|
Fire Chronicle #12
|
Laura McCarthy, Forest Trust
|
Sep 20, 2002 11:57 PDT
|
FIRE CHRONICLE: Stories of the National Fire Plan
Number 12
September 20, 2002
CONSENSUS OVER FUEL REDUCTION TREATMENT DISSOLVES
The national debate over how to address the increasing wildfire threat
to communities has recently become more polarized. The New York Times
reported this week that “a tentative peace that fell over public forests
this summer, during one of the most disastrous wildfire years in
history, has disappeared, replaced by a political battle that threatens
forest management” (1). Differences of opinion about the answers to
three questions are polarizing the debate. First, what is the range of
appropriate actions to protect communities and restore natural fire?
Second, what size trees should be cut in the name of “hazardous fuel
reduction” to reduce wildfire risk? Finally, where should hazardous fuel
reduction take place? What follows is a review of the definition of the
term “hazardous fuel reduction” and a summary of the changes in the
nature of the debate.
Definition of Hazardous Fuel Reduction
When Congress first authorized funding for the National Fire Plan in
October 2000 a de facto definition of hazardous fuel reduction was
included in the Manager’s Report (2). This definition listed four
methods of treatment -- prescribed fire alone; mechanical treatment
alone; mechanical treatment plus prescribed fire; and other/wildland
fire use, a term that means allowing lightning-caused fires to burn (3).
The US Forest Service provided a similar definition of hazardous fuel
reduction treatment in October 2000 in their first National Fire Plan
document (4). This definition stated that “fuel reduction treatment
techniques will range from maintenance prescribed burning, where fire is
used to maintain forest conditions in lower-risk acres, to restoration
treatments in higher-risk areas where mechanical thinning is followed by
prescribed burning.”
Two years later the Forest Service and Department of Interior jointly
offered up that hazardous fuel reduction treatments are “an aggressive
program to restore and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems—through the
ecologically appropriate use of mechanical thinning, fire-use, and
non-fire fuel treatments”(5). This interagency definition made it clear
that the goal of mechanical treatments is to set the stage for restoring
fire as a natural ecological process.
All of these definitions are silent with respect to commercial use of
thinned trees. In fact, if the thinned trees are smaller than 9” in
diameter, the agencies consider them to be “non-commercial” and
woodcutters may purchase a low-cost permit to remove the trees. If the
trees are 9” or larger, federal regulations require that the government
be fairly compensated for their value. Fuel reduction projects that
remove commercial size trees are typically accomplished through a
service contract for the thinning of small diameter trees, and a
separate timber sale contract for harvest of the larger trees.
Nature of the Debate
After the wildfires of 2000 and the creation of the National Fire Plan,
environmentalists offered limited support for fuel reduction projects.
Several national groups that had previously promoted “zero-cut” policies
agreed to support tree cutting in fuel reduction projects that
emphasized public safety and the protection of homes. Their support of
fuel reduction projects was limited by their concern that such projects
might be used to justify commercial timber harvesting. Since the
National Fire Plan was passed, several environmental groups have filed
administrative appeals of fuel reduction projects that would remove
significant amounts of commercial size trees (6).
The “tentative peace” referred to in the New York Times describes the
setting aside of arguments that raged through the 1990s over federal
timber cutting policies and salvage logging. The fragile consensus about
fuel reduction treatment enabled the agencies to treat 3.5 million acres
(in FY2001 and 2002) of the roughly 70 million acres that are at high
risk of catastrophic fire. Most of these fuel reduction projects covered
less than 1,000 acres and, if they involved any mechanical treatment,
removed only small diameter timber.
During these two years, a community-based, restoration economy emerged
in response to the ready supply of small diameter wood. Locally operated
businesses benefited from the policies of the National Fire Plan and
were able to develop products and markets for goods produced from the
wood by-products of fuel reduction treatments. Environmentalists opened
a formal dialogue with people engaged in the restoration economy and
began to develop conservation programs based on their shared support for
sustainable rural economies and ecological restoration.
The peaceful reprieve from the tree-cutting debate ended in July 2002
when the Forest Service provided Congress with information linking fuel
reduction projects to commercial timber sales. The Forest Service
included data about commercial timber sales in a study it made of fuel
reduction projects (7). The inclusion of timber sales in this study
implied that virtually any cutting of trees will reduce forest fuels and
will therefore reduce fire risk.
Forest managers have historically made a clear distinction between
thinning and timber harvesting. Mechanical thinning is considered to be
a tool to control forest growth by adjusting the density of trees (8).
