[BCNnet] "Fewer than three in 10 acres burned..."

[keedo@merr.com]

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 06:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fw: Senator Daschel, Do not support Bush's Forest Plan

First from an article in OregonLive.com: "Much of the land was only lightly 
singed or not burned at all. Fewer than three in 10 (of 500,000) acres 
burned in Washington and Oregon were charred severely enough to kill 
surface vegetation and extensively damage trees."  from Burn: Fires 
could open new debates on salvaging  09/01/02 MICHAEL MILSTEIN 
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_stand
ard.xsl?/base/front_page/1030881316237010.xml


(Also linked in: http://www.tidepool.org/)
-----------------------------------------
Below is a letter for Senator Daschel (modify if you wish) that can be 
sent via the Center for Biological Diversity. Similar letters for your 
Senators and  Mr Bush are also linked in the left column in: 
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/Programs/fire/bush-plan.html

to Daschel: Subject: Please do not support the Bush Fire Plan

I am writing to express concern over President Bush's Fire Plan and the 
proposed rider mandating exemptions of "fuels reduction" projects from 
environmental laws and judicial review in this year's Interior 
Appropriations bill. I urge you not to support any upcoming attempts to 
eliminate public participation in protecting communities from fire and 
managing our national forests.

In a recent press event Senators Larry Craig, Pete Domenici, Jon Kyl and 
others claimed that opposition from environmentalists has held up 
progress on reducing forest fuels. There is no credible evidence that 
the administrative and legal processes that allow citizen participation 
in management and protection of our public forests are slowing down 
legitimate fuels reduction efforts. 

To the contrary, the conservation community strongly supports aggressive 
focused efforts to reduce fire risk to communities and forests. There is 
clear scientific justification for prioritizing fire risk reduction 
efforts near homes and communities- where they will do the most good. 
There is also evidence that clearing brush and small trees may help in 
reducing the intensity of fire behavior and facilitate use of safe and 
effective controlled fires to reduce the risk of stand replacing fires.

It is certain that many legitimate thinning and burning projects 
designed for community protection and fire reduction go through the 
public process with no challenges. In fact, many of these projects have 
so little impact that they don't even need to go through full 
environmental review. Efficient authorities such as categorical 
exclusions and decision memos are often appropriate tools for analyzing 
the effects of these environmentally benign projects.

Projects that get challenged invariably involve logging of large mature 
and old growth trees often under the guise of fuels reduction. As you 
know these trees are fire resistant and are very important wildlife 
habitat. Logging these valuable trees is not effective at reducing fire 
risk but does reduce the ecological integrity of our national forests.

Once again I urge you to maintain the public's opportunity to 
participate in decisions affecting our national forests. Elimination of 
public participation will only increase controversy rather encouraging 
cooperation on these critical forest issues.

      Sincerely,

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: keedo@merr.com

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxif7.a3MKSf
Or send an email to: wisc-eco-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .