The Northwest Forest Plan and East Side Screens were a big step forward but they are not good enough and Bush is systematically undoing them.
The often repeated assumption is that the absence of fire leads to fuel build-up, which in turn leads to increased fire severity. The other big assumption is that all fuel reduction causes a reduction in fire hazard. These are simple and easy to explain. However, they convey only half the story. First, closed canopy forests that develop in the absence of fire and in the absence of logging help create a cool moist microclimate, and help suppress the growth of ladder fuels. Odion et al’s study in northern California found that lack of fire actually decreased fire severity instead of increasing it as assumed by the prevailing model. Second, fuel reduction logging often removes the large fuels that pose the least hazard while moving the most hazardous small fuels from the canopy to the ground where they are more available for combustion, plus logging changes the local microclimate, opening the stand and making it hotter, dryer and windier. Find attached some science excerpts that help illuminate the complexity of these science issues.
Crystal Raymond’s study after the Biscuit fire showed that some fuel treatment worked, while other fuel treatments were worse than doing nothing at all.
Over 30% of all Oregon bird species use dead trees for nesting, foraging, roosting, and communication.
![Forest Biomass An Opportunity, Yes, but Curb Your Enthusiasm Doug Heiken Oregon Wild (formerly Oregon Natural Resources Council) [email_address] www.oregonwild.org](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/owforestbiomass-090624122705-phpapp01/85/Forest-Biomass-Presentation-1-320.jpg)
![“Business-as-usual” isn’t working. ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],If not done carefully, forest biomass extraction can make all of these worse instead of better. Current law offers few assurances.]()