Timber harvesting is a method of reproduction to remove trees for
products and to regenerate a new crop of trees. The concept of thinning
fits nicely with the objectives of fuel reduction because the aim is to
control forest fuels by adjusting the density of trees. Timber harvest,
as defined by forestry texts, is conceptually incompatible with fuel
reduction since the aim is to maximize tree regeneration, and
regeneration contributes to the fuel problem.
The Healthy Forests Initiative proposed by the Bush administration, and
some of the legislation pending in Congress, mistakenly suggests that
timber harvesting will reduce hazardous fuels. These initiatives have
rekindled old arguments between environmentalists and the agencies. For
example, the administration proposes to suspend the appeals process that
enviromentalists use to further their position that large trees not be
cut. The proposal also promotes stewardship contracting as a mechanism
to entice the forest industry to thin trees and to eliminate the need
for separate transactions in the removal of commercial and
non-commercial size trees. The Healthy Forests Initiative has sparked
debate that is reminiscent of the battle over salvage logging and has
set back the advances made when the National Fire Plan was initiated.
Last week, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth offered hope that a
compromise might one day emerge. In an interview with the Associated
Press, Bosworth said, “If we can get the focus on what we leave on the
land, leaving the biggest, healthiest trees, getting conditions on the
land where fire can play its natural role, there is common ground.” He
added that “we need to start [treatment] close to communities and work
out.”
Developing a national consensus on methods for reducing fire risk will
not be easy. The management of fire-adapted ecosystems is extremely
complex. Federal agencies and scientific institutions may be unable to
create succinct descriptions of fire management strategies for a public
that wants to stop destructive wildfires immediately. Seeking common
ground is the only way to make progress.
REFERENCES CITED:
(1) “Politics Returns in Forest Fire Debate,” Timothy Egan, New York
Times, September 19, 2002.
(2) Conference Report to the Department of Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2001 (House Report 106-646).
(3) “FY 2001 Performance Report: The National Fire Plan,” February 2002,
US Departments of Interior and Agriculture.
(4) “Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted
Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy,” October 13, 2000, USDA Forest Service.
(5) “Restoring Fire-Adapted Ecosystems on Federal Lands: A Cohesive
Strategy for Protecting People and Sustaining Natural Resources,”
February 7, 2002 Draft, US Departments of Interior and Agriculture.
(6) “Forest Service Report Confirms that Environmentalists Target Old
Growth Timber Sales, While Encouraging Thinning and Burning of Small
Trees,” News Advisory, July 11, 2002, Center for Biological Diversity.
(7) “Factors Affecting Timely Mechanical Fuel Treatment Decisions,” July
2002, USDA Forest Service.
(8) Smith, David M. 1986. “The Practice of Silviculture,” Eighth
edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
FIRE CHRONICLE is edited by the Forest Trust. Laura McCarthy, Forest
Protection Program Director, wrote this issue. The Forest Trust welcomes
your comments, stories, and observations about how the national fire
plan is being implemented (just send a reply message and it will go to
the list moderator). To subscribe to FIRE CHRONICLE go to
http://www.topica.com/lists/firechronicles/ or send an email message to
lau-@theforesttrust.org.
FOR MORE INFORMATION visit the Forest Trust web site. Other recent
publications by the Forest Trust, including the September report “A
Comparison of Two Government Reports on Factors Affecting Timely Fuel
Treatment Decisions,” are available
http://www.theforesttrust/publications
PAST ISSUES OF FIRE CHRONICLE can be downloaded from
http://www.theforesttrust/forest_protection.html#fire
1. 2002 Fire Plan Appropriations will Benefit from 2001 Experience
2. Wildland-Urban Interface Definition a Barrier to Accountability
3. Stewardship Blocks: Innovative Tool Brings Fire Plan Benefits into
Community
4. Youth Training Needed for Fire Plan to Benefit Local Workforce
5. Grants Get National Fire Plan Money into Communities
6. Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Creates New Solution to
Gridlock
7. Permits Regulate Prescribed Burning On Private Land
8. Accountability Remains a Key Issue for National Fire Plan
9. National Partnership Advances Landscape-Scale Forest Restoration
10. Poor Communities Most Threatened By Wildfire
11. A New Model To Fire-Proof Forest Homes
COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP COMMUNICATOR is an electronic bulletin that
provides information about the national Community Stewardship
Collaborative’s effort to find solutions to issues related to
large-scale watershed projects on the national forests and the National
Fire Plan. The bulletin is prepared by the Pinchot Institute for
Conservation and is available by contacting nra-@pinchot.org
|
|
 |
|
