Xref: kermit sci.environment:191994 alt.save.the.earth:25006 alt.forestry:10707

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...479670,00.html

Headline:

Article Published: Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 12:00:00 AM MST


perspective
Preserving, restoring forests not a political gimmick
By Chris Risbrudt
Wildfire season is upon us, and some 30,000 employees of the U.S.
Forest Service are holding our collective breath. We fervently hope
this year will not be a repeat of last year, when wildfires burned 7.2
million acres (nearly double the 10-year average), destroyed more than
2,000 buildings, devastated numerous wildlife habitats and ecosystems,
degraded vital watersheds, consumed some $1.6 billion in firefighting
expenses, and cost the lives of 23 firefighters.

Chris Risbrudt is director of the Forest Products Laboratory, a
division of the U.S. Forest Service, in Madison, Wis.


Thousands of firefighters from local, state and federal agencies
successfully suppressed more than 99 percent of the fires quickly,
before they could do much damage. But the remaining 1 percent - some
610 fires - got too big too quickly. That 1 percent wreaked havoc
throughout much of the Western United States.

Two years earlier, the story was similar: Wildfires burned some 8.4
million acres in 2000, the largest area in 50 years. Again, less than
1 percent of the fires caused nearly all the destruction.

Analysis by Forest Service researchers shows that four factors
determine the extent and intensity of forest fires: abundance of fuel,
weather, lack of moisture and terrain. We have the ability to
influence only one of those in a meaningful way: the amount of
combustible material in the forest. By reducing available fuel, we can
significantly modify the behavior and severity of wildfires.

Some 73 million acres of national forests - more than a third of the
total - are still considered at risk for catastrophic fire, as are
some 300 million acres of state and private lands.

Western forests that historically supported a few dozen large trees
per acre now struggle with hundreds of trees per acre. Overcrowding
stresses trees, blocks sunlight, reduces water and nutrients, and aids
the spread of harmful insects and disease. And the overcrowding can
turn what might have been ecologically beneficial, low-intensity
ground fires into ecologically catastrophic, high-intensity "crown
fires."

Such fires leap great distances from treetop to treetop and become
virtually unstoppable. They generate extreme temperatures that kill
trees, totally destroy habitat, scorch the earth and degrade
watersheds.... (cont)
-------------
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...479668,00.html

HEADLINE:

Article Published: Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 12:00:00 AM MST



perspective
Healthy Forests Act fails us all
By Mary Chapman
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act passed by the U.S. House this
spring claims to target the danger of catastrophic fires on public
lands, but it fails some key tests.

Mary Chapman is executive director of the Forest Stewards Guild in
Santa Fe, N.M.


The Forest Stewards Guild, a national organization of professionals
who collectively manage 6 million acres of forest land, opposes the
legislation.

Practicing foresters recognize that reducing the risk of catastrophic
wildfires requires a credible combination of sound forest management
and public trust in government decisions. The bill fails to promote
either of these critical goals, thereby undermining its intention of
protecting forests and communities while continuing the Bush
administration's effort to roll back environmental safeguards.

The guild recognizes that fuel management is one of the most important
issues challenging foresters today. The quality and effectiveness of
the profession's response has enormous implications for the long-term
condition of our forest ecosystems, our communities and the forestry
profession itself.

While acknowledging the difficulties arising from legislative
requirements for public involvement in forest-management decisons, the
guild believes that the planning process ultimately improves the
projects that affect our public lands.

The administration, however, seems to feel that gutting landmark
environmental-protection legislation such as the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act
and the Endangered Species Act is the key to successfully managing
fuels on public lands.

The administration claims that complying with NEPA requirements delays
fuel-reduction efforts and thus puts lives, property and forest
resources at risk. Proposed changes to environmental regulations, such
as those written into the Healthy Forests Act, attack public-review
processes in general while failing to address the common concerns that
lead to appeals or to lay out a credible strategy for fuel management.
.... (cont)
----------------

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...479669,00.html

Headline:

Article Published: Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 12:00:00 AM MST



perspective
How do we stop the flames?
Burning is the answer
By Penelope Purdy / Denver Post editorial writer
The debate over wildfire prevention is written in smoke across the
skies of Arizona and New Mexico. Recent fires near Albuquerque and
Tucson are only the latest blazes that have turned dream homes into
smoldering ruins. The question behind the debate is what the federal
government should do to reduce the risk to people and property.
Associated Press / Matt York
Foundations of homes are all that remain in an area of Summerhaven,
Ariz., a town atop Mount Lemmon that lost hundreds of homes to
wildfires last week. Clearing away small fuel and brush and scheduling
controlled burns may help prevent devastating natural wildfires.


Yet fires are as much a part of the West as cowboys. It's natural for
most Western forests to burn periodically - they need fire to stay
healthy, and some even use the flames' heat to seed new trees.

But most foresters believe that the size and intense heat of recent
wildfires are abnormal. Historically, the fires that rebalanced
Western ecosystems were small and of relatively low temperature, so
they didn't damage the soil or the ability of the ecosystems to
revive.

The huge conflagrations that the West has experienced recently, such
as last year's Hayman blaze southwest of Denver, are so hot and large
that they instead destroy forest ecosystems, these scientists say.

A minority of experts argue, though, that Western ecosystems in the
past have experienced lots of big, hot blazes, correlated with drought
periods.

In either case, the real reason Uncle Sam spends big bucks - $1.6
billion last year - fighting wildfires isn't to save ecosystems. It's
to save the homes in harm's way.

By contrast, the huge blazes that sometimes sear central Alaska are
less worrisome, because there usually are no villages or subdivisions
in the fires' path.

From this perspective, the Western wildfire crisis may involve
land-use planning, not forest management.

Still, public debate is centering on how to change the many forest
conditions that feed large fires. Humans can address only one factor:
the amount of potential fire fuel in the forests.

Big, healthy trees tend to resist flames; this is especially true of
ponderosa pines, probably the most common conifer in Colorado's Front
Range. Most foresters believe that removing dense shrubs, scraggly
trees and excessive deadfall will make future wildfires small and
relatively cool...

(c0nt)