After the Rim Fire, the surprising role of salvage logging

The most pressing needs are on the wood products industry and economic development agencies to cultivate the markets for small and medium diameter timber. With good forest policy and practices to begin with, more forest management will create more sustainable jobs than the current trend of managing wildfires. With adequate demand in the marketplace, the log trucks will roll with the support of both the hippies and the industrialists.

Eric, we respect the EDC and all the work it does to protect the natural environment. However, regarding the opinion you've expressed here, the EDC is seriously misguided. We are surprised the EDC appears to have accepted the USFS's claims without checking the science.

It isn't the instinctual response by "environmental community" that you should be focusing on, but rather the incredible volume of scientific research that has made it clear that salvage logging can have a devastating impact on fragile post-fire environments. To quote three of the country's top fire ecologists, David Lindenmayer, Phil Burton, and Jerry Franklin,

"The notion that salvage logging assists the ecological recovery of naturally disturbed forests is fundamentally incorrect. Hence justifications for salvage logging based on contributions to ecological recovery have little merit. We know of few circumstances where salvage logging has been demonstrated to directly contribute to recovery of ecological processes or biodiversity."

This is not an instinctual statement from environmentalists, but conclusions based on decades of research.

Eric, we don't need to go in and conduct "active shrub control to promote seedling survival of conifers." This means massive amounts of herbicide like what was used after the 1987 Stanislaus-Complex Fire in the same area. The Sierra has not "experienced a troubling decline in populations of pine species." We have no idea where you have obtained that data. The Rim Fire did not "sterilize" massive amounts of soil. Within the next year, there will be an explosion of life growing from the so-called sterilized soils. These perspective are right out of the forest industry mindset that also continues to claim that old growth forests are decadent, supporting minimal species diversity and therefore need to be logged.

The science does not support these broad generalizations. PLEASE examine the research and reconsider this opinion piece.

We urge you to visit our webpage on the Rim Fire and the negative impact the USFS's project will have. You can download the relevant papers as well as comment letters from those scientists who have an intimate knowledge of the Sierran ecosystem.

Additional information can be found here refuting the notion that large, "high-intensity" forest fires are unnatural:
http://www.californiachaparral.org/cforestfires.html

Sincerely,
Richard W. Halsey
Director
California Chaparral Institute

One cannot get more environmentally irresponsible than to suggest that natural succession of shrubs to trees is a bad thing, or to suggest that salvage logging is a good thing for all the fire-dependent plant and animal species that require those severe fire events for their existence on this earth! Every bit of ecological research ever conducted on the effects of salvage logging reveals overwhelmingly negative effects. Please look at these videos to get an ecological perspective on fire:

Here's an award-winning video by Conservation Media http://vimeo.com/groups/future/videos/8627070

Here's an informative series of photos capturing the ecological magic within severely burned forests https://vimeo.com/75533376 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rXvP2r9W9c

Here is a presentation of the science behind the benefits of severe fire from a PBS television series that ran some 15 years ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTl-naywNyY&list=PL7F70F134E853F520&inde…

Here's another new video by the Wild Nature Institute http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BmTq8vGAVo&feature=youtu.be

Here is the most recent USFS production showing how essential severe fires are to conifer forest systems
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/news-events/audiovisual/?cid=stelprdb5…

So many acronyms! I referred to you folks in my comment as EDC rather than EDF. Apologies.

Your "pristine alpine playground" is in jeopardy because of the poorly informed and highly damaging archaic salvage logging practices that you recommend, not fire.
Additionally, while you are correct in stating that approximately 40% (it's actually 38.1% if you did the math) of the Rim Fire area experienced "high" burn intensity on vegetation (http://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/map/3726/0/) what is far more important is soil burn severity, where only a very small portion of the burn area experienced "high" severity (http://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/map/3726/4/). If you go into an area with bulldozers and other logging equipment it destabilizes the soil, damages the seeds and organisms that survived in the soil and will contribute to a much slower recovery process. As the other commentators said, this is a highly misguided and poorly informed article that is not scientifically sound.

