Timely Choices Ahead for Forests
Jim Ostrowski, chairman of the Northern California Society of American Foresters, on the proper steps to take after wildfire.
Walking through the forest can be an inspirational way of getting in touch with nature. Unless the forest has just burned and charred tree trunks and animal carcasses litter the landscape and streams are choked with soot and sediment. A vibrant forest can be reduced to a desolate moonscape.
After the Storrie Fire, private land manager W.M. Beaty rehabilitated the land by removing dead trees and replanting one million new trees (in foreground). The standing dead trees on national forestland (in background) will fall to the ground in coming decades, creating a deadly fire hazard.
)
Click For Larger image
Most Californians have no idea what happens when forests burn catastrophically. They don't realize that California has at least 84,000 acres of scorched public land in need of restoration. They don't know that taxpayers lose out on millions of dollars every year that could pay to bring burnt forests back, or that activists intentionally cause delays that lead to those losses.
People expect a great many values from their forests, from recreation and spectacular vistas to clean water and air. Forests can also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Professional foresters are on the front lines caring for our forest resources. We are charged with making sure our forests stand tall for generations, meeting our insatiable appetite for wood, providing recreational opportunities for everyone to enjoy and delivering clean water while protecting habitat for eagles, owls, salamanders, elk, salmon, bears and every kind of wildlife.
Few make the connection between forests and the 2x4s they buy at the hardware store. But when that relationship is pointed out, most favor making responsible use of California's forest resources - which is why people should care what happens when a forest burns.
Traditionally after a forest fire everybody pitched in to get the wood - the charred, dead trees - off the land and put to good use. Harvesting dead trees was preferable to watching them rot or relying more heavily on green forests to meet our wood demand. It was morally incomprehensible to waste the resource.
But that's gone. Some people have the perception of an unlimited wood supply (after all, 2x4s are always in stock) and a new tradition of appeals and lawsuits to stop the harvesting of fire-killed trees has emerged.
Now we harvest hardly any trees at all. Harvesting on California's public lands is down about 90 percent over the last 15 years. Consequently, many forests are overgrown and wildfires are more devastating and expensive to fight. Plus, we import nearly 80 percent of our wood from places where we have no say on environmental practices.
Professional foresters have the science and technology to harvest, replant, and manage forests after a significant burn while protecting resources and accelerating the return of a beautiful forest. But fast action is essential. Delays can kill a restoration project before it gets off the ground. Activists count on it.
According to the U.S. Forest Service, delays from "analysis paralysis" and scientifically unfounded appeals of post-fire restoration projects cost taxpayers nearly $5 million in 2001 in the Tahoe National Forest alone. Why? Because fire-killed trees rot and lose their commercial value quickly, usually in a year or two. Delays mean money that the Forest Service could earn by selling the dead trees for lumber simply becomes lost revenue.
Appeals have become the activists' most reliable weapon. Those who cling to a "no cut" ideology only need run out the clock and public land reforestation that could be self-funding goes largely undone.
Choices must be made.
Is it really preferable to leave hillsides blackened? Should we harvest other forestland more aggressively to make up for the wood lost? Or stop using wood in favor of non-renewable materials like concrete and steel?
Changing our approach to severely burned forestland makes more sense.
The Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act now being debated in Congress would do that. It would encourage more responsible use of our natural resources and help restore forests after catastrophic burns. It doesn't relax environmental protections, but streamlines agency processes to create a more efficient system for forestry professionals to regenerate forestland.
It's a step toward resource conservation. Isn't that what Californians want?
***
Jim Ostrowski is chairman of the Northern California Society of American Foresters, and is a Registered Professional Forester employed as the Timberland Manager for Timber Products Company in Yreka.