 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Visit the Warrior Mountains Trading Company Choose your special interest—for hikers, hunters, educators... |
Distinguished Panel Produces a Report on "Salvage" Logging A team of independent scientists recently released a report documenting environmental damage and economic costs of "salvage" logging after the Bisquit Fire. The World Wildlife Fund hosted a three-day workshop to investigate the government claims that post-fire logging is necessary for ecosystem recovery and future fire prevention. Their conclusions were the exact opposite! The scientists concluded that the Forest Service mismanaged the Bisquit, causing damage to watersheds, harming the forest recovery, and costing the taxpayers! They surveryed 90 logging sites, and describe their findings in the report: severe localized soil erosion and sediment deposition in streams, loss of and slower tree regeneration, and greater flammable fuel accumulation from logging. In addition, the Forest Service LOST about $14 million on the Bisquit. The panel also concluded that it was poor agency planning decisions, not environmental appeals, that caused delay and compounded the economic damage. The Pacific Rivers Council has long contended that damaged areas should not be logged or disturbed in any way. The PRC also stresses that it is road building that hurts the function of forests, and that damage from roads is the "most pervasive and overlooked threat to watersheds in our national forests." Find out more about the damage from road restoration and view the full report at the link: Read the letter sent to Congress by scientists below. Please - - Tell Mr. Walden to pay attention to what his job is, to protect the public trust, not try to manipulate the facts to pay off the timber industry. A Letter Signed by 546 American Scientists Opposing the Walden Bill August 1, 2006
Dear Members of Congress:
The United States has made great strides by relying on science to inform our decision making. Science helped us travel to the moon; advance medicine and health; and understand the complex web of life on land and in rivers, lakes, and oceans. Science has also opened our eyes to the workings of forests and provided blueprints for federal plans to better protect the abundant natural resources of our public lands. When we, as scientists, see policies being developed that run counter to the lessons of science, we feel compelled to speak up. Proposed post-disturbance legislation (specifically the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act [HR 4200] and the related Forests for Future Generations Act [S. 2079]), crafted as a response to recent fires and other disturbances, is misguided because it distorts or ignores recent scientific advances. Under the labels of “recovery” and “restoration,” these bills would speed logging and replanting after natural disturbances. Although logging and replanting may seem like a reasonable way to clean up and restore forests after disturbances like wildland fires, such activity would actually slow the natural recovery of forests and of streams and creatures within them. Many scientist-reviewed studies and syntheses (please see the selected citations appended to this letter) have recently come to this conclusion. For example, no substantive evidence supports the idea that fire-adapted forests might be improved by logging after a fire. In fact, many carefully conducted studies have concluded just the opposite. Most plants and animals in these forests are adapted to periodic fires and other natural disturbances. They have a remarkable way of recovering .literally rising from the ashes because they have evolved with and even depend upon fire. We are concerned that HR 4200 and S. 2079 will bind us to land management practices that, perhaps logical in the past, are no longer tenable in the light of recent scientific understanding. Specifically, post-disturbance logging impedes regeneration of forest landscapes when it compacts soils, removes or destroys so-called biological legacies (such as soil organic material, seeds in the soil, large standing and downed trees), damages riparian corridors, introduces or spreads invasive species, causes erosion, delivers sediment to streams from logging roads and steep slopes, degrades water quality, and damages populations of many aquatic species. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Resources (November 10, 2005), eminent forest ecologist and University of Washington Professor Jerry Franklin noted that logging dead trees often has greater negative impacts than logging of live trees. He concluded that “timber salvage is most appropriately viewed as a ‘tax’ on ecological recovery.” Beyond those concerns, post-disturbance logging often intensifies the potential severity of future fires by concentrating the slash from logging at or near the ground. Rather than leaving plant material standing .and providing perching, nesting, and feeding sites for wildlife .such logging abruptly moves the material to the ground. Most of this material would naturally fall to the ground, adding important supplies of nutrients and energy to the forest floor and structure in the form of woody debris to stream channels. But this naturally happens over decades, not in the relatively short time associated with a logging operation. Advocates of post-disturbance logging may argue that this slash can be disposed of with controlled burns and other treatments. Yet such treatments can severely damage underlying soils, imposing other taxes on natural recovery. One additional tax concerns us. Postfire logging taxes the public treasury. Recent analysis of postfire logging operations after Oregon’s Biscuit fire of 2002 shows that costs of the logging operations exceeded revenue by about $14 million for logging that removed more than 53 million board feet of timber (DellaSala et al. 2006). Science provides the best insight into the real consequences of our policies and actions. Ironically, this legislation is crafted to ignore the science by waiving environmental reviews, reviews that would make use of the scientific knowledge often available only because of expenditures of public funds. Failure to conduct full environmental reviews informed by that science will inevitably lead to ecological and economic harm from post-disturbance logging. In short, neither ecological benefits nor economic efficiency result from post-disturbance logging. We therefore urge you to defeat these legislative efforts because they will set back forest recovery. We urge you to work with your fellow lawmakers to craft legislation that will rely on the most up-to-date scientific knowledge to protect the natural resources of the nation’s public lands. Sincerely,*
(Only a few scientists' names are included .)
