Only 300 tonnes of CO2? That seems like an awfully low figure, given the average American personally emits 22.9 tonnes per year.

a sibilant intake of breath

I would suggest that while climate change plays an important role, poor forest management practices are more responsible for the current outbreak. I also suggest that there will be isolated pockets of healthy trees and once the overstory of the decadent trees is removed by beetle kill, regeneration will be the apparent outcome.

It would be quite interesting to see how right I am in about ten years. Unfortunately, the 'public' is rather stupid when it comes to understanding that forests are not static, and the immediate results (i.e. massive kill) are not permanent.

BUT, I would like to cover my behind by saying that climate change is likely going to affect the distribution of the species, and thus should be mitigated and emissions should be reduced.

Amen.

I really have no hope for this country to reverse the loss of our remaining forests. Fires will burn and new trees will go. Some unique ecosystems will be lost forever, only to have new ones take their place. We have it within our power to make important parts of our forests resistant to drought, bark beetles and fire.

However, until the non-experts (lawmakers, eco-lawyers, lumber mill owners, 9th Circuit Court judges, radical anarchists, etc) who control the situation, decide to use science instead of their own selfishness, we'll continue to see mega-fires for the next 50 years.  

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

"Only 300 tonnes of CO2? That seems like an awfully low figure, given the average American personally emits 22.9 tonnes per year."

A thick forest, burning at high-intensity, can put out 100 tons of greenhouse gasses PER ACRE!!

I know all too well about the health risks from wildfire smoke. While my uncle's house survived the fires of Rancho Bernardo, the smoke aggravated a previously hidden cancer and he's now gone. He had a very big role in making me love nature.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Now that America knows the "High Cost of Doing Nothing", all I see is silence from the eco-community. Maybe if I was a top forest ecologist, someone would take note? Oops! Jerry Franklin's reversal testimony barely made a squeak in the world of science but, people like Daniel Donato get their shams published for political reasons.

10 million acres burned will soon become the average fire season. Some will still openly embrace the firestorms. Others will complain about the government's response to disasters. Still others will say that people should not be allowed to live in the forests.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Be sure to hug your manzanita and whitethorn!!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

By JIM MANN The Daily Inter Lake, Sunday, Feb 17, 2008

James Stupack has become an experienced hand at fuel reduction work, carrying out the first project exclusively aimed at reducing national forest fire risks to adjacent properties from Hungry Horse to West Glacier in 2004.

Stupack, the owner of Tough Go Logging, is now neck deep in fuel reduction projects on the Flathead National Forest as a subcontractor on projects in the Swan Valley and on his own contract in the Blankenship area north of Columbia Falls.

But those projects and others -- nine across the Flathead Forest and hundreds across the country -- were approved under a special rule that has been found unlawful by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In ruling in favor of the Sierra Club, the court ordered a lower court to issue an injunction to stop projects approved under the "categorical exclusion" rule, but that has yet to happen.

Until the injunction is issued, projects on the Flathead and other national forests will proceed.

"We have been hitting it pretty hard this past year, and we will continue to do that," Stupack said of the Blankenship project, which involves brush removal and tree thinning that is projected to yield 4.7 million board feet of timber off 830 acres.

The Blankenship project concentrates on a spit of national forest land that is mostly surrounded by private property. When the work started, Stupack said he encountered a "wall of lodgepole" in one area that presented a clear threat to neighboring properties and structures.

"When you have that much fuel in your back yard, if it ever does catch fire, there's nothing that's going to save you," Stupack said.

Blankenship is considered a "100 percent utilization" project, with Stupack using specialized chipping equipment to grind up small trees for use as boiler fuel. There are no slash piles to be burned.

"We're supplying about 12 different businesses in four western states with materials off this project," Stupack said.

Last year, that aspect of the project attracted visiting foresters from Kosovo, Jamaica and the west African nation of Liberia.

"They were extremely impressed that nothing is going to waste," said Stupack, who estimates the project is now about 50 percent finished.

Because of the 9th Circuit Court's ruling, there is uncertainty and concern about the future of projects that account for more than half of the Flathead forest's current timber program.

"The volume that comes from these projects is part of the forest's overall timber program," said Cathy Calloway, the forest's timber program manager. "We've been working hard to integrate our timber and fuels-management programs together."

The forest exceeded last year's harvest target of 29 million board feet with an actual harvest of 34 million board feet, and this year's target is 27 million board feet, Calloway said.

