Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

When the forests die, then what?

The Rocky

Published January 26, 2008 at 10:50 p.m.

Text size  

Now that the pine beetle finally has gotten the full attention of state and federal legislators, the next step is to focus on the anticipated loss of nearly every mature lodgepole pine in Colorado by 2012.

It should be a given that as many dead trees as possible must be cleared to reduce the threat of catastrophic forest fires and protect the mountain water supply - especially near inhabited areas. The $12 million in federal funding announced by U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard earlier this month, and the $5 million in state aid proposed by Colorado Sen. Dan Gibbs, D-Silverthorne, and Rep. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillon, last week are intended to help achieve those goals.

The equally pressing question, though, is what to do with the timber once it's hauled out of a dying forest. Even if there is a practical way to dispose of so many dead trees, which is questionable, it would only compound the loss if the answer is to waste a still-usable natural resource.

Better to convert those lost trees to fence posts, two-by-fours, utility poles and fuel for heat and power. All of that is possible, and examples of such attempts exist already at Ranch Creek Limited, Confluence Energy and Mountain Parks Electric in Grand County, where the beetles hit first and, so far, hardest.

But these productive solutions are possible on a large scale only if federal and state lawmakers act quickly to provide the economic assistance and regulatory relief needed to develop viable commercial applications of significant scope.

As unpopular as it may be with some groups, relaxing certain zoning and environmental restrictions is as critical as finding funds for new machinery or other start-up costs. Removing barriers to quick production is essential because of the natural timetable at work in Colorado's forests.

Experts say the dead trees will be commercially usable for only about three years after the beetles kill them. By the fourth year, they will be too dry to even make good home firewood, much less any acceptable consumer product. They'll begin to topple, littering the forest floor with perfect fuel for an immense wildfire.

Concern for re-foresting has been part of the current discussion. That, it seems to us, is a waste of money that could be better spent on making lemonade out of these lemons. As Yellowstone has demonstrated in the 20 years since the devastating fire there in 1988, the forest will regenerate itself - given enough time. Many of us may not live to see it, but Colorado's forests will spring back to life, slowly, over the next decades. Better to let nature do what it does best, on its own schedule.

Pestilence does not show up on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's list of types of disasters for which FEMA assistance is available. But Gov. Bill Ritter, who not that long ago successfully sought disaster area designation for part of Colorado because of rural blizzards, has nothing to lose by asking President Bush to declare parts of Colorado a disaster area because of the beetle infestation.

Certainly, the expanse of devastation - 1.5 million acres - is greater than even post-Katrina New Orleans, even if the impact on humans is far less serious. The cost of cleanup and potential for future loss is significant. Several FEMA Disaster Help Programs would seem to offer possible avenues for mitigating this disaster.

Wildfire, it should be noted, is also on FEMA's list. But why wait until that happens, when action now might help prevent it?

Comments

  • January 27, 2008

    6:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    Somehow,someone needs to start cutting down the trees while we still can use them. To sit and wait would be a huge waste .I agree after seeing many reports on the infestation that something urgently needs to be done.I hope this doesn't turn into a time wasted battle.If we can use these trees for other things something needs to be done quickly,before it speads more and before they become to far gone to recycle.This is an urgent problem.

  • January 27, 2008

    7:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    a_watcher writes:

    Given his history and the campaign funds that are flowing his way from the Sierra Club and its allies, Mark Udall can be counted on to try to keep this rational solution from happening.

    Even if Mark Udall had a change of heart about allowing the forest roads to be built that would be necessary for this solution, and he will not, he could correctly claim that the Sierra Club was blocking this solution in Washington. It will be trying to do just that, both in Washington and in the courts.

    When the catestrophic Colorado forest fire Mark Udall has worked all of his political life to promote finally comes, Bill Ritter will be silent about the tons of greenhouse gasses each burned acre will dump into the atmosphere. In his warped world, the only carbon footprint man is responsible for is from coal fired power plants. There is no carbon footprint from forest fires stoked by environmentalist's demands for forest mismanagement.

    Mark Udall, Bill Ritter, John Salazar, and Ken Salazar aren't green politicians, they are brown politicians. One need only look at Colorado's mountainsides to see that is the color they prefer.

    It would not be a waste of state money to put up signs every ten miles along the Interstate in the mountain areas: These dead forests brought to you by the Sierra Club and its contributors on the east and west coast who consider this flyover country.