One thing we can be sure of regarding the Rim Fire, is that in twenty years we will be able to drive and walk through a wide variety of post-fire vegetation examples.

If you drive down the road another 20 miles into Yosemite Park, you can see what happened after the 1990 Foresta fire where Park policy lets nature takes its course. What you will see is great vistas, some shrubs and grasses, and very few new trees. It is an interesting foreshadowing of a probable outcome for most of the Rim Fire if no salvage logging followed by forest restoration is done.

There are private inholdings, National forest lands that could operationally be restored with young trees, National forest lands that operationally will probably be left to recover on their own, and National Park lands that had a more patchy forest before the fire and had a more patchy burn impact this time around. What would be great if we could learn by doing a range of treatments including salvage logging, reforestation with different densities of seedlings, prescribed fire, active invasive plant control, passive invasive plant control, and of course a lot just letting nature takes its course. We can be guaranteed that the final choice will be applied to a lot of acres due to budgetary issues. What we really need, therefore is a commitment to learn from the other experiments.

It is interesting to see how many comments Eric’s post attracted from authors who are vehement that absolutely nothing except ‘let nature takes its course’ on National Forest lands. Since we have 100,000 acres of National Park land for that experiment, it would be more interesting to apply some other options on the National Forest lands. In the climate change debate, we continue to witness the rapid expansion of vocal people so sure of their own story that they refuse to even consider the possibility that it is worth learning more about the changing earth. Hopefully, this fate will not befall the response to the Rim Fire.

Thank you Mr. Holst, for acknowledging the benefits of fire prevention and recovery activities in devastated Sierra Nevada forests. The lack of active management, combined with decades of fire suppression, have created unnatural conditions in federal forests. This is a man-made disaster, and there is growing consensus that humans have a role to play in helping these forests recover.

We have seen the benefits of recovery activities on many private and state-managed lands. Timely salvage harvesting, replanting, and vegetation control have helped these forests recover their health and productivity more quickly, while providing habitat for wildlife. Often we see these restored forests next to federal lands, which have been left alone to be dominated by brush species. There are also too many snags that serve as fuel for the next catastrophic fire.

Finally, I want to thank Mr. Holst for briefly recognizing the economic benefits of post-fire recovery efforts, which help provide good-paying jobs for our rural communities. Removing a responsible portion of burnt timber does in fact help our communities, while generating more resources for management activities that can help contain catastrophic events in the future.

As with many issues that are often tied to strongly held beliefs, the question of when and where to do salvage logging can be controversial. In the case of the Rim Fire, many who hold strident positions base their views on generic situations, rather than their familiarity with the uniquely specific situation of the Rim Fire itself.

As a firefighter and fuels specialist for 13 years with the Forest Service, I have personal experience fighting hundreds of fires and doing post-fire recovery treatments in massive wildfires. Almost all major wildfires in California and the Sierra Nevada in particular have burned with a large percentage of the fire area being low to medium fire intensity. That is NOT the case with the Rim Fire.

Chad Hanson has accurately chided me for using the word "devastation" when referring to a large block of at least 35,000 acres of conifer forest in the core area of the Rim Fire where firestorm conditions resulted in not a single green tree surviving across a large belt of incinerated acreage. I accept that looking at the heavily roasted landscape can be judged as either beneficial for certain species such as the black-backed woodpecker or it can be seen as devastation for the CA spotted owl, goshawk, pileated woodpecker, fisher, marten, and more than 200 wildlife species that do NOT benefit from having all mature trees killed. I also accept that in many areas of the Sierra Nevada, Chad, Justin, and others who advocate for the BBWP are certainly correct that there may be deficient levels of recently burned conifer forest habitat. I have been trying to remember to be more selective as to how to describe the intensely burned landscape.