Julia Riber, the Forest Service's northern regional litigation coordinator, said it remains to be seen how an injunction would be applied, because the court's order allowed some discretion to exclude projects that are close to completion.

"The question is, how is this injunction supposed to be applied," Riber said, noting that a hearing date on the injunction issue has yet to be set.

"It could be a while before it's actually determined how the injunction is going to apply," she said.

The 9th Circuit's ruling found that the categorical exclusion rule for hazardous fuels projects was flawed in several ways. Mainly, the court found that the rule "failed to assess" the impacts of projects and failed to provide specifics, such as the maximum diameters of trees that can be removed or any limits on the proximity of projects within a geographic area.

The rule -- developed as part of then-Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth's campaign to end "analysis paralysis" -- excluded the agency from having to prepare often costly, time-consuming environmental assessments on fuels projects covering 1,000 acres or less, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

And that allowed for expeditious project development.

Calloway and other Flathead officials maintain that projects approved under the rule tended to have relatively strong local support, and revenues generated through special "stewardship contracts" have been applied to other purposes, such as road or stream restoration projects.

"Most of these treatments involve thinning from below" as opposed to removing the biggest, most fire-resistant trees, Calloway said. "They're aimed at changing fuel loading and fire behavior so it would be easier to fight a fire on these lands that are close to private lands."

Because of that proximity, the projects tend to attract attention.

"The key for us is that the [ranger] districts have worked really hard in working with local folks," Calloway said. "And I think people have been happy with the results. We've been doing the right thing, I think."

The Flathead Forest approved its first project under the categorical exclusion rule in 2003.

It involved 198 scattered acres that directly butted up against private properties from Hungry Horse to West Glacier. The owners of those properties often took a deep interest in project details and in some cases assisted by providing access for the work to be carried out.

"There's a very high degree of public interest, not only from adjacent landowners but from the public at large," said Jimmy DeHerrera, ranger on the Hungry Horse and Glacier View districts. "As far as public support, we've never been able to develop a project that gets 100 percent support, but these fuel projects go about as far as you can get."

Since the Hungry Horse-West Glacier project, DeHerrera's staff has advanced several others that are now at varying stages of completion.

The Cedar-Spoon project in the North Fork Flathead drainage is about 50 percent complete, with Plum Creek Timber Co. working on 940 acres with a projected yield of about 5.5 million board feet of timber. The project also involves prescribed burning on a total of 600 acres.

The Trail Fuel project, last estimated to be 30 percent complete, involves thinning on 335 acres and prescribed burning on a little more than 1,000 acres in the Trail Creek area of the North Fork drainage. Stillwater Logging is the contractor for the project, which is expected to yield 1.4 million board feet.

"We have a lot of wildland urban interface on the Hungry Horse and Glacier View districts," DeHerrera said. "So these types of projects have been the focus of our work for probably the last seven years."

When the 9th Circuit issued its ruling in December, the Hungry Horse Ranger District was on the verge of approving a project under the categorical exclusion rule involving fuels reduction on about 1,000 acres near West Glacier.

The project will now have to go through a more detailed environmental review, DeHerrera said.

The Swan Lake Ranger District has also been engaged for years in fuel reduction work.

The East Shore project, involving thinning on about 600 acres and prescribed fire on 1,120 acres on the forested slopes above Flathead Lake's Yellow Bay, was derived from a detailed study developed by fire ecologist Steve Barrett.

"It's been almost 10 years in the making," Swan Lake District Ranger Steve Brady said.

The project was approved under the categorical exclusion rule in 2004, and is now more than 30 percent finished by Pyramid Mountain Lumber out of Seeley Lake, Brady said. It is expected to produce about 4 million board feet of timber, and was developed with extensive involvement from private landowners along Flathead Lake's east shore.

"Just to get access, we had to go through private landowners along the orchard front that's down there," Brady said. "Landowners were real cooperative with giving us access permits, partly because they valued getting the treatments done."

The district is close to finishing a fuels project on 333 acres near private lands in the Condon area, and it is about 30 percent finished with another project on national forest lands near the town of Swan Lake. Combined, they are expected to produce more than 5 million board feet of timber.

Other categorical-exclusion fuels projects on the Flathead Forest include a 124-acre project in the Beaver Lake area on the Tally Lake District.

Even if the projects are halted by an injunction, Flathead Forest officials say they will do what's necessary to continue with an emphasis on fuel reduction work.

