07/20/02 -- Commercial Logging Causes Forest Fires

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

FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY

Commercial Logging Causes Forest Fires

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

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc.

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

http://www.EnvironmentalSustainability.info/ -- Eco-Portal

July 20, 2002

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Forests.org

The biggest ecological con job in years is being waged by the U.S.

Republican party and their timber industry cronies. They are blaming the

recent Western wildfires on environmentalists, and assuring the public

that commercial logging will reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires.

Below are three excellent rebuttals of these lies, which I will quote from

and paraphrase here. “Scores of scientists and the federal government's

own national fire plan have concluded that the removal of mature trees

from forests increases the severity of forest fires. Why then would the

Bush administration use the threat of fires to try to increase logging of

mature and old-growth trees in our national forests?”

It is well known scientifically that “commercial logging actually

increases fire severity by removing large, fire- resistant trees and

leaving behind very small trees and flammable "slash debris"--branches,

twigs and needles from felled trees. The removal of mature trees also

decreases the forest canopy, creating hotter, drier conditions on the

ground. The additional sun exposure encourages the growth of flammable

brush and weeds. Reduction of flammable underbrush can reduce fire

severity, and environmental groups have encouraged such projects. However,

the Bush administration has grossly misused the funds that Congress

appropriated for brush reduction near homes. In Sierra Nevada national

forests last year, more than 90% of these funds were instead earmarked for

preparation of large timber sales focused on the removal of mature and

old-growth trees miles from the nearest town.”

"The Forest Service, Bush administration and anti-environmental members of

Congress are spreading a great deal of misinformation about wildfire,

hoping to capitalize on public fire hysteria and minimize public

opposition to increased logging and roadbuilding in our national forests,"

said Jake Kreilick of the National Forest Protection Alliance based in

Missoula, Montana. "With virtually all new timber sales couched in terms

of 'reducing fuels' or 'restoring forest health,' fire hysteria has

emerged as the driving force behind the Forest Service's logging program

and the administration's efforts to 'streamline' our nation's

environmental laws," Kreilick said.

"For years, conservation organizations have been pressuring the Forest

Service to focus its efforts on protection of communities through the use

of both prescribed burning and reduction of underbrush, rather than

continuing to log our remaining old growth trees in remote wildlands,"

said Brian Segee with the Center for Biological Diversity in Arizona.

"Far from being a right-wing poster child for environmentalism gone bad,

the Rodeo-Chediski fire shows just how ferociously fires can burn through

land that had been badly hammered by the logging industry and the U.S.

Forest Service." he said.

Forests.org is proud to be part of the coalition that supports fuel

reduction and fire protection directly adjacent to homes and communities

instead of commercial logging or aggressive fire suppression in remote

wildlands. Such an approach is based upon sound ecological science and

not political opportunism. The Bush Presidency is an environmental

nightmare. The single greatest protection against decades of ever

increasing wildfires would be for the Bush administration to develop a

real climate change policy that dramatically reduces emissions of

greenhouse gases.

g.b.

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

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

ITEM #1

Title: Green Groups Urge Fire Fuel Reduction, Not Logging

http://ens.lycos.com/index.html

Date: July 19, 2002

WASHINGTON, DC, July 19, 2002 (ENS) - To clarify their positions

concerning wildfire management on national forest lands, American

conservation groups presented a letter to the U.S. Forest Service on

Thursday. The groups say recent media reports and statements by federal

and state officials have mistakenly characterized the environmental

community as opposing most fire management strategies.

In total, 148 conservation groups signed the letter sent to Forest Service

Chief Dale Bosworth, outlining the conservation community's position on

wildfires, home protection and fuel reduction projects.

"In recent weeks, some politicians and some U.S. Forest Service officials

have repeatedly misrepresented the conservation community's position" on

these issues, the conservation groups explain in the letter.

In the letter - which was also sent to every member of Congress and the

Western Governors Association - the conservation groups make it clear they

have always supported "common sense approaches designed to effectively

protect homes and communities from fire."

As the groups explain, in addition to advocating that Congress "increase

funding for community protection and fire education," the conservation

community has "taken a leading role in educating homeowners about the

importance of treating flammable material adjacent to homes and

communities."

"Unfortunately, the Forest Service has chosen to focus their priorities

largely on commercial logging projects far removed from communities, not

on effectively protecting communities," the letter explains.

"[W]hat we are finding 'on the ground' is that National Fire Plan funds

have been misused by the Forest Service to promote commercial logging,

have not been targeted towards the highest risk areas, and have failed to

effectively protect homes and communities from fires."

So far this year, almost 50,000 wildfires have burned 3,546,965 acres of

public and private land across the nation, with the largest fires

concentrated in the drought stricken western states. Some federal and

state officials have blamed the large number of devastating fires - almost

three times the 10 year annual average acreage burned - on litigation by

environmental groups.

Critics charge these lawsuits have blocked fuel reduction projects on

federal lands.

But conservation groups say they support most methods of fuel reduction

and fire risk management, opposing only those projects that would log old

growth trees in the name of fire prevention.