In the case of the Rim Fire area, however, there was no shortage of burned acres or even the slightest shortage or early-seral vegetation across vast areas. in the three decades prior to the Rim Fire there was the 147,000-acre Complex Fire of 1987, the Rogge Fire, the Ackerson Fire, the Pilot Fire, the Early Fire, and numerous other large wildfires that created in each of the three decades significant amounts of high-mortality conifer forest burned acres. Out of the entire Sierra Nevada this general Rim Fire southern Stanislaus National Forest area had one of the highest levels of good habitat for species that benefit from recent fires.

Even just looking at the Rim Fire without even considering other burns, the Rim Fire covered 402 square miles with 167,000+ acres of moderate (75% of trees killed) to high (all trees killed) burn intensity. Just within Yosemite Park there are well over 40,000 acres of conifer forest that burned hot and that will provide new fresh burned habitat for the BBWP and other burn dependent species. In addition, even if all proposed salvage logging gets approved and takes place on national forest land (and local FS staff assure me that less salvage logging is more likely), there would still be many tens of thousands of acres of hot burned conifer forest on the national forest that will not be salvage logged. Combined with all the burned habitat in Yosemite as well, incredibly high amounts of burned habitat are not even being discussed for having any salvage logging.

As with many science-based questions, there is no "right" solution that if the BBWP gains 75,000 acres of new "no salvage logging" freshly burned conifer forest, that is "not enough." or that instead, the BBWP needs 85,000 acres or 89,000 acres or 92,000 acres to magically be at the "right" acreage. But under every possible scenario, the BBWP and other species that benefit from high intensity fires will gain at least 70,000-90,000 acres of conifer forest that suddenly shifts from living green forest to now being all or nearly all dead trees. It is illogical to argue that every acre should be exempt from any salvage tree removal.

As a fuels specialist and firefighter, I see that the issue of salvage logging in the national forest portion of the Rim Fire is a complex question that must also consider what the recovering forest will look like if 50,000-60,000+ acres of national forest land with conifers ends up having zero salvage logging done (as some advocate). Millions of dead trees falling across each other in a jack-straw fashion is both reasonable and potentially acceptable from a fuels management perspective if it is patchy, clumped, or not widespread across countless square miles. But leaving every dead tree to fall over and become fuel across 60,000 acres of conifer forest land on the Stanislaus Forest will create dangerous levels of fuel that will simply ensure that in future wildfires, the recovering forest once again will likely burn so intensely that most or all conifer trees are killed.

As with many complex issues, our non-profit center believes that a "solution" for the Rim Fire is to seek balance --- to leave vast areas of conifer forest unlogged (as will occur in Yosemite Park and on tens of thousands of acres in the Stanislaus Forest). It would involve removing a significant amount of dead trees (while leaving some dead trees on every single treated acre) to reduce fuel loading. It will involve being strategic about where to replant with conifer trees in areas where zero cones and seeds survived so that there is no natural way a conifer forest to recover without reforestation help. And it will involve leaving tens of thousands of acres to simply shift to non-conifer forest brush land and slowly recovering oaks by doing nothing... leaving those tens of thousands of acres completely untouched.

Because I have spent many days out in Rim Fire in the highly incinerated hot core area of perhaps 40-50 square miles of conifer forest that is currently blackened, with no surviving green trees, I believe that our society has a responsibility to help return much of that area to conifer forest habitat for species that desperately need suitable habitat. CA spotted owls, goshawks, pileated woodpeckers, fishers, martens, and many other species have been identified by the environmental community for two decades as key reasons not to log old growth stands, not to clearcut, not to convert forests to tree plantations, and to instead protect or manage to create habitat diversity in a fine scale mosaic pattern. It would be disingenuous for the conservation community to suddenly say "it's essential for the Forest Service to manage forests to provide adequate habitat for these key species, but we don't want the FS to reforest after those precious habitat acres get incinerated by wildfire." Either there is value in having conifer forest protected where it has high benefit for certain species, or there isn't. Because our center has done furbearer surveys for fisher, marten, the Sierra Nevada red fox, and other species for two decades, we believe that maintaining conifer forest for those species is a desirable goal.

