Post-Fire Salvage Logging is Not Restoration

By Jake Kreilick

Jake Kreilick is with the National Forest Protection Alliance. He may be reached at jkreilick@forestadvocate.org.

As Montanans, we all know that fire is an essential natural process that has shaped our forests for millennia. Rather than viewing fire as a destructive force - as it's too often portrayed in the media - we need to understand that fire is a critical ingredient of a healthy forest ecosystem, providing renewal and rejuvenation. Unfortunately, most land managers, and politicians, still operate according to the premise that all natural fires are inherently bad.

While the logging industry, Bush administration - and apparently the Missoulian - believe that post-fire salvage logging has an insignificant ecological impact and plays a beneficial role in the recovery of burned forests, the best available science confirms that post-fire salvage logging is one of the most ecologically-destructive forms of commercial logging.

In fact, most scientists agree that post-fire logging can severely damage soils, streams and vegetation. For example, the report Wildfire and Salvage Logging states that while "there is little reason to believe that post-fire salvage logging has any positive ecological benefits...there is considerable evidence that persistent, significant adverse environmental impacts are likely to result from salvage logging."

Let's not forget that salvage logging can also harm fish and wildlife species. In fact, at least 62 species of birds and mammals use burned, diseased or otherwise "defective" trees because these trees provide them with ideal habitat. One particularly important bird species, which researchers have found prefers unlogged burned forests, is the black backed woodpecker. These woodpeckers feed almost exclusively on the larvae of wood-boring beetles and may consume over 13,000 annually, helping to naturally control the spread of insects.

Unfortunately, Montana offers plenty of examples where post-fire salvage logging has hindered the recovery process of a forest ecosystem by degrading water quality, eroding and compacting soils and impacting fish and wildlife species.

We need look no further than the Bitterroot National Forest where, following the fires of 2000, the largest trees are being cut down and even the Forest Service admits that the fire risk is being increased for at least eight years. Meanwhile, the true restoration work has been placed on the back burner, and it's completion is in question due to the fact that $18.3 million set aside for the work is gone.

Our valid concerns with post-fire salvage logging aside, there's plenty of work needed to protect homes and communities from fire and to restore our national forests. This work relies on the knowledge and skills of our local workforce and, if done correctly, need not be controversial.

For example, the Forest Service's own experts have found that the most effective way to protect a home from fire is to focus on the home and its immediate surroundings with 200 feet. While, some people will opt to do this work themselves (I myself have been busy establishing defensible space around my home outside of Missoula) many more will hire one of the many local contractors that specialize in this common-sense work. This firewise work, which the environmental community fully supports, could also send a fair number of logs to our local mills.

Unfortunately, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which likely will come before the Senate this month, doesn't spend a dime helping homeowners and communities protect themselves from fire. We believe that's flat out wrong.

To help establish ecologically-based restoration projects in our nation's forests the National Forest Protection Alliance recently released a set of Restoration Principles with 120 other organizations that serve as a national policy statement to guide sound ecological restoration. The Principles were the result of a 3-year bridge building effort between environmental groups, community based forestry groups and restoration practitioners.

Clearly, we need to prioritize restoration work on our national forests. With an estimated 50% of riparian areas on national forests in need of restoration and the fact that 80% of all rivers in the U.S. originate on national forest lands, we feel that watershed restoration work needs to be a top priority.

So, too, with 440,000 miles of roads on national forests, coupled with a $8.4 billion road maintenance backlog, we need to focus considerable resources towards road restoration work.

Why isn't the Missoulian urging Montana's congressional delegation to seek funding for these job-creating restoration activities for displaced timber workers, heavy equipment operators and others looking for work?

The National Forest Protection Alliance has dedicated itself to giving the Forest Service a new mission based around protecting and restoring our national forests, something that the majority of Americans support. We know that the Forest Service isn't going to change overnight, especially considering that the agency's budget is still tied directly to logging, fire suppression and other resource extractive activities - not ecologically-based restoration. But you can be assured that our 130 member groups across the country will be working on a daily basis to improve how our national forests are managed.

We are convinced that restoring our national forests and protecting our homes from fire will help revitalize our rural communities and diversify Montana's economy and we call on Montana's congressional delegation to fund this important, non-controversial work.

Jake Kreilick is executive director of the Missoula-based National Forest Protection Alliance and a member of the Forest Restoration Steering Committee.