  • January 27, 2008

    8:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

    Politicians and bureaucrats are just waking up to this problem. Citizens have known about this for 10 years.

    Fires need to be allowed to burn and private property owners need to use caution otherwise we will be having a similar discussion in 150-200 years.

  • January 27, 2008

    10:10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    AngelontheSidelines writes:

    Burn the forests!

    Lodgepole Pine depend on fire to heat cones, the explode from the heat, scattering seeds. The seeds need ashen soil to germinate, the grass and brush is cleared so seedlings can grow into established trees.

    The Bambi syndrome has Americans seeing fire as a catastrophe, trained to fear at first sight, Americans are conditioned to knee jerk reactions in every aspect of life.

  • January 27, 2008

    1:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rickg19611 writes:

    The Forest Service should have ignored the enviro-whacko's when they demanded that people not do anything about it when they had the chance to stop it.

    Lesson learned = obey enviro-whackos and you'lle end up paying the price for their ignorance.

  • January 27, 2008

    4:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    chendricks writes:

    Sirs:
    Your editorial, entitled, "When the Forests die, then what? is excellent. The congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 with language that disqualified all renewable biomass material on federal lands under the incentives and long range goals for biofuels of the act itself. The technology of converting wood to biofuels is at or near commercialization, and would be an excellent industry for use of the dead and dying forests in Colorado and Wyoming.
    This makes no sense, and our congressional delegation should work to correct this flaw in the law.
    Here is a letter I wrote to Senators Allard, Salazar, and Representatives Udall, Salazar and Perlmutter. I would appreciate your publishing this letter for public consumption.
    Thank you,
    Charles J. Hendricks
    Retired, US Forest Service
    6620 W. 10th Place
    Lakewood, CO 80214
    Tel 303-239-6538

    Dear Senator Salazar:

    I would like to direct your attention to the recently passed and signed into law, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The specific provisions in the law that trouble me are found under Sec. 201. DEFINITIONS (1), (I) RENEWABLE BIOMASS. The dead and dying forests that have been created by the mountain pine beetle epidemic are a disaster of major proportions for the watersheds of the Rocky Mountains. The latest Forest Service report estimates the mortality at approximately 750,000 acres in the seven county area of northern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming at the beginning of 2007. It is expected that the mortality will reach or exceed 1.5 million acres within the next few years. The latest mortality surveys are showing recent significant mortality on the east slope of the front-range of Colorado. These dead trees will either be removed by mechanical means, and utilized for some useful products such as biofuels, or the natural forces of wildfire will accomplish the removal, creating enormous destruction of recreation, watershed, wildlife, structures and other important economic and social values. Certainly it is not possible to remove all the dead material before wildfire accomplishes the task. However, it is possible to conduct removal operations that will reduce the wildfire risks, and allow recovery of some economic values in the way of useful products such as biofuels, while restoring timber stands to more healthy conditions.

    It is for the reasons mentioned above and others too numerous to mention, that I do not understand the logic of extracting the public land renewable biomass from eligibility under the provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

    I trust that you do not support the exemption for federal lands from eligibility under the provisions of law for Renewable Biomass, and that you will work to correct this misguided language in the Act.
    Respectfully,

    Charles J. Hendricks
    Retired, U. S. Forest Service

  • January 27, 2008

    9:12 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    RAverill writes:

    Great editorial. You point out a true need to manage the National Forests instead of "letting nature rule". Had the Forest Plans written in the 60's and 70's been implemented, the current outbreak would be about half the size it is now and there would be a nice mixture of age classes and the visibility of the outbreak greatly reduced.

  • January 27, 2008

    10:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    titancain: You are right. I personally saw some of Owen's and Bush's henchmen depositing pine beetles in the forests...smh. As the saying goes, best to keep ones thoughts to oneself and have people wonder if you are stupid rather than open ones mouth and confirm it.

  • January 28, 2008

    12:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Shaupeen writes:

    When the forests die, then they, um, grow back.

  • January 28, 2008

    6:42 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    pklee527 writes:

    I think that we as a society-and politicians-are getting rediculous with the "climate catastrophe" scenario. This environmental thing is nothing but a big form of Socialism-I know, I am from Europe. If you don't beleive me, ask the former prime minister of Yogoslavia. Stop trying to scare people and create new taxes to fund this stuff. I thought that education(schools)were so important for these Democrats.