|
|||
| Conservation Home |
Salvage Logging... It's part of the problem"Although postfire landscapes are often portrayed as 'disasters' in human terms, from an ecological perspective, fire is part of the normal disturbance regime and renewal of natural forest ecosystems. An increased appreciation and understanding of natural disturbance regimes in the ecology of forest ecosystems is needed by the public, and the publics land managers." –Dr. Robert Beschta, et al., 1995 Myth: Salvage Logging will generate much needed revenue for the Forest Service.Fact: Salvage Logging is done at a financial loss to taxpayers. You Pay Not Once but THREE TIMES, as a Result of Salvage Logging
The real justification driving most salvage sales is shortterm economic gain for the timber industry. However, the expenses to the U.S. Treasury for salvage sales are often substantially larger than the money they return.[1],[2] The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office released an economic analysis of salvage logging of Oregon's Biscuit Fire through 2005. Logging there produced $8.8 million in revenues but cost $10.7 million. In the proposed FY2008 Budget for the U.S. Forest Service, timber subsidies are one of the few programs to see any increase in funding costing taxpayers roughly $408 million. Meanwhile, the Forest Service has proposed an 11% funding decrease for both "recreation, wilderness and heritage" and "wildlife and fish management." In spite of the cost to taxpayers, the Warm Fire Salvage Logging sale will provide little economic benefit to local communities and only in the shortterm. As is often the case, the local economy may see a shortterm peak in temporary woods workers, but the industry would likely decline back to current numbers after the salvage operations are concluded. This was an issue identified by the Forest Service in the RodeoChediski Environmental Impact Statement.[3] Myth: Salvage Logging is necessary to prevent future fires.Fact: Salvage Logging increases fire risk to communities and forests. The Forest Service has claimed for decades - and does so now to justify logging in the Warm Fire area - that burned forests are at increased risk of forest fire, and must be logged in order to reduce the risk of recurring fires. Known as the "Reburn Hypothesis," this claim is strongly contradicted by the best available science, including the Forest Service's own research.[4],[5] An exhaustive literature review by the Forest Service (McIver and Starr, 2000) failed to find any support in scientific literature for the "reburn hypothesis." McIver and Starr 2000 states, "we found no studies documenting a reduction in fire intensity in a stand that had previously burned and then been logged." Recognizing this lack of scientific evidence, two recent federal court decisions concluded the exact opposite: that the logging and the resulting "slash" of limbs and tree tops actually increases the shortterm risk of another fire.[6] According to Forest Service data, over 90% of the trees in southwest forests are 12 inches and smaller in diameter.[7] The greatest fire danger comes from this density of small trees, yet trees that are 14 inches or greater in diameter will be targeted for logging in the Warm Fire Logging Sale. Large diameter logs and snags (standing dead trees) are resistant to fire, retain moisture longer, and provide much needed shade. Myth: Salvage Logging is necessary for ecological recovery of the burn area.Fact: Salvage Logging further damages burned forests. The term salvage logging has no direct relationship to forest health. Salvage logging is performed to "salvage" the economic value of trees before they decay. Salvage logging usually removes the best remaining habitat for wildlife, including the large snags that serve as nest trees for cavity nesting birds such as woodpeckers. Woodpeckers can eat up to 90% of the bark beetles in a tree and act as a natural control on the beetles that can proliferate after a fire.[8] Research that followed the 2002 Biscuit Fire in Oregon found that, "in the first few years after a fire forests can recover as well or better on their own than if they are logged and replanted."[9] This report concluded that logging killed off 71% of new saplings and actually primed the land with more brushy fuel for a future fire. The scientists also found that the use of heavy equipment contributed to soil compaction and hindered the development of seedlings that might be regenerating naturally. The Warm Fire area already has a high density of roads. Road building worsens erosion, promotes the spread and establishment of invasive exotic weeds and degrades and fragments wildlife habitat.[10] Additionally, more roads provide more access to humans, further increasing fire risk. Reopening old roads for logging also interferes with the current Travel Management Revision process occurring in our nation's forests. We Need Natural Recovery and Real Solutions, Not Salvage Logging. There is much that the Forest Service, its biologists, fire experts, etc., as well as the public, can learn from this fire and from the recovery of this area. The Forest Service should focus on educating and informing residents about the beneficial role of fire in forest ecosystems and ways that local residents can protect their homes by implementing Fire Wise measures (http://cals.arizona.edu/firewise/). In addition, the Warm Fire burn area can provide a great opportunity to study natural recovery in a southwestern forest. There are at least 159 communities in Arizona at high risk for wildfire and not enough funds are available for forest thinning.[11] Tax dollars should be used to thin near communities, not to subsidize profits for timber companies to log remote forests at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. The easiest and most economical method of keeping fire risk low in a burned forest is to use prescribed burns for a several years after a fire to clear out fine fuels as they fall to the ground. Pleas encourage the Forest Service to let the Warm Fire area recover naturally rather than to decimate the landscape with an illadvised salvage logging proposal For more information contact the Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter (928) 7746514 stacey.hamburg@sierraclub.org [1] Gorte, R.W. 1995. Forest Fires and Forest Health. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress 9551ENR. Washington, D.C.: Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. 6p. [2] Taxpayers for Common Sense, "Economic Risks of Salvage Logging: the Biscuit Fire," 2004. http://www.taxpayer.net/forest/biscuit/4265BiscuitReport21.pdf [3] RodeoChediski EIS, 2004. [4] Beschta, R.; Frissell, C.; Gresswell, R.; Hauer, R.; Karr, J.; Minshall, W.; Perry, D.; and J. Rhodes. 1995. Wildfire and Salvage Logging: Recommendations for Ecologically Sound Salvage Salvage Logging and Other Salvage Treatments on Federal Lands in the West. Corvallis, OR; Oregon State University. 14p. [5] McIver, J.; and L. Starr. 2000. Environmental Effects of Salvage Logging: Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR486. USDAForest Service, Pacific Northwest research Station. 72p. [6] Sierra Club v. Bosworth, Six Rivers National Forest, 2001; Earth Island Institute v. USDA, Tahoe National Forest, 2003. [7] From U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data collected in 1999 under the Resource Planning Act. [8] Massey CL and DL Parker. 1981. Arizona fivespined ips. Forest insect and disease leaflet 116. USDA Forest Service. [9] Donato, D.C.; Fontaine, J.B.; Campbell, J.L.; Robinson, W.D.; Kauffman, J.B.; and Law, B.E. PostWildfire Logging Hinders Regeneration and Increases Fire Risk, Science 20 January 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5759 [10] Environmental Defense Fund, "Defending the Desert," (1995). [11] Arizona State Land Dept, Forestry Division. Communities Identified at Risk 9/22/06, http://www.azsf.az.gov/Risk/AZCommun.pdf
|