"It is a national priority," said DeHerrera. "And then you look at the Flathead Forest, and there is a lot of wildland urban interface. Another reason is we've had a lot of large-fire activity since 2001, so it really emphasizes the need for this kind of work."

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Can you say "Marginalized"??? Sure ya can!!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/QFRSSAFHelmsResponseFin ...

Here's an excerpt:

Wildfires are driven by both fuel and temperature and are made particularly devastating when combined with low humidity and high winds. Modeling shows that, in general, changing climate will likely result in more wildfires. However, fires won't burn without fuel, and fire intensity increases with fuel loading. A prudent steward of forest lands would therefore reduce hazardous fuel loads and remove a portion of trees that provide ladder fuels that enable flames to reach the canopy.

The amount of fuels in a forest can reach 15-70 tons per acre (Sampson 2004) and this fuel loading cannot be removed by prescribed burning without incurring substantial risk. Therefore some preliminary mechanical treatment is required. This could be cost-effective if the smaller-dimension biomass could be used for cellulosic ethanol production and the larger material converted into wood products that store carbon. A major hurdle on public lands is to make this material available through long-term contracts that provide a sufficiently stable investment climate that will enable industry to construct the necessary processing plants for both ethanol and wood products...

...Wildfires are indeed increasingly hard to fight and release 75-80 tons CO2 or more per acre (Sampson 2004). Fires that can be several hundred thousand acres in size are clearly emitting millions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Once forest stands are restored to more natural density levels, prescribed fires can be used which emit about 18-20 tons CO2 per acre (Sampson 2004).

Decisions to permit natural fires to burn are based on diverse criteria that assess the risk to private property, ecological systems, and societal values. The Wildland Fire Use approach is commendable, however one must accept the likelihood that, initially at least, some ecological and societal values will be damaged and air quality will be affected. This points to the importance of providing the public with quality information regarding the goals, risks, and benefits of the program...

In general, rates of germination, establishment, and growth of trees after wildfires are slower than those of shrubs and grasses -- in particular sprouting shrubs and hardwoods. It is therefore common for pioneering shrubs and grasses to rapidly colonize and dominate burned areas for many decades. This is less true for the "fire-type" conifers such as lodgepole pine that have serotinous cones evolved to open from the heat of fires. Forestry research and experience shows that vegetation growth after fires varies from brushfields to successful tree regeneration depending on such factors as the availability of seed. Surveys in California's Sierra Nevada have shown that mature true fir forests having no shrubs in the understory can have 2 million viable seeds of shrub species per acre that remain dormant in the soil until heat from fires cracks their seed coats and stimulates germination. In contrast, tree seeds do not commonly remain viable in the soil after two years and seed crops have periodicity from one to seven years.

After a wildfire, a prompt assessment is needed of post burn conditions to determine the likelihood that desired vegetation of diverse species will become established. The desired mix of vegetation cover needs to be defined and the timeframe in which preferred conditions of tree cover, habitat, and soil cover should be attained needs to be identified. Experience has shown that those areas likely to become brushfields or have high potential for erosion need to be promptly planted to return them to forest conditions. Brushfields often have conifer seedlings underneath them, but it can take 50-100 years for the trees to overtop the brush and form a forest canopy. Burned areas that may regenerate satisfactorily to the desired species mix without treatment or are ecological reserves not needing treatment should be identified in the post-burn assessment.

In all cases, the post-burn analysis should identify the costs, benefits, and risks associated with action or no action. Decisions should ensure that society is best served by using treatments where necessary to rapidly restore the preburn mix of forest values, habitats, uses, and watershed protection...

Healthy forests and their associated wildlife habitats and watersheds are priceless assets providing the nation with critical values and uses. The sustainable management and conservation of forests is crucial to societal welfare. When forests are allowed to become overly dense the trees lose vigor and become susceptible to insects, disease, mortality, and fire. This is exacerbated under conditions of overall rise in temperature, drought, and storms. It is therefore in society's best interest that, apart from ecological reserves, wilderness or similar areas, forests be sustainably managed to maintain forest health and provide the balance and diversity of values and uses that society needs.

The argument that forests, especially national forests, should be left unmanaged and that "nature knows best" is understandably appealing. However it does not recognize that the condition of our national forests is far from "natural"...

