NOREEN: Let's cut some trees down on Pikes Peak
If there’s a big fire on the mountain it would cost us a lot of money and we’d be living with the consequences for years.
There hasn’t been a sizeable fire on Pikes Peak since the 1880s. A large fire now would likely take some trophy homes with it and it would foul municipal reservoirs badly. The Pikes Peak forest has been deteriorating for a long time, becoming less healthy and more vulnerable to another big burn.
On Thursday, the United States Forest Service began taking public comment on a long-range forest-thinning plan (see my blog) that will chip away at a 25,000-acre swath of timbered land. In the best case, the thinning wouldn’t start until 2012 and might only average about 1,200 acres a year.
Eventually, though, the city’s reservoirs and homes at the edges of the mountain would have much more protection. The peak that gives Colorado Springs its identity would be much healthier.
The whole process involves a valuable gift one generation can pass on to the next. It’s really important stuff.
So, of course, almost no one showed up.
But perhaps that’s OK, because there shouldn’t be anything too controversial about this. Many have been aware of the growing fire danger on Pikes Peak for a long time, but forest thinning costs money and there’s no huge constituency clamoring for it.
Two things happened to push forest thinning forward: (1) a horrible fire season in 1999 resulted in the National Fire Plan, which includes money for thinning and (2) the Hayman fire, which scorched through five Colorado counties in 2002.
After Hayman, said Andy Schlossberg of the Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Springs Utilities ramped up its spending for thinning on Pikes Peak. “Now they’re spending about $250,000 a year,” he said.
The utility has contracted with the state agency to do the thinning work, which amounts to 300 to 600 acres a year. Even with added work by the U.S. Forest Service, it would take a long time to finish the job, and annual projects would have to be conducted to maintain the forest after that.
Under a plan outlined Thursday (another meeting will be held in Woodland Park Nov. 18) areas closest to city subdivisions (Ute Pass towns are included, too) would be thinned first.
“Our biggest challenge is going to be a fire that starts down low,” said forester Eric Zanotta.
Thinning doesn’t eliminate forest fires, but it means a fire will move more slowly.
The meeting was designed to let people weigh in, because someone is bound to complain about thinning activities near them.
Brent Botts, Pikes Peak district ranger, said: “My biggest fear is the next big fire will go up Ute Pass, and that would be catastrophic.”
Critics could say the thinning is long overdue. But this is good. It protects us.
And our mountain.
—
Read my blog updates at
gazette.com/blogs/barrysblog
