{"id":244,"date":"2023-11-01T20:22:15","date_gmt":"2023-11-01T20:22:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/?p=244"},"modified":"2023-11-01T20:25:41","modified_gmt":"2023-11-01T20:25:41","slug":"groups-seek-to-halt-cutting-and-burning-in-wilderness-quality-forests-near-santa-fe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/2023\/11\/01\/groups-seek-to-halt-cutting-and-burning-in-wilderness-quality-forests-near-santa-fe\/","title":{"rendered":"08\/28\/2018: Press Release Groups Seek to Halt Cutting and Burning in Wilderness Quality Forests Near Santa Fe"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Tuesday, August 28, 2018<br>Groups Seek to Halt Cutting and Burning in<br>Wilderness Quality Forests Near Santa Fe<br>A Federal Judge is asked to enjoin the Hyde Park<br>and Pacheco Canyon Projects<br>Contact: Sam Hitt, 505-577-2944, sam@wildwatershed.org<br>Additional Contacts:<br>Tom Woodbury, attorney, 650-238-8759, tom@wildlandsdefense.org<br>Dr. Ann McCampbell, 505-466-3622, drannmcc@aol.com<br>Jan Boyer, 505-982-4322, sfjanboyer@gmail.com<br>SANTA FE\u2014Today conservationists and public health advocates asked U.S. federal Judge James A. Parker to halt intentional burning and the radical removal of<br>90 percent of the trees on more than 4300 forested acres above Santa Fe until<br>the U.S. Forest Service prepares a comprehensive environmental study that<br>weighs the impacts of smoke on public health and massive tree clearing on old<br>growth forests, wildlife populations and potential wilderness.<br>Wild Watershed, the Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Taskforce and two individual<br>plaintiffs allege the controversial Hyde Park and Pacheco Canyon projects together with other projects fail to consider the environmental consequences of<br>tree clearing and burning planned on 167 square miles of forests in the coming<br>years from the Santa Fe Ski Basin to near Pecos.<br>The projects call for leaving between 5 and 120 trees per acre with an average of<br>40 to 60 trees left per acre. A minimum of 90 and a maximum of 99 percent of existing forest cover would be removed over large areas. Every acre in the two<br>projects would be either cut or burned, often both. See attached before and after<br>photos.<br>Intentional burning will continue yearly on thousands of acres near Santa Fe producing far more greenhouse gases than infrequent high intensity fires. Clearing<br>90 percent of the trees also diminishes the absorption of carbon dioxide further<br>contributing to global warming.<br>\u201cClean air, water and old growth forests should remain undisturbed pending a ruling on whether environmental laws have been violated. Otherwise human health<br>and wild forests are harmed before a federal judge can decide whether the Forest Service has taken a hard look at its flawed assumptions. Chief among these<br>is the claim that undisturbed forests in roadless areas pose a fire risk\u201d said Sam<br>Hitt founder of Wild Watershed.<br>In March the Santa Fe national forest \u201ccategorically excluded\u201d the Hyde Park<br>project and in June the Pacheco Canyon project from detailed environmental review declaring there are no significant environmental impacts. The public was<br>then prevented from objecting or appealing the decision.<br>According to Dr. McCampbell, &#8220;How is it possible that removing 90% of a forest<br>will result in no significant environmental impacts? I can&#8217;t imagine anything having more of an impact, especially on habitat and wildlife&#8221;.<br>Plaintiffs allege that the Santa Fe national forest failed to assess the effects of<br>toxic smoke from prescribed fire on infants, mothers, asthmatics and those with<br>multiple chemical sensitivities. Slow burning prescribed burns emit large amounts<br>of fine particulate matter that lodge deep in the lungs. Smoke from prescribed<br>fires contains mercury, a neurotoxin, and benzene, a carcinogen, as well as several other toxic air pollutants.<br>The Hyde Park project is within the more than 30,000 acre proposed Black<br>Canyon addition to the Pecos Wilderness. This area was described last year by a<br>coalition of conservation groups as appearing \u201cundisturbed and shaped by natural forces, with the scattered imprints of man substantially unnoticeable.\u201d<br>Intensive tree clearing and burning will destroy Hyde Park\u2019s wilderness character<br>and make formal wilderness designation unlikely.<br>Old growth forests with ponderosa pines over 180 years old are not identified or<br>protected. These primeval roadless forests that have never been logged are<br>threatened by extreme clearing despite research showing they are not a high fire<br>risk.<br>The projects are unlikely to encounter the fire they are designed to withstand.<br>Fuels treatments (cutting and burning) are only effective in reducing fire risk for<br>10 to 15 years. The chance of a moderate to high intensity fire occurring in the<br>project areas during that time is between 3 and 8 percent. Since the impacts of<br>repeat treatments were not considered, it is likely that any benefits of fire risk reduction are outweighed by the environmental cost.<br>Historically forests in Hyde Park experienced both frequent low intensity fires and<br>occasionally fires where most trees were killed. Aspens along the Ski Basin road<br>are the result of large, hot fires in the 1890s. A mix of fires with high, moderate<br>and low severity is characteristic of these forests and ecologically important. According to a 2015 study of western forests including Hyde Park \u201cthe rate of recent<br>high-severity fire in dry forests is within the range of historical rates.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Tuesday, August 28, 2018Groups Seek to Halt Cutting and Burning inWilderness Quality Forests Near Santa FeA Federal Judge is asked to enjoin the Hyde Parkand &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":245,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-244","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=244"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":249,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244\/revisions\/249"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/245"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}