Removing excess levels of dead trees iin some areas to be reforested can be one action that can reduce future fuels and help improve the chance of survival for a young, beginning forest.

So the question of Rim Fire treatments doesn't need to be a black vs white outcome. By doing some actions in some areas and not doing actions in other areas, there can be a comparison that can help inform future management actions. Our Center's staff was just sharing the view again today amongst ourselves that there are so many dead trees out in the Rim Fire stretching across such a gigantic landscape area, THERE ARE PLENTY OF DEAD TREES FOR EVERY DEMAND. It would be ideal if those with strong interests on all sides can focus on where key areas can best benefit their interests, and then accept that other areas in the 402 square miles of the Rim Fire burn area may be appropriate to manage for other uses that produce other benefits. There really is a lot of opportunity for multiple beneficial outcomes.

John Buckley, executive director
Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center
Twain Harte, CA

Eric, when you say things like “removing some dead trees can also generate much needed revenue to stimulate restoration,” and “Rim Fire restoration will require a substantial financial investment,” you are missing the point that there is value in natural forest succession and all stages and natural durations of each stage! Only those who see a forest only for the trees will say that we need to “stimulate” restoration. Natural forest succession does not require a financial investment! It will be a forest again someday…just look anywhere on earth where severe fire has burned. You may have to wait longer than you want to, but that's managing for the maintenance of all parts of a disturbance-based natural system!

Meanwhile, there are plenty of places in green-tree forests to get timber if economic stimulus is one's argument. Thus, there is no justification for post-fire salvage logging.

Once one understands how sensitive the succession process is to conditions on the ground, it is not at all "...illogical to argue that every acre should be exempt from any salvage tree removal," as Buckley claims. There are plenty of live trees to harvest elsewhere...messing with ecologically sensitive burned areas by treating cutting and planting as if our public lands are nothing but tree farms is not the way to go!

This perspective takes time to fully appreciate...it has taken me nearly 25 years to finally "get it," but once we start listening to the plants and animals that depend on severe fire, where we go for our wood becomes clear, and burned forests are not appropriate places for that kind of activity.

Eric, thank you for your comments and also everybody else that has weighed in.
Sometimes I think we like to use "science" to buttress the world view we hold. I know I do!
My experience as a forester is that science has its limits. There are questions of values and subjectivities just as exponential as in any graphed equation.
I wrote a series of articles published by the Sacramento Bee earlier in this century, which are posted on my website forestkeeper.com. I challenge anyone to go up to the Megram/Big Bar Complex today and tell me that all those brush fields are in the public interest.
There is plenty of science to tell us never to cut another tree, or to cut all the trees and grow as much wood fiber as possible. I appreciate the views expressed that with the Rim Fire there is an opportunity for the Forest Service to do a number of different things, including removing dead trees and ensuring that selected sites do not go to brush.
If you let nature take its course, you get what you get. Sometimes that can be fantastic, sometimes not so great.
If you choose to utilize the tools of forest management, you have a much greater probability of achieving desired outcomes. Forestry, which is both an art and an applied science, wouldn't exist if society felt that exercising such human discretion on the landscape was never warranted. Obviously there is a question of trust, but my sense is that the public increasingly recognizes the folly of always letting nature take its course, which is a serious management decision in and of itself.
Respectfully, I think that some of the revulsion over salvage logging is based not so much on science, but upon a simple revulsion against logging, period. Timber harvest is viewed as unsustainable, almost by definition. I disagree with this, but acknowledge its prevalence and legitimacy in our democratic system, especially when we are dealing with public lands such as national forests.
Finally, it's important to reiterate that national forest lands, such as the Stanislaus, are not national parks, such as Yosemite. I recognize that some would prefer that national forests be managed with the same set of objectives as national parks, but many of us who deeply care for the land do not agree with this perspective.