The challenge is how to accomplish this in a socially acceptable and economically feasible way. Societal acceptance can probably only be achieved through a combination of Congressional leadership and science-based information outreach. In particular, decision-making processes are needed that emphasize stakeholder common interests in restoring healthy forests to reduce wildfires, mitigating the effects of climate change, and striking a balance among competing values and viewpoints. The overall policy goal should be to restore and sustainably manage the nation's forests for the welfare of society at large. Since fuels treatments and thinning are costly, it is critical to explore ways and means by which these costs can be offset by utilizing the biomass in the form of energy or renewable wood products. The desirability of this option becomes apparent when one appreciates that using wood can reduce carbon emissions where it is used in place of alternative materials that life cycle analyses show have higher energy requirements in manufacture.

I used the word "responsible" in my testimony in the context that failure to restore forest health and reduce impacts of wildfire and insects on wood supply, wildlife habitat, and water supply is to abdicate current society's responsibilities to present and future generations...

You cannot ignore this and say that wildfires are "natural and beneficial". Forest management "deniers" are simply destroying our forest environment on a scale that would make the loggers of the 70's and 80's aghast.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

More logging contracts won't fix it.

A Civilian Conservation Corps is literally a green army.  Fire fighting has to start with recycling the stuff that burns.

Firestorm vulnerable forests are a huge GHG climate bomb ready to burst.  Releasing huge amounts of carbon stored over millenia all at once.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

On his way out of the door in April of 2000, President Bill Clinton gave local environmentalists a gift that they had been unable to get through normal legislative action after numerous attempts. He signed a Presidential Proclamation creating the 327,769 acre Giant Sequoia National Monument.

There was no opportunity for public comments prior to this decision. There was no environmental analysis or development of alternatives. No study of the possible effects to the local economy was done. The "spin" was that a monument was necessary to save the Giant Sequoia trees from the evil loggers. We were told not to worry, because the out-of-work folks in the wood products industry would be retrained so that they could benefit from jobs in the new recreation-related business boom that the Monument would generate.

The Proclamation mandated that the Forest Service write a management plan with the guidance of a Scientific Advisory Board to be selected by the National Academy of Science. The Board was appointed and the plan-writing job began. Early in the process, the Board agreed that all of their recommendations to the Forest Supervisor would be by unanimous consent. For the next nearly four years, the Board held meetings that were open to the public. They listened to public comments, and took field trips to the forest, the National Park, the Tule River Indian Reservation and to Mt. Home State Forest to view giant sequoia stands and various management practices. In January of 2004, the final plan was signed.

Today, more than seven years after the Monument was proclaimed, virtually nothing that would enhance the protection, improvement or management of the Monument and the Giant Sequoia trees has been accomplished. This is because those same people who promoted the establishment, agreed to the proclamation language, and dictated the planning process, sent their attorneys to court and got the plan declared invalid. Additionally, in spite of Proclamation language that clearly states that timber sales under contract as of the date of the signing (4/2000) could be completed consistent with the terms of the contract, four sale projects were included in the Monument Plan lawsuit and similarly stopped.

Why? For reasons of their own, most probably related to fund raising, (give us your money and we will fight the evil loggers) the Sierra Club and related groups have decided that any commercial use of resources (timber, et al) from public lands is bad and must not be allowed.

The problem with the Monument Plan in the Enviros view is that it allows the use of some mechanical treatment, including logging, in order to restore the forest and Sequoia groves to conditions thought to have existed prior to European settlement. The long range goal of the plan was to reduce existing fuel loading to the point that the entire monument could be managed using only prescribed and natural fire, (a questionable goal considering air-quality issues).

In spite of the fact that the Proclamation encourages the use of different approaches to mitigating unsatisfactory conditions, understanding different approaches to forest restoration, and allows for the removal of trees if clearly needed for ecological restoration and maintenance of public safety, the Sierra Club folks have decided that their "no commercial use" policy trumps all else. Hiding behind the Endangered Species Act and armed with an army of attorneys, they marched into a hand-picked court and got anything that they didn't like shut down.

Now, as the results of the legal shenanigans related to the Monument Plan and permitted timber sales grind on (new plan/more studies), the environmentalists are going to court again to stop timber sale projects on the adjacent Sierra National Forest. In the Sierra case, they are claiming that they are not opposed to logging - as long as nothing big enough to be cut into a board is cut.

The environmentalists would have us believe that there is no down-side to their policy and actions. They claim that old-growth closed-canopy forests won't burn because they are cooler and damper than the more open stands that may have been logged - and - besides, if they do burn, not everything is destroyed.

