|
|
|
While we have been focused on making it through a pandemic, grappling with a stalled economy and increasing crime, and simply trying to get back on our feet, the Forest Service has been continuing with the analysis and planning of the two large-scale Santa Fe National Forest cutting/burning projects.
|
During the past few weeks, two wildfires have broken out in New Mexico from prescribed burns. One is the Hermits Peak fire in the Santa Fe National Forest, caused by spot fires from winds from the Las Dispensas prescribed burn, 12 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Over 7,000 acres have burned so far, and several communities were evacuated. The other wildfire is the Overflow Fire, an outgrowth of a BLM prescribed burn that was being carried out southwest of Roswell. One has to strongly question why the Forest Service and BLM believe it is reasonable to set fires in our forests during the unpredictable spring winds.
|
The corrected draft environmental assessment for the Santa Fe Mountains Project has been released. The Forest Service’s draft project decision is a FONSI, a “Finding Of No Significant Impact.” That means they consider that removing the vast majority of trees over 18,000 acres and repeatedly burning 38,000 acres of the nearby Santa Fe National Forest will have no avoidable significant impacts on our forest, nor on our health. This finding means that they do not intend to do further analysis or complete an Environmental Impact Statement for the project.
|
This decision seems truly stunning. We see the extensive damage to our forest from past fuel treatments, and recent fires have demonstrated once again that prescribed burns in our dry forests can be very dangerous. We all experience, to one degree or another, and some severely, the detrimental impacts of the ever-increasing amounts of prescribed burn smoke on our health. Sarah Hyden and environmental medicine physician Erica Elliott recently discussed the impacts of prescribed burn smoke on public health on Santa Fe’s Richard Eeds Show.
|
The 45-day objection period for the Santa Fe Mountains Project has begun, and will conclude on May 12. Only those who have written comments during one of the two comment periods have official standing to submit an objection. We hope all who have written comments for this project will object to this decision. If you haven’t written comments previously, please object anyway, and simply make your views known to the Forest Service. The Forest Advocate will provide information about how to object soon. After the objection period, the project decision will be finalized.
|
Dr. DellaSala spoke about the futility of trying to prevent fires through aggressive thinning and burning of our forests, when climate change is the primary driver of wildfires. While showing a slide of healthy intact forest next to two treated areas, including one in the Santa Fe watershed, he explained – “What you see is a forest on the left in the Santa Fe watershed. What you see on the right are so-called restoration treatments. Those are no longer forests. They are weed infested fields that are going to burn hot, the soils have been damaged by burning piles, the large trees have been taken off the site — the fire hazards have gone up. This is commercial timber operations on Federal lands, it’s not some kind of benign restoration treatment. It’s making the situation worse.”
|
Carole King spoke passionately about the impacts of fuel treatments on our forests. She described how fuel reduction treatments are represented as beneficial to forests, and to us, when they are not — “They continue to facilitate felling mature trees under the guise of Orwellian euphemisms: thinning, fuel reduction, salvage, management, and the ever-popular restoration." She pointed out that logging emits more CO2 per acre than insects or wildfire, and that annual emissions from logging are comparable to the amount emitted from burning coal.
|
A panel of scientists and activists, including Dominick DellaSala and Chad Hanson, put on a highly informative webinar on March 31, “Are Current Fire Management Practices the Contemporary Sisyphus?” This series of four short presentations gave an overview of the flaws in the science that is the basis of the fuel treatment paradigm which the Forest Service is promoting.
|
Dr. Chad Hanson’s presentation was called “The False Debate about Thinning and Wildfires.” He dispelled the prevailing narrative that denser and long-unburned forests burn more intensely than treated forests. He presented charts and studies which show forests that are denser and have more biomass are either equally or less likely to burn at high intensity in a fire than forests that have been thinned and burned by fire managers.
|
Please listen to these enlightening discussions. The Forest Service is moving forward towards implementation of the Santa Fe National Forest projects, without seriously considering science that shows these treatments are not likely to be beneficial in the cost/benefit analysis, and will likely be harmful to our forest. And without genuinely considering the well-known impacts of prescribed burn smoke on our health. The agency is also largely ignoring comments from the public, which overwhelmingly oppose the project as currently planned.
|
The release of the draft environmental assessment for the 200 square mile Encino Vista Project has been postponed until mid or late May.
|
Please stay engaged, and feel free to share this update on your mailing lists. The impacts of this large-scale and aggressive cutting and burning project are much more than significant, they are life-altering to the forest and to us. All of this amounts to a massive land experiment, and one which appears to have been highly damaging to our forest so far, and very detrimental to our air quality.
|
The life of the forest and our lives are interconnected. Let’s stand for life.
|
Dominick DellaSala’s slide of intact forest vs. fuel treated forest within the Santa Fe National Forest, shown at the March 16 House Environment Subcommittee hearing:
|
|
Header photos
Top left – Santa Fe watershed, thinned in the early 1990’s and burned twice. Photo: Fred King.
Top right – Prescribed burn smoke over the Santa Fe ski basin. Photo: Satya Kirsch.
Bottom left – A USFWS firefighter watches a prescribed fire. Retweeted by Santa Fe National Forest. Photo by USFWS.
