News: Salvage logging supporters say OSU report won't change debate

Salvage logging supporters say OSU report won't change debate
DAN BERMAN, E&E DAILY, 01/10/06

Supporters of legislation in Congress that would accelerate post-wildfire timber harvests and forest restoration on national forests are downplaying the effects of a new Oregon State University report critical of salvage logging.

The report published last week in the journal Sciencexpress said salvage logging following the 2002 Biscuit Fire in Oregon destroyed nearly three-fourths of seedlings that had regenerated naturally and increased the risk of future wildfires. The report, which received widespread positive media coverage after its release, implies that forests are better off without intervention from forest managers, either for salvage logging or replanting.

But the timber industry and those on Capitol Hill who believe it is necessary to streamline the Forest Service regulatory process to allow salvage and restoration work to proceed more quickly on national forests say the report has limited and incomplete findings and will not have any effect on legislation under consideration in the House and Senate.

"There's a difference between research fact and findings and media spin," said Chris West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council. "The reality is the findings of this report are very limited and nothing new.

"It was clear this thing was released and being bantered around and sold as earthbreaking science, but every time you log, whether it's green or salvage, you're going to disturb the site a little bit," West added. "Any additional hearings on Capitol Hill that brings these authors and other scientists, and have an open discussion ... pretty much neutralizes the PR spin about this report."

In a 10-point comment memo submitted on the report, OSU forestry professor John Sessions agreed the findings are not surprising. "The authors find that slash levels after logging and before slash treatment are higher on burned areas that have not had salvage logging," Sessions wrote. "That is to be expected. If the slash is destroyed as called for in the contract, then it is not an issue beyond what must be left for wildlife habitat."

Randi Spivak, executive director of the American Lands Alliance, also said the findings were nothing new, but he maintains the report proves the opposite point. Spivak said it supports other studies that cast doubt on salvage logging as an effective forest management tool.

"This isn't the first study and won't be the last that concludes post-fire logging is harmful," Spivak said. "Any logging operation, post-fire or not, increases slash which increases fire risk dramatically. This is not new. The study they did was new, but it's not the first or the last that concluded this."

Doug Crandall, staff director of the House Forests Subcommittee, disagreed with the findings of the OSU report as well but acknowledged the public has a difficult time trying to sift through the science and report on the issue. "It's always our scientists versus your scientists, it makes it really difficult for the public to sort through all that," Crandall said.

At issue are two bills designed to streamline a process that can often take several months, and in some cases, years, as the Forest Service and environmentalists often disagree over the necessity and scope of salvage projects. Many Western lawmakers and the timber industry have long complained the time required to approve salvage projects on federal lands has caused the trees to lose value to the point where such projects are not cost effective.

H.R. 4200 from House Forests Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) would give the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 30 days to evaluate and recommend any restoration work following catastrophic wildfires or storms that affect more than 1,000 acres. Damage to between 250 and 1,000 acres would be evaluated at the agencies' discretion. Following the review period, the Forest Service or BLM would propose emergency restoration and reforestation projects.

Walden has said repeatedly that H.R. 4200 does not mandate salvage logging as the primary course or action and simply gives forest managers the ability to choose the proper restoration method.

Sen. Gordon Smith 's (R-Ore.) companion bill, S. 2079 also includes language encouraging the use of mediation to avoid litigation and sets hard deadlines for Section 7 consultations required under the Endangered Species Act.

"The OSU study was to test the premise of the Walden-Baird bill," Spivak said. "The conclusion is the bill was fatally flawed." The report refers briefly to the public policy debate over salvage logging but does not mention the Walden-Baird or Smith bills.

Crandall noted that H.R. 4200 has a substantial forest research title in the bill, which would help further new science in the field.

Dan Donato, an Oregon State graduate student and lead author on the study, declined to answer questions about the report, saying "I'm interviewed out." Attempts to reach report co-authors were unsuccessful.

The Biscuit Fire burned nearly 500,000 acres in 2002, primarily in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, with federal agencies spending $153 million over five months to extinguish it. President Bush used the area as the backdrop that summer to unveil his Healthy Forests Initiative designed to streamline procedures for thinning and hazardous fuels reduction.

The Forest Service eventually decided to attempt to sell salvage contracts for 372 million board feet on about 20,000 acres, approving sales in old-growth reserves and roadless areas.

Walden would like to see the bill marked up in committee and sent to the House floor sooner rather than later, but there are no plans to accelerate the process, according to his spokeswoman, Angela Wilhelms.