"For years, conservation organizations have been pressuring the Forest

Service to focus its efforts on protection of communities through the use

of both prescribed burning and reduction of underbrush, rather than

continuing to log our remaining old growth trees in remote wildlands,"

said Brian Segee with the Center for Biological Diversity in Arizona.

"The Rodeo-Chediski fire in Arizona - which burned through over 2,100

miles of logging roads and 10 recent timber sale areas - is a perfect

illustration of how industrial logging does not fireproof a forest," Segee

pointed out.

"Far from being a right-wing poster child for environmentalism gone bad,

the Rodeo-Chediski fire shows just how ferociously fires can burn through

land that had been badly hammered by the logging industry and the U.S.

Forest Service." he said.

The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) says the peak of this year's

western fire season is yet to come. According to fire weather and

predictive services experts at NIFC, the potential for extreme fire

activity will continue to be high over the next two months, with the

entire western United States expected to be hotter than normal and with

some areas of drier than normal conditions.

Based on historical comparisons, about 80 percent of the large wildland

fires that occur in many western states happen in July and August. With

dry conditions reported in the Great Basin, California, Wyoming, southeast

Montana, and pockets of eastern Washington and Oregon, the potential for

fires to escape containment and become large is very high this summer.

Thursday was considered a good day, as firefighters were successful in

containing three large fires and only one, in southern California, of the

more than 300 wildland fires reported, became large. Of the 45 large fires

burning currently, eight are expected to be contained by Sunday.

But Thursday brought tragedy as well, when a Hawkins and Powers Aviation

PB4Y2 air tanker on contract with the U.S. Forest Service crashed while

assigned to the Big Elk fire near Estes Park, Colorado. The two crew

members aboard were killed, adding to public concerns about this year's

record fire season.

Officials at the National Interagency Fire Center have issued a stand-down

order for all contracted large airtankers and lead planes until noon

Saturday, to allow the contractors to inspect and service their aircraft,

and to give flight crews a day of rest.

"The Forest Service, Bush administration and anti-environmental members of

Congress are spreading a great deal of misinformation about wildfire,

hoping to capitalize on public fire hysteria and minimize public

opposition to increased logging and roadbuilding in our national forests,"

said Jake Kreilick of the National Forest Protection Alliance based in

Missoula, Montana.

"With virtually all new timber sales couched in terms of 'reducing fuels'

or 'restoring forest health,' fire hysteria has emerged as the driving

force behind the Forest Service's logging program and the administration's

efforts to 'streamline' our nation's environmental laws," Kreilick said.

The governors of Western states swept by wildfires this season are urging

Congress to allocate emergency supplemental funding to the Forest Service

and Department of the Interior for wildland fire management. They are

requesting funding for restoration work to improve forest ecosystem health

and to rehabilitate burned and unburned areas so they regenerate in a way

that reduces the risk posed by future fires.

The governors are also seeking substantial funding in fiscal year 2003 to

pay for community assistance in rural communities trying to protect homes,

businesses and watersheds. Those same goals are supported by the

conservation groups that wrote to the Forest Service this week.

The groups ended their letter to the Forest Service by saying, "As you can

clearly see, the conservation community is deeply committed to the

protection of homes and communities. We will continue to expand our

efforts to safeguard communities, while at the same time, promote and

support ecologically based restoration projects on our national forests.

If the Forest Service supports these goals, we feel strongly that we can

work together."

"However, if the Forest Service continues to misuse National Fire Plan

money, the conservation community will continue to hold your agency

accountable," the groups wrote. "The American people and our nation's

public lands deserve no less."

Among the groups signing the letter were the Alliance for the Wild

Rockies, Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, California Wilderness

Coalition, Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Species Coalition,

Forest Guardians, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Native Forest Network,

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Rainforest Action

Network, and REP America (Republicans for Environmental Protection).

"It is time for the Forest Service to be accountable and set its fire

management priorities where Congress and the American people have long

demanded it," said Dr. Timothy Ingalsbee, director of American Lands

Alliance's Western Fire Ecology Center in Eugene, Oregon.

Dr. Ingalsbee said the coalition supports "fuel reduction and fire

protection directly adjacent to homes and communities instead of

commercial logging or aggressive fire suppression in remote wildlands."

ITEM #2

Title: A Burning Issue: Helping Loggers, Hurting Forests

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/

Date: July 15, 2002

By CHAD HANSON, Chad Hanson is the executive director of the John Muir

Project and a national director of the Sierra Club. E-mail:

chadhanson@juno. com.

Scores of scientists and the federal government's own national fire plan

have concluded that the removal of mature trees from forests increases the

severity of forest fires. Why then would the Bush administration use the

threat of fires to try to increase logging of mature and old-growth trees

in our national forests?

That is clearly the administration's intention, as outlined in two recent

memos on revising the Northwest Forest Plan and the "Sierra Nevada

Framework" plan to allow logging companies increased access to ancient

forests on public lands. The move is being led by Mark Rey, a former

timber industry lobbyist and a President Bush appointee who oversees the

Forest Service.

