onto adjoining public lands,

especially when this may be ineffective and may require public

forests to be altered from their natural condition. Shouldn't private

citizens accept and personally manage a good share of the risk, if

they choose to build in dangerous locations near public forests?

If houses and their immediate vicinity are fire-proofed (see the

Firewise website at www.firewise.org), then certainly we must include

these houses in the shared community responsibility for fire

protection. But if structures are not defensible, why should we have

to put firefighters in harm's way? Why should there ever be an

expectation that public forests will be altered to protect adjoining

private property?

Communities, county governments, insurance agencies and concerned

citizens can develop incentives and disincentives to reshape the

balance of responsibility in the wildland-urban interface. There is

nothing unusual about requiring development to be responsible. It is

now common to ask development to pay its own way in our towns and

cities.

For too long we have ignored or miscalculated the costs of

development in the wildland-urban interface. Now the $ 2 billion

National Fire Plan effectively shifts these costs to the public and

to our forests. This plan needs to be redirected at the real need,

which is helping us to say 'no' to costly and irresponsible

development that threatens public lands in the wildland-urban

interface and that puts our firefighters at risk.

William L. Baker is an ecology professor in the Department of

Geography and Recreation at the University of Wyoming in Laramie.

Guest commentary submissions of 650 words may be sent to The Post

editorial page.

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving forest conservation informational materials for

educational, personal and non-commercial use only. Recipients should

seek permission from the source to reprint this PHOTOCOPY. All

efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces, though ultimate

responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader.

For additional forest conservation news & information please see the

Forest Conservation Portal at URL= http://forests.org/

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