Isabella A. Abbott, Ph.D., Wilder Professor Emerita, Botany, University of Hawaii Anurag Agrawal, Associate Professor, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University Paul Alaback, Ph.D., Forest Ecologist, University of Montana Matthew Albrecht, Forest Ecologist, Ohio University Christopher B. Allen, Research Associate, Silviculture, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center William S. Alverson, Ph.D., Conservation Ecologist, ECP, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL Richard F. Ambrose, Ph.D., Professor, Environmental Science & Engineering Program, UCLA James P. Amon, Ph.D., Wetland Biologist, Professor, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio Sharon T. Brown, Wildlife Biologist, Beavers: Wetlands & Wildlife Inc. George S. Bush, Soil Scientist, Port Townsend, Washington James Byers, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Zoology, University of New Hampshire Bernard H. Byrnes, Ph.D., Soil Scientist, Wild South, Moulton, Alabama
THE TOLEDO BLADE EDITORIAL on doing away with the ROADLESS RULE Published May 16, 2005
"No Tree Left Behind"? The administration announced last week that it is dropping a four-year-old moratorium on development in roadless areas of federally owned forest property. The move, hotly opposed by environmentalists, and for good reason, will eventually affect about 34.3 million acres of the nation's most remote and pristine wilderness. Oil derricks and gas platforms are likely to sprout first. Petroleum interests estimate that 11 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie in areas that have been off limits to drilling since the development ban was instituted late in the Clinton Administration. A chain saw massacre is less of an immediate threat, if only because of a slump in the timber industry. But there is little doubt that development will accelerate, since pro-business governors of western states, in which most of these forests lie, will hold sway over the process. Another key player will be Mark Rey, an undersecretary in the Department of Agriculture who runs the U.S. Forest Service. He's a former timber-industry lobbyist. A principal problem with the plan is that ational forests are not owned by the states but are instead supposed to be held in trust for the American people. And the people have spoken out on the Bush plan. Ninety five percent of public comments on it were negative. In contrast, the original ban drew overwhelming support. Maybe that's why no public hearings were held this time. Only 18 percent of the nation's 58.5 million acres of forest land is protected from development. About half of the federal forest already is open to logging, drilling, mining, and road-building. The discarded rule was intended to protect the most remote areas where there are no roads. Energy exploration is important, especially given the nation's extreme dependence on foreign oil. But so is conservation of wilderness lands. Once they're given over to development, the character of the deepest untouched forest is lost forever. Only when it is all gone will the American people truly understand what has been lost. But by then it will be too late. Prescribed Burning As part of the Bankhead Health and Restoration Project, woodland areas are to be developed on about 21% of the National Forest through prescribed or controlled burning. Woodlands are more open forests in which the trees are spread out enough that sunlight reaches the ground to let short-growing species survive. The amount of prescribed burning will increase from about 1,000 acres in previous years to 10,000 acres per year. One reason for this is that the Bush administration has greatly increased the amount of funding for burning forests to reduce wildfire hazards. Wildfires have increased with global warming and non-reliable rainfall, and there are more structures at risk with encroachment into wild areas and poor preparation by people adding to the wildfire risk. The main reason for prescribed burning in the South is not wildfire prevention as much as it is to achieve more diverse forest systems, and in some cases forests that will be unique to north Alabama. Among these are long leaf pine, short leaf, and Virginia pine woodlands. While some of the woodlands will be managed to favor oaks and others to favor various pine species, all will contain many species of plants, which gives the landcover less vulnerability to disease, insects, drought, etc. than forests with few species, like the loblolly plantations. Some fire-dependent species of plants and animals that have largely disappeared for 200 years will gradually make a comeback when the forests are burned regularly. Burning of individual sites will be done every 2-5 years. The fires burn the leaves and twigs that dropped in the last few years, allowing annuals to get started instead of being smothered by deciduous leaves. Most of the fires in the Bankhead will be dormant season (January through early March), and these fires only “knock back” regrowing suckers and new trees from seed. The USFS will be trying to also burn later in the spring when growth is just starting to kill small woody vegetation more effectively. Some of the first burns will be difficult for the Forest Service because there is so much fuel developed after years of not having fires. Gradually forbs and grasses develop under the trees, as sunlight is able to reach the ground. These non-tree species provide a far more diverse wildlife habitat, particularly for turkey, bobwhite quail and songbirds. The burns become easier after the trees are bigger and a ground cover of forbs and grasses has developed. They actually produce a hotter, faster-burning fire that smokes less. In the future, periodic late-season fires will be used to achieve more varied woodland characteristics and allow other species to flourish. The burned woodlands are more open and are better habitat for deer, turkey, quail, and many songbirds than denser forests that will develop with the exclusion of fire. For people, burning will develop open woods that are easier to hike through, hunt, and camp in, and they provide buenas vistas. Fire does not burn uniformly through a landscape, but leaves areas of unburned “fingers” in lower, wetter areas. This provides a desireable localized diversity. Prescribed burns are usually done within three days of a substantial rain to limit damage to the organic, or duff, layer of the forest soil. Many plant species have been lost from our forests because they are fire dependent and fires were controlled to produce timber. Following some experimental burns in other Alabama forests, flowering species came back that had not been seen in fifty years. The development of varying ecosystems in the National Forests of Alabama in the coming years will be a fascinating process that will produce beautiful and useful landscapes that have not been seen here for centuries. We should be thankful for the efforts the National Forest Service in Alabama to make our forests more interesting and diverse for us and better homes for wildlife.
|