In the Sierra Nevada, the administration intends to "modify" the current

Sierra framework plan to increase the size of trees that could be removed,

which would allow widespread logging of old-growth trees in national

forests. The administration also has indicated its intentions to eliminate

the current requirement to maintain small stands of remnant ancient forest

and to reduce the existing standards for maintaining forest canopy cover.

This would greatly undercut the Sierra framework, which limits logging of

mature trees in national forests in the Sierra Nevada. The framework was

the result of several years of planning and public participation during

the Clinton administration. Bush administration officials imply that this

logging is needed to protect homes from forest fires. Yet the Forest

Service's own scientific reports show that the best way to protect rural

homes from fire is to reduce the flammability of the home itself and its

surroundings within 100 feet. Wood shingles should be replaced with fire-

resistant roofing, and brush around the home should be cleared. These

steps protect homes even from severe fires.

As scientists point out, commercial logging actually increases fire

severity by removing large, fire- resistant trees and leaving behind very

small trees and flammable "slash debris"--branches, twigs and needles from

felled trees. The removal of mature trees also decreases the forest

canopy, creating hotter, drier conditions on the ground. The additional

sun exposure encourages the growth of flammable brush and weeds.Reduction

of flammable underbrush can reduce fire severity, and environmental groups

have encouraged such projects. However, the Bush administration has

grossly misused the funds that Congress appropriated for brush reduction

near homes. In Sierra Nevada national forests last year, more than 90% of

these funds were instead earmarked for preparation of large timber sales

focused on the removal of mature and old-growth trees miles from the

nearest town.

The Bush administration's potentially dangerous fire management policies

demonstrate the need for Congress to pass legislation to abolish

commercial logging in national forests and to redirect logging

expenditures into brush reduction and home protection.

Until that happens, many politicians will continue to place the economic

interests of their timber industry campaign contributors ahead of public

safety and ecology.

ITEM #3

Title: Green groups share blame for US fires - Republicans

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewshome.cfm

Date: July 15, 2002

Byline: Christopher Doering

WASHINGTON - Republican lawmakers last week blamed environmental groups

for contributing to U.S. forest fires that destroyed more than 3.1 million

acres this year by blocking federal attempts to thin undergrowth.

Green groups and the timber industry disagree on when brush and small

trees should be removed from federal forests to reduce the risk of

wildfires.

Colorado Republican Scott McInnis, who chairs a House forestry

subcommittee, said green groups have repeatedly gone to court to block

attempts by the federal government to thin forests. The delays have led to

overgrown brush that becomes tinder in spreading fires such as the ones in

Arizona and Colorado.

"The environmental community ... has attempted to walk away from its share

of the blame," said McInnis. "I am urging those environmental groups to

sit down, come to us with ways to work through this."McInnis and other

lawmakers said green groups such as the Sierra Club had little incentive

to work with the U.S. Forest Service to reach an agreement because they

can simply delay a project in court.

Thinning a forest removes the overgrowth of underlying brush and dead

trees, which serve as fuel in the spread of wildfires, especially during a

drought.

Environmental groups and some lawmakers have long opposed efforts to thin

forest land, contending the government is too eager to remove large trees

coveted by big timber companies for profit. The groups also say commercial

logging increases fire risks by leaving flammable debris behind.

The Forest Service is trying "to blur the lines and say any management

activity is fuel reduction," said Sean Cosgrove, a forest specialist with

the Sierra Club.

Less than one-third of the forest thinning projects proposed this year by

the Forest Service are near homes or other buildings, according to green

groups.

The green groups argue the Forest Service has not thinned enough land near

homes, focusing its attention on removing lumber in areas where the public

is not in danger.

"The public and general populous will be more responsive to an agency that

says, 'We're doing our best, but we need to do better,' instead of this

lets blame anybody and everybody so we don't have to take full

responsibility for our actions," said Keith Ashdown, a spokesman with

Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The Forest Service, a division of the U.S. Agriculture Department,

estimated that as many as 50 percent of all thinning projects are

challenged in court.

However, a study by the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative

arm, found less than 2 percent of projects were appealed. The study is now

being reviewed by the GAO.

The Forest Service "got caught with their hand in the cookie jar," said

Jay Inslee, a Washington Democrat. "They want to do logging for big timber

rather than fuel reduction."

About 3.1 million acres (1.26 million hectares) of land already has burned

this year across the United States, nearly double the 10-year average,

according to the federal government.

Drought conditions throughout much of the Southwest, Rockies and the East

coast add to the risk of forest fires this year. The agency said Arizona,

Colorado, Wyoming and California have the greatest fire risk during July.

In Arizona, the Chediski fire has consumed about 468,000 acres (190,000

hectares) while wiping out millions of dollars worth of timber sold by

Indian tribes for income. The Hayman fire in Colorado, 55 miles (88 km)

southwest of Denver, burned 137,768 acres (55,750 hectares) and destroyed

133 homes.

###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