Has anyone gotten any real data on the amount of regeneration occurring in that block?Pasted below is a copy of my recent letter to our local conservation agency.
My two basic contentions in my response are that:
1. Government officials responding to our concerns have acknowledged a fire hazard risk on that block. But
by denying the new presence of large amounts of fuel, they are unilaterally assigning us the burden of the increased risk of catastrophic loss.
2. The Game Commission has a limited mission in its service to the residents of the Commonwealth, and,
via their enforcement of these timber harvesting contracts, they are either failing or are acting outside their mission of providing game and habitat.
Here's my actual letter:
Hello,
Thank you for following up on my initial contact with you.
I find Henry's response to be incredulous and non-responsive. Given the size of the logs left behind, I ask Henry to provide a 3rd party inventory and measurement data on the regeneration that is occurring in that block--as I suggest that the actual numbers will be egregiously low given the diameter and numbers of large logs and such piles.
Further, I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that the actual regeneration occuring there, as minimal as it may be, conforms with their regeneration plan for that area. Maybe you have an email address for him, and you will forward him my response?
More importantly, is it your response or Henry's that the risk of fire is low because of the wet summer that we have experienced? Please allow me to point out that that government official's response acknowledges the present risk of fire hazard, yet attempts to mitigate it by using mother nature's graceful provision of much rain this summer.
The response further acknowledges that there is a risk of lightning strike in that area, but mitigates the risk by suggesting that historical strikes have never produced a known fire. Please understand that that is our point as well--except that our concern acknowledges the new presence of large amounts of fuel. Your (or Henry's) response does not.
Why is it, that in all of the government generated responses to our concern, nobody has acknowledged the actual slash on that block, and nobody has provided data to show that the actual amount there conforms with industry practices, organizational practices, or with the timber contract and enforcement practices? Could it be because the actual amount does NOT conform?
Let's be clear about our assumptions: "risk" is an affirmative number suggesting the
likelihood of an event occurring--AN AFFIRMATIVE NUMBER. By definition, it precludes the possibility of forever eliminating the occurence of the event.
Here, it is apparent that we all agree that a risk of fire exists on the block and that the weather has been particularly helpful to us in reducing that risk. We also all may agree that we DISAGREE as to the level of risk--Mt. Gretna property owners acknowledge the new presence of large amounts of fuel, while
no one from our local or state governments has acknowledged the significantly increased risk of catastrophic fire presented by the actual slash on that block. This is very disturbing to many of us.
So, it seems that local government officials want us to believe that large diameter slash presents no increased risk of catastrophic fire. However, I dare say that there is no licensed forester, probably throughout the U.S., that will deny the increased and enduring risk of catastrophic fire when the slash of this size and amount is left after a harvest operation in this type of forest.
So why is a government organization allowed to put us in that kind of risk--at an increased risk of a catastrophic fire? Does Henry have arrangments for moist weather with mother nature for next year? or the year after? or the decade after?
And, given Henry's passive denial about this "catastrophic fire" fuel, how does he explain the existence of that thing called a "fire watch tower" just across Pinch Road from this block of forest? I am sure our previous generations would have experienced no comfort, as we aren't, from his responses.
Another assumption is that the Game Commission is an entity that was "born" to serve the residents of the Commonwealth, as the local conservation office was created to serve county residents. As such, the Commission's responsibility is solely to us.
By its own failures on this block, it is extremely difficult to see how the Commission is fulfilling its mission of providing game and habit for us. No animals of any significant size can even traverse the block it is so obstructed with harvest debris!
The reality is that this government organization is acting with the brazen attitude of a Chevron in some South American country, extracting the profit from our common resources, leaving behind an ecosystem significantly damaged by human intervention, and leaving the locals at increased risk of certain life-threatening and property damaging catastrophies. Just what point is the game commission trying to make to its abutting property owners when it allows one contractor to leave the un-merchantable large diameter "fuel" slash, and enforces the timber contract and best practice standards on all other nearby contractors EXCEPT the one abutting Mt. Gretna homes?
It is of no relief to abutting property owners that it appears to be a relatively small area impacted by this slash. And,
absolutely no hard evidence has been given to us to support the repeated statements of government officials that "there is nothing to worry about." In fact, the physical evidence on that block contradicts these "official" representations of the conditions of that block. Thus, local residents are growing increasingly frustrated by these "vaporous" statements being thrown back at us.
Show us the unbiased data, and maybe from there our conversation can reach mutual agreement as to the risk and who is assigned that risk.
Further, in reference to your response, as should be apparent, it is not the large logs "starting" a fire that we are worried about, as your response suggests. It is their contribution as large amounts of fuel to a fire that may get started in a whole myriad of ways. There is still an abundance of other ignitable material on that block (as with the other blocks). And, fire-suppressing regeneration will be egregiously hampered on that block as the large piles of large logs will remain present for years to come. Further, as regeneration is hampered, limited presence of new root structures will contribute to soil erosion on that block.
Lastly, what possible regeneration plan and site preparation technique are actually being used here? The Game Commission made a lot of assertions about its plan and techniques on this block (and the others nearby). Yet,
the Commission has provided NO physical evidence of actual engagement in their own stated plan or methods. In fact, the pictures of this block again provide evidence CONTRADICTING their asserted "plan." And, as the local conservation agency, why is this not a concern of your organization?
END
Posts
