Millions of dead trees in the Colorado Mountains (Vail, Silverthorne: town, interstate)

[Mike from back east]

The USFS is starting a project to remove some of the dead trees; click here for news story. Intent is to remove trees in areas where they could fall and injure people. Article does not say what will be done with the trees, am left to assume they will be cut and left on the ground. Shame, my wishes were for them to be cut and burned to create electricity.

[Shuffler]

Brilliant...more stuff to fuel the imminent flames, but to save us from ourselves at the same time. Once again the USFS is demonstrating it's financial responsibility.

[Idunn]

I remember talking to a National Park Ranger who was appalled when I asked if they conducted their business the same as the US Forest Service. To paraphrase him, "we don't treat our forests that way." So one should start with the understanding that historically the primary objective of the US Forest Service has been timber; when they speak of a "land of many uses," what they mean is resource extraction.

Having some experience with their 'thinning' programs, having been to a public meeting and traveled into the woods to observe the results first hand, I can report that their objective is not a healthy forest ecosystem. Rather, it is all about fire suppression. Make no mistake, many of these forests are in dire shape, but what the US Forest Service has in mind is cutting down a lot of trees, taking all else down nearly to bare ground, so that remaining less likely to burn. This does not address the underlying cause of climate change of which these unhealthy forests symptomatic, nor the end result a balanced ecosystem or true forest. Someone should remind the US Forest Service that forests are more than a sum total of trees and board feet, and also a home to many species besides humans.

Be that as it may, the exponential and unnatural spread of mountain pine beetles, and a host of other problems, are indicative of what we have at last come to. One might decry the mass death of our forests, and should, however they are but part of a rapidly changing environment. Many with unbridled growth as their religion may not wish to acknowledge as much, but we are on the verge of killing the goose that laid the golden egg, and that goose is our home planet and environment. Sometimes we seem to overlook the fact that this is where we have to live, or might prefer to, and it all exists in a rather fine and, at times, precarious balance.

It could be most people will not take sufficient notice until what is rapidly transpiring begins to seriously impact their immediate economy and well being. But those of a broader perspective may be interested, and concerned, with how such changes are affecting the crown jewels of our nation: our National Parks. The following recently released report details the plight of the most severely impacted. One of them is Rocky Mountain National Park.

DATA

The Rocky Mountain Climate Organization
'National Parks in Peril: The Threats of Climate Disruption'
RMCO-National Parks in Peril-Background

(The full, free pdf report can be accessed from this site, as well as a briefer summary of it, as well as regional reports)

[delta07]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

The USFS is starting a project to remove some of the dead trees; click here for news story. Intent is to remove trees in areas where they could fall and injure people. Article does not say what will be done with the trees, am left to assume they will be cut and left on the ground. Shame, my wishes were for them to be cut and burned to create electricity.

Actually, they will be removing them and utilizing the trees as timber. Check out this link, where it discusses the project in detail, including the EA that was done for the project. White River National Forest - Lower Blue Forest Health Project You can always go the the Forest Service website and look up the Scheduled of Proposed Actions (SOPA) to see what projects are in store. Unless the ground is too difficult to log, the FS isn't going to just cut and leave trees lying on the ground. In this case, the primary objective is to remove hazard trees, which are trees that are easily accessible since they are located on roads, in campgrounds, etc. In order for a tree to be considered a hazard, it has to pose a threat to property or human life.

Originally Posted by Idunn

I remember talking to a National Park Ranger who was appalled when I asked if they conducted their business the same as the US Forest Service. To paraphrase him, "we don't treat our forests that way." So one should start with the understanding that historically the primary objective of the US Forest Service has been timber; when they speak of a "land of many uses," what they mean is resource extraction.

Having some experience with their 'thinning' programs, having been to a public meeting and traveled into the woods to observe the results first hand, I can report that their objective is not a healthy forest ecosystem. Rather, it is all about fire suppression. Make no mistake, many of these forests are in dire shape, but what the US Forest Service has in mind is cutting down a lot of trees, taking all else down nearly to bare ground, so that remaining less likely to burn. This does not address the underlying cause of climate change of which these unhealthy forests symptomatic, nor the end result a balanced ecosystem or true forest. Someone should remind the US Forest Service that forests are more than a sum total of trees and board feet, and also a home to many species besides humans.

Yes, you are correct, the Forest Service was established to manage timber resources in this country. However, I wouldn't say their primary objective is still to produce timber, although it still happens. I worked for the FS for 6 years, and while I observed some thinning projects that were similar to what you described, this was hardly the norm. And unless you live in a glass house, I don't see how you can protest at least some domestic logging. Where I currently live, the logging that takes place on private land is much more destructive than anything I've seen the FS currently do.