The reality is that these forests can and do burn. In years with light precipitation, early snow-melt and high temperatures, they become highly flammable. If we are to believe predictions of climate change caused by global warming, we should expect to experience more and more hot and dry years.

Another reality in dealing with old growth and/or unmanaged forests is that trees die. Whether from insects, disease, or old-age, trees die, become snags and eventually fall. Dead trees, either standing (snags) or down, dry out and become fuel for fire. Every year that goes by without some kind of fuel reduction in these forests, increases the odds that they will burn. And when fire does happen, it will be hot enough to resist early control and do great harm, including damage to the soil.

It has been seven years since significant fuels reduction work has occurred within the Monument, and many more since anything has been done to protect the giant Sequoia groves. It is estimated that it will take two or three more years to produce another Management Plan, and then who knows how much longer for a new plan to work its way through appeals and lawsuits.

Tragically, by the time the management of the Monument is settled, the local sawmill that makes it possible to use the dying, dead and excess trees and pay for at least a portion of the work within a reasonable time-frame, will have been starved out of raw material and gone.

So, now we have Giant Sequoia Groves in deteriorating condition and susceptible to devastating fire. There is no approved plan to start corrective action, and an inability to take advantage of the dollar value of excess, dying and dead trees to help pay for the essential work. There is the very real chance that a sawmill that is an outstanding example of utilization and efficiency, will have to close.

It is time for the environmental groups, led by the Sierra Club and supported by their attorneys, to rethink the position that only their views of forest management are valid, and that they would prefer that judges make the decisions.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Like many readers I have deep reservations about the role of commercial interests in setting management policy of critical resources. At the same time if thoughtful utilization of forest products can be practiced in ways that contribute to carbon sequestration at the same time as they reduce the potential for carbon emissions from massive wildfires this is not an option to dismiss out out of hand. Personally I remain very distrustful of cellulosic ethanol proposals simply because they appear to be driven more by a voracious fuel-hunger than a desire to do the right thing by our planet. That does not mean that it may become a part of forest resource management practice in the future, meanwhile however there would appear to be other ways to make use of forest thinnings that could offer self-financing opportunities for carbon sequestration and reducing wildfire risk. Educated perspectives on these options would be very welcome, bearing in mind that all forests, terrains and local ecologies are not the same and no one program can be expected to be universal.

I sense there is also a much larger picture here: while global warming has emerged as by far the preeminent environmental issue of our age the full implications of this situation have not yet percolated thoroughly to all parts of environmentalist thinking. That many biofuel enthusiasts still consider themselves in the environmental camp is the obvious case in point. There are many questions to be revisited which connect with carbon cycle impacts of forest materials: for example, are traditional environmental attitudes to paper products and construction lumber still appropriate? I am beginning to wonder if we should be burying cardboard rather than recycling it and using more rather than less lumber in building.

Any thoughts?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

I'm not saying that we should reject "no treatment options" in every forest, as there truly ARE some stands that need us to keep chainsaws out. However, as Dr. Jerry Franklin now says, many forests will need mechanical thinning before prescribed fire can reduce fuels to safe levels. The sheer tonnage of GHG's being released EVERY year dwarfs the amount saved by hybrid cars and CFL's. The "tipping point" has certainly been reached in our forests.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

We have "desired future condition" to consider, and how to get there. Most of us will agree on a "future desired condition" but, we disagree on how to get there. Regardless of what the Sierra Club says and does, it takes an expert to "read the ground" and determine what it needs to return to a more "natural" condition. Unfortunately, too many people think they have more experience and knowledge than most all forest professionals. However, their "future desired condition" for our western forests seem to be blackened snags surrounded by vast brushfields.

Again, thanks to all those openminded people who see the bigger picture, instead of the faith-based dogma drama of today's "preservationists".

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Yep, time to let it all burn. People will die, animals will die, lives will be shattered to satiate the preservationist's need for incinerated forests.

Looks like Gaia has answered your prayers!!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Ahhhh, yes....breathe in that life-giving smoke from fires that preservationists will save our environment!!

Since smoke and fires took my uncle last year in San Diego, isn't it time that some of you sacrificed one of YOUR loved ones?!?!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Oh, yeah. That's right! Forests don't fit in with "climate, energy, food, politics, green living" categories.

My bad!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com