Bottom right – La Cueva Fuel Break, thinned in 2017 and burned once. Photo: Lyra Barron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While we have been focused on making it through a pandemic, grappling with a stalled economy and increasing crime, and simply trying to get back on our feet, the Forest Service has been continuing with the analysis and planning of the two large-scale Santa Fe National Forest cutting/burning projects.
|
During the past few weeks, two wildfires have broken out in New Mexico from prescribed burns. One is the Hermits Peak fire in the Santa Fe National Forest, caused by spot fires from winds from the Las Dispensas prescribed burn, 12 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Over 7,000 acres have burned so far, and several communities were evacuated. The other wildfire is the Overflow Fire, an outgrowth of a BLM prescribed burn that was being carried out southwest of Roswell. One has to strongly question why the Forest Service and BLM believe it is reasonable to set fires in our forests during the unpredictable spring winds.
|
The corrected draft environmental assessment for the Santa Fe Mountains Project has been released. The Forest Service’s draft project decision is a FONSI, a “Finding Of No Significant Impact.” That means they consider that removing the vast majority of trees over 18,000 acres and repeatedly burning 38,000 acres of the nearby Santa Fe National Forest will have no avoidable significant impacts on our forest, nor on our health. This finding means that they do not intend to do further analysis or complete an Environmental Impact Statement for the project.
|
This decision seems truly stunning. We see the extensive damage to our forest from past fuel treatments, and recent fires have demonstrated once again that prescribed burns in our dry forests can be very dangerous. We all experience, to one degree or another, and some severely, the detrimental impacts of the ever-increasing amounts of prescribed burn smoke on our health. Sarah Hyden and environmental medicine physician Erica Elliott recently discussed the impacts of prescribed burn smoke on public health on Santa Fe’s Richard Eeds Show.
|
The 45-day objection period for the Santa Fe Mountains Project has begun, and will conclude on May 12. Only those who have written comments during one of the two comment periods have official standing to submit an objection. We hope all who have written comments for this project will object to this decision. If you haven’t written comments previously, please object anyway, and simply make your views known to the Forest Service. The Forest Advocate will provide information about how to object soon. After the objection period, the project decision will be finalized.
|
Dr. DellaSala spoke about the futility of trying to prevent fires through aggressive thinning and burning of our forests, when climate change is the primary driver of wildfires. While showing a slide of healthy intact forest next to two treated areas, including one in the Santa Fe watershed, he explained – “What you see is a forest on the left in the Santa Fe watershed. What you see on the right are so-called restoration treatments. Those are no longer forests. They are weed infested fields that are going to burn hot, the soils have been damaged by burning piles, the large trees have been taken off the site — the fire hazards have gone up. This is commercial timber operations on Federal lands, it’s not some kind of benign restoration treatment. It’s making the situation worse.”
|
Carole King spoke passionately about the impacts of fuel treatments on our forests. She described how fuel reduction treatments are represented as beneficial to forests, and to us, when they are not — “They continue to facilitate felling mature trees under the guise of Orwellian euphemisms: thinning, fuel reduction, salvage, management, and the ever-popular restoration." She pointed out that logging emits more CO2 per acre than insects or wildfire, and that annual emissions from logging are comparable to the amount emitted from burning coal.
|
A panel of scientists and activists, including Dominick DellaSala and Chad Hanson, put on a highly informative webinar on March 31, “Are Current Fire Management Practices the Contemporary Sisyphus?” This series of four short presentations gave an overview of the flaws in the science that is the basis of the fuel treatment paradigm which the Forest Service is promoting.
|
Dr. Chad Hanson’s presentation was called “The False Debate about Thinning and Wildfires.” He dispelled the prevailing narrative that denser and long-unburned forests burn more intensely than treated forests. He presented charts and studies which show forests that are denser and have more biomass are either equally or less likely to burn at high intensity in a fire than forests that have been thinned and burned by fire managers.
|
Please listen to these enlightening discussions. The Forest Service is moving forward towards implementation of the Santa Fe National Forest projects, without seriously considering science that shows these treatments are not likely to be beneficial in the cost/benefit analysis, and will likely be harmful to our forest. And without genuinely considering the well-known impacts of prescribed burn smoke on our health. The agency is also largely ignoring comments from the public, which overwhelmingly oppose the project as currently planned.
|
The release of the draft environmental assessment for the 200 square mile Encino Vista Project has been postponed until mid or late May.
|
Please stay engaged, and feel free to share this update on your mailing lists. The impacts of this large-scale and aggressive cutting and burning project are much more than significant, they are life-altering to the forest and to us. All of this amounts to a massive land experiment, and one which appears to have been highly damaging to our forest so far, and very detrimental to our air quality.
|
The life of the forest and our lives are interconnected. Let’s stand for life.
|
Dominick DellaSala’s slide of intact forest vs. fuel treated forest within the Santa Fe National Forest, shown at the March 16 House Environment Subcommittee hearing:
|
|
|
Header photos
Top left – Santa Fe watershed, thinned in the early 1990’s and burned twice. Photo: Fred King.
Top right – Prescribed burn smoke over the Santa Fe ski basin. Photo: Satya Kirsch.
Bottom left – A USFWS firefighter watches a prescribed fire. Retweeted by Santa Fe National Forest. Photo by USFWS.
Bottom right – La Cueva Fuel Break, thinned in 2017 and burned once. Photo: Lyra Barron.
|
|
|
|
|
|