U.S. Forest Service, be accountable — to our forest and to us. The recent court order resulting from a lawsuit filed by WildEarth Guardians, placing an injunction on timber management activities due to the Forest Service’s insufficient monitoring of Mexican spotted owl populations for 23 years, was about accountability (“Judge saves Christmas tree, but larger issues remain,” Oct. 28). The Mexican spotted owl population in our Southwestern forests has been in decline for decades, and the Forest Service has not obtained the required population trend data.

Why is this so important? Endangered species are important in themselves, but the declining Mexican spotted owl population is also an indicator that our forests are becoming increasingly unhealthy. It’s unclear to what extent timber management activities are adversely impacting both the owl population and forest health. We should have that information, but we don’t.

Now the Forest Service intends to undertake an approximately 50,566-acre intensive thinning and prescribed burning project in our local forest, the Santa Fe Mountains Landscape Resiliency Project. In past projects, the vast majority of trees have been removed in thinned areas, often leaving what appears to be a highly damaged ecological wasteland. The Forest Service is required to have extensive monitoring data for various parameters of forest health in order to guide project planning, but it does not. Officials are required to analyze any project that could have significant impacts on forest resources or on the human environment with the most thorough level of analysis available, an environmental impact statement. Instead, they have unnecessarily started with a lower level of analysis, an environmental assessment. Indications are they do not intend to do a environmental impact statement.

This project also involves serious impacts to us — the Forest Service proposes to burn up to 43,000 acres of the project area repeatedly. This year, prescribed burning occurred the majority of days since spring, and many days one could not even see the Jemez Mountains because of the poor air quality. The heavy smoke pollution seriously affected the health of many sensitive people, and it’s not good for anyone. The Forest Service must be accountable for documenting health impacts from so much prescribed-burn smoke. It currently has no process in place to do so. Also, the number of days per year that it does prescribed burns must be limited to protect public health.

There seems to be an increasing hostility on the part of the Forest Service, and agencies and organizations collaborating with it, toward members of the public who want a full range of science incorporated into project planning. At public meetings, only the relatively narrow range of science it chooses to consider is presented, even though there is much current science that calls into question the efficacy of the intensive thinning and prescribed burning the Forest Service proposes to do. Critical science that supports conserving our existing forests gets dismissed from the project process.

It has been customary for the Forest Service to post public comments as part of project analysis online so it is an open process. This time, the Forest Service has decided not to post the public comments. The public is being kept in the dark. Accountability means conducting an open and inclusive project planning process, as environmental law requires.

The only way officials at the Forest Service will be accountable is if we require them to be. WildEarth Guardians has caused some accountability to be required as a result of the Mexican spotted owl legal action. Accountability for the upcoming local forest thinning/burning project would include completion of an environmental impact statement. It would also include seriously considering the Santa Fe Conservation Alternative, created by major conservation groups to protect and conserve our forest.

Sarah Hyden lives by the Santa Fe National Forest and does what she can to protect the forest.

Show what you're thinking about this story

You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.

(3) comments

Jonathan Glass

It is unconscionable that the Forest Service proposes to burn an area of forest next to our City larger than our City itself without analysis of how the cumulative effect of smoke from tens of millions of trees burning so close to us will affect our health. Our government is insufficiently accountable to us about this project.

Richard Reinders

They propose to thin out trees not remove everything, ask California how they like the never ending smoke year after year because of the lack of management.

Jonathan Glass

I don't presume that "management" significantly lowers the risk of out of control wildfire. The proposal for the Santa Fe Mountains Landscape Resiliency Project includes burning up to 43,000 acres (67 square miles) next to the city. The notion that we need to swallow such a bitter pill of breathing prescribed burn smoke from millions trees in order to not breathe smoke from some future possible wildfire is offensive. Only a tiny portion of areas which are deliberately burned encounter wildfire before it is deemed time to burn them again.

Welcome to the discussion.

Thank you for joining the conversation on Santafenewmexican.com. Please familiarize yourself with the community guidelines. Avoid personal attacks: Lively, vigorous conversation is welcomed and encouraged, insults, name-calling and other personal attacks are not. No commercial peddling: Promotions of commercial goods and services are inappropriate to the purposes of this forum and can be removed. Respect copyrights: Post citations to sources appropriate to support your arguments, but refrain from posting entire copyrighted pieces. Be yourself: Accounts suspected of using fake identities can be removed from the forum.