[breaksraver13]

they have been doing a TON of work on Swan Mtn Road here in Summit............the have leveled about a 1/4 of the mountain, most of it needed to go though

[Idunn]

By the way, what is transpiring in Summit County is nothing less than tragic. Areas within or near towns that used to be forest reduced to a few straggly survivors. The removal of trees in these areas makes sense, although who knows how they will deal with the rust-brown mountainsides on places such as Buffalo Mountain.

However, I was not referring to this. Rather to areas, such as east of RMNP, where the pine beetle has little effect thus far. One can tell from the unusual understory of dead pine needles in trees that they are distressed, but otherwise very much alive. This is one of the very areas the US Forest Service has its eyes on, with the intent to remove a good many living trees.

What I said about our national parks remains as pertinent as ever. The report is worth reading. The dead and dying forests in Summit, Grand, and other counties, as well as a good portion of RMNP, may end up burning. But whether there or elsewhere, this is a natural expression of a human induced disaster.

[breaksraver13]

I actually heard something very interesting the other day, it was about how beetle kill forest may actually DECREASE a forest fire from spreading............It wasn't the trees with all the dead needles that they were talking about, but the sticks that are left behind after the needles fall off............they were saying that without needles it would stop "crowing" of the fires..........Just some food for thought!

[delta07]

Originally Posted by Idunn

One can tell from the unusual understory of dead pine needles in trees that they are distressed, but otherwise very much alive.

Pine trees do naturally shed their needles every so often. The "unusual" understory of dead pine needles may not be that unusual.

[Idunn]

I understand the point about dead pine needles not being that unusual, but must insist that in this instance they are. Last year I talked with a certified arborist in this regard, and she said much the same thing, that it is as natural for evergreens to shed such needles this time of year as the deciduous whose leaves turn color and drop to the autumn ground. Also, that come winter winds these dead needles would be blown off and one might never know the difference. She had been on the property, but earlier in the summer before this was evident, thus was instructed by a couple pictures I sent and what she had been taught in school.

This is different. If in nothing else, than in degree. There were surely more dead pine needles (whether in pine, or douglas fir, etc.) in the understory of these trees last year than normal. But the contrast with this season is marked and distinctly worse. We are not talking a few dead pine needles, which would be normal, but in some instances half of all live growth on entire branches, dead. Within the span of two years I've watched perfectly normal branches gradually die back, now but lifeless, bare stems. When one looks at these trees now it is not a picture of uniform green, but mixed with a mottled brown that extends from base to crown. And we are talking about the better part of the entire forest, with exception being only in individual degree.

Come winter one might forget as much. Spring will bring a renewal of life. Next fall will almost surely reveal just that much less life and vitality in these trees. They are clearly sick and suffering. I say this plainly now before in time any other can see as much, because they are entirely dead. We are killing these forests and adversely affecting most all other forms of life here, just as surely as if we cut them down now.

Who out there cares?

[jazzlover]

The pine beetle epidemic has moved far beyond the Forest Service's (or anyone else's) ability to control it by thinning or other treatments. The main "treatment," especially in lodgepole forests, is FIRE--and that is what they will eventually get. Unfortunately--and to the dismay of many professional foresters in the Forest Service, who publicly dare not veer from the "company line"--the major effort of the current thinning efforts are to thin areas where PRIVATE structures would be threatened by a forest fire. Why the taxpayers of the United States should have to pay for the folly of dumb***es building structures in or adjacent to tinderbox forests escapes me--but that is mostly what the Forest Service is now trying to protect. It doesn't have much to do with the forest ecosystem.

As for logging the beetle-killed forests for timber, that timber doesn't have much value. "Doghair" lodgepole forests have few trees of commercially viable size, and the labor and energy needed to harvest them usually exceeds their value. I wouldn't be opposed to Mike's idea of burning trees in small semi-portable power plants to generate electricity. Those trees will eventually go up in smoke--how that happens probably doesn't matter much. As to the erosion, etc. from logging--it would probably pale to the erosion of the often semi-sterilized bare soil erosion that can occur after a "megafire"--and we are at the point that mega-fires is what we are going to get.

A summer just past that was just wet enough to prevent some big fires from starting should not get people complacent about the disaster that is ahead. As Idunn noted, the trees are still dying. One dry winter or spring will be enough get those dead and dying forests "prime" for some megafires. Climate patterns of this region tell us that we will get those conditions one of these years--maybe next spring, maybe the following, etc., but sooner or later, for sure.