I am writing to respond to recent letters and comments from Nathan Cornell regarding wildfire in Rhode Island that contained inaccurate and dangerous comments.

First, I would like to highlight that, contrary to Mr. Cornell's comments, RI forests are in fact more than fire prone and are actually fire dependent. Common species in RI, like pitch pine, thrive when exposed to fire. Their seeds need the heat from a fire to release, and the bare soil that results to get established. Their trunks and buds are specially adapted to protect them from the heat and vigorously grow into new openings. According to USGS LANDFIRE data most of the forests in RI have evolved over millennia to have frequent low intensity fires (on average every 6-15 years), and drier forests in the southern part of the state expect fires even more frequently (every 0-5 years).

Like many fire-prone forests around the world, there is a correlation with experiencing drier conditions. In RI, sandy soils do not hold much water; they drain easily and dry fast, meaning that an overly dense forest can have trees fighting each other for resources, making them weaker. These weaker trees are more likely to die in a fire, more likely to have dead branches further down their stems leading to more severe fire conditions, and more likely to have dead wood debris dried out on the forest floor, leading to hotter fires that cause more soil damage. These forest are also more susceptible to other risks such as insect outbreaks (spongy moth) and drought (summer 2022).

There are lots of reasons people care about and enjoy forests, and lots of different forest structures that people can rightfully value, including the types of dense, closed forests that Mr. Cornell seems to favor. However, the idea that all "old growth" forests match this description stems from a lack of historical and ecological context about the variety of forests throughout Rhode Island, New England and North America.

Many RI forests have evolved for frequent low intensity fires, and many areas in RI and coastal New England have been managed with fire as a tool by tribal nations for millennia. Had these forests not been converted to agriculture (and later abandoned) we would see relatively open forests that had persisted for hundreds to thousands of years under careful and guided stewardship. Those forests would not be considered "old growth" under the conditions set out in previous letters to the editor and in the problematic Old Growth Forest Protection Act (H 5294). The singular definition of "old growth" as both "untouched wilderness" and "dense, closed, rainforest-like greenery" erases history and collapses the wonderful range of natural forests we are all so lucky to experience.

RI has a chance to lead on being ready for the fire risk that faces us as we experience longer, warmer and drier falls and springs, like this last fall with fires in the state and up and down the East Coast. RI will not be able to prepare if we choose to ignore the science, ignore the history and ignore the risk. Education and incentive programs for residents can prepare communities for increased fire risk with proactive defense and informed forest management.

I have spent 22 years studying forests and disturbance, and I work on new methods to measure the effects of wildfire and forest management on the values people hold (safety, clean water, wildlands health, forest products). As an expert in the field I submitted testimony against the Old Growth Protection Act, and urge others to oppose this bill. I would also be happy to speak in person with any state legislator who wants to learn more.

Joe Shannon holds a Ph.D. in forest hydrology. His research included how disturbances such as climate change and invasive species affect forests and what forest managers can do to preserve threatened ecosystems. A Cranston resident, he currently works for a private firm focused on the impact of wildfires, leading its efforts at quantifying and mitigating wildfire risks to water quality and quantity.