Common Ground and Forest Management- a KS Wild Op Ed from the Siskiyou Daily

I work for the Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center (KS Wild), an environmental group that values healthy forests and healthy watersheds on the public lands of the Klamath Mountains. I know that tree-huggers like myself are never going to win any popularity contests in Siskiyou County, but we do want to work with people of goodwill towards the shared goals of healthy forests and fire-safe communities. 

Perhaps the most important opportunity for collaborative approaches to forest management in the Klamath National Forest involves forest thinning to reduce fire hazard. The Klamath has enjoyed significant buy-in from everyone from local environmental groups to the timber industry supporting timber sales designed to thin small-diameter ground and ladder fuels from below in order to reduce fire hazard and move forests back towards a more natural density and species composition.  

A number of small-diameter timber sales on the Klamath National Forest have been endorsed by environmental groups, including two recent projects planned under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA).  One of these projects, the Mt. Ashland timber sale on the Oak Knoll Ranger District, will treat 4,468 acres of second growth forests through thinning and follow-up burning. Another project, the Happy Camp Phase II timber sale, will thin and underburn 1,343 acres to reduce ladder fuels and tree density and promote the development of large trees and fire resiliency around Happy Camp. These projects, and many others, properly use the expedited planning process of HFRA to facilitate collaborative fuels reduction efforts. 

If you had told me 10 years ago that environmental groups would be supporting timber sales on the Klamath National Forest I would not have believed you.  At the time it seemed like we were locked in an intractable fight about old-growth logging that had no end in sight. But now there is an emerging common ground as stakeholders work together to address the effects of decades of fire suppression and clearcut logging on tree density and fire hazard through responsible thinning projects. 

Unfortunately, we have not yet reached a point where every Forest Service timber sale will actually help, rather than degrade, forest health.  In particular, conservationists are concerned about post-fire salvage logging sales that will replace native recovering forests with fiber plantations. 

After a forest burns, and trees are killed, it might seem like a no-brainer to cut the dead trees and plant a new crop of baby trees.  If post-fire salvage logging resulted in healthier and more fire resilient forests, the environmental community would have no problem with it. But salvage logging often inhibits the regeneration of the next generation of trees and increases fire hazard while trashing watersheds in the process.  

While natural regeneration and watershed health are important to KS Wild, the key issue that salvage logging raises for us is how it affects fire hazard. I’ve been to dozens of wildfires. I’ve interviewed hundreds of fire-fighters and fire-managers. What I’ve learned is that there are an extremely wide range of  opinions and anecdotal reports regarding the effects of salvage logging on fire hazard and re-burn. 

Fortunately, scientists at both the Pacific Northwest Research Station of the Forest Service and at the Oregon State University Department of Forest Science have begun looking at how salvage logging impacts future fire severity. In one of the largest empirical studies ever conducted on the topic, scientists examined fire severity from the 2002 Biscuit fire in stands that had been previously salvage logged following the 1987 Silver fire compared to stands that had not been salvage logged. They concluded that “areas that were salvage-logged and planted after the initial fire burned more severely than comparable unmanaged areas.” In other words, the fine slash created by salvage logging, added to the flammable dense fiber plantation, increased fire hazard in areas that had been salvage logged. The full peer-reviewed study can be viewed at: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/25/10743.full 

This doesn’t mean that every acre that is salvage logged will have an increased fire hazard. Nor does it mean that concentrations of dead snags don’t provide a fuels challenge. But it does mean that agency planners who see salvage logging as a “cure all” may be mistaken. 

At the very least, when the Forest Service does propose salvage logging, we would like to see them follow the law. This means that creeks should be protected with riparian reserves as required by the Forest Plan, and that yarding on steep granitic soils should be avoided when possible. Unfortunately, some timber planners see salvage logging as an opportunity to throw the rulebook out the window. 

When it comes to healthy forests and fire hazard, an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure. Instead of chasing controversial salvage volume, we would like to see the Forest Service work with concerned citizens to develop and implement small-diameter fuels projects before a fire occurs. By focusing on returning younger forest stands to a more fire resilient state, the Forest Service may be able to achieve the elusive “win-win” of a timber harvest program that leaves forests in a healthier condition. 
 

George Sexton is the Conservation Director of the Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center.