After the Fire - To log or Not to Log
By Paul Boerger, Mt Shasta Herald
December 2, 2005

Almost everyone agrees that most wildfires are a natural process for forests, but a smoldering debate has erupted as to what to do after the flames have died away, leaving behind smoke, ash and blackened trees.

A recent report released by the American Lands Alliance has questioned whether logging trees in areas that have experienced wildfire is sound forest practice. ALA says in most cases burned forests should be left to recover naturally to preserve animal habitats, water sources and trees left behind from the fire.

Foresters, however, believe the benefits of logging burned areas include taking dead trees that would otherwise rot, and careful restoration techniques that are part of after-the-fire logging.

The report says, “Logging after fires degrades soils, produces sediment endangering aquatic species and water quality, increases fire risks, and destroys terrestrial wildlife habitat. Consequently, logging after fires should not be thought of as restoration.”

Timber Products Company timberland manager Jim Ostrowksi says some of the points are valid, but the report overlooks other important factors and safeguards in place to protect the environment.

“The report elaborates on all of the possible risks that may happen during timber harvest and then generalizes that they will all occur on a fire salvage operation,” Ostrowksi said. “The risks they bring up are all possible, which is why foresters use experience and science to minimize the potential risks. Foresters design harvest plans that prevent erosion, leave wildlife structures and retain healthy, green trees in burned areas to reduce risks and mitigate the impacts of the fire.”

Ostrowksi said there are also risks from not salvaging, replanting and rehabilitating a burned forest. He said large burned areas may not reseed and instead become brush fields; large inputs of dead fuel from the burned forest can become a danger in future fires; and long recovery times can result for some forest values such as tree cover, water quality and recreation.

“The report minimizes potential benefits of harvesting fire killed trees and the replanting that occurs during a fire restoration harvest project,” Ostrowksi said. “In many cases, the heat and ash from a wildfire prevents water from percolating into the soil. The increased runoff and resulting erosion after a wildfire is well documented and a real threat to municipal water supplies, fisheries and recreation.”

Ostrowksi said salvage harvests quickly provide erosion preventing small log and slash cover that act as check dams to the increased runoff from the fire damage soils.

“It takes years to accumulate this type of cover naturally in un-salvaged areas as dead trees that rot and fall to the ground,” Ostrowksi said.

As for the contention that after fire logging increases fire danger, Ostrowksi said the difference between a forest that has been replanted after salvage harvests and one that seeds in naturally after a fire, assuming there are healthy seed trees, is the amount of standing and downed dead fuel in the forest as the young trees grow.

“As the un-salvaged forest rots and falls to the ground, the amount of fuel for future fires is immense,” Ostrowksi said. “The salvaged and replanted forest will have far less fuel and be more resistant to future fires than the un-salvaged forest.”

The ALA report says fire should be thought of as “a restorative agent for forests with ecosystem functions that include cycling of nutrients back into the soil as mineral- rich ash providing a nourishing environment for seed germination and regeneration of many fire-associated plants, and the creation of patchy mosaics of plant communities that provide habitat for numerous plants and animals.”

Ostrowksi agrees that burned forests can recover on their own, but says waiting for recovery wastes valuable resources and contradicts the reasons for managing forests.

“There is no doubt that a burned forest will recover on its own,” Ostrowski said. “Some burned areas are fairly quick to recover while some areas take decades to gradually repair the soil damage and reseed from distant seed sources. The bigger picture is that society demands a great deal from our forests. Clean water, abundant wildlife, wood products, recreation, clean air, and beautiful scenery are just some of the values that we want. The impacts of catastrophic fires disrupt the flow of these values, sometimes for a generation.”

Ostrowksi said California imports almost 80 percent of its consumed wood products and that trees need to be harvested soon after a fire to be usable and economically viable.

“It is environmental hypocrisy to let dead trees rot while we import wood from other regions of the country and the world to supply our needs,” Ostrowksi said. “Most fire salvage is economical. Delays in sales from legal challenges has reduced the value of after the fire sales because the trees have deteriorated from insects and rotting.”

Steve Holmer, communications coordinator of the Unified Forest Defense Campaign, disagrees with several of Ostrowski's contentions.

“There is no evidence for the re-burn hypothesis that not salvaging increases the fuel load,” Holmer said. “The larger burned trees retain their water and can last hundreds of years.”

Holmer said the salvage process and reseeding for plantations can make the problem worse.

“Tree plantations are very fire prone,” Holmer said. “The young conifers are one of the most flammable kinds of trees. The Biscuit Fire plantations went off like Roman candles.”

Holmer cited evidence that says areas left to recover without intervention do better over time.

“After Mt. Saint Helens destroyed forested areas, researchers looked at the plantation areas that were replanted and the areas left to recover naturally,” Holmer said. “The natural recovery was just as fast and sometimes faster. Logging after fires actually hurts because of damage to the soil.”

Holmer suggested that instead of focusing on recovery in burned areas, the Forest Service should use its resources to thin fuels around towns for wildfire protection.

“The real issue is getting a fuel free zone around communities,” Holmer said.

Steven Brink, vice president of public resources for California Forestry Association, cites other research that says salvage is helpful to recovery.

Brink said, “According to scientists Dr. John Sessions, Dr. George Ice and Dr. Paul Adams published in the peer reviewed Journal of Forestry, science and experience have shown that removing dead and dying trees does help repair the damage to forests and its associated values while offsetting the cost of these critical activities. The simple difference of opinion is whether or not it makes sense to take advantage of the opportunity of removing the fire-scarred timber, in a timely manner while it still has value, thereby creating revenue to rapidly regenerate the site with native plants and trees to reduce erosion and the risk of a future fire.”

Brink notes that in some situations allowing natural recovery is the most appropriate solution, but he said for the majority of fires “intervention is clearly the more environmentally sound approach.”

Brink states the following wildfire consequences that he claims make salvage and replanting a necessity:

-- Sediment loads can reach up to 50 times pre-fire levels;

-- Critical wildlife habitat is lost until the next generation of trees is reestablished;

-- Tons per acre of dead or dying vegetation remain, which add to the risk of a future wildfire;

and

-- Letting nature run its course can cost the taxpayer up to seven times as much as “active management” in the long run.

Following is a list of conclusions from the recent American Lands Alliance report, questioning the practice of logging trees after a fire:

-- Logging after fire is generally not economical - It costs more to plan and administer these sales than the revenues they generate. Post-fire logging sales often sell at much less than green timber sales;

-- Logging after fire pollutes forest streams - Fires can affect stream systems through removal of forest litter and duff layers, which increases erosion and sedimentation. Excess sedimentation in streams can be greatly exacerbated by the soil disturbance caused by post-fire logging;

-- Logging after fire degrades wildlife habitat - Birds and mammals use snags, broken-topped, trees for roosting,denning, foraging, or other life functions. Far from being a “wasted resource” if left to decay, large-diameter snags and logs play critical structural and functional roles in maintaining healthy, diverse wildlife populations;

-- Logging after fire can increase fire risks and fuel hazards - Post-fire logging typically removes the larger diameter trees that have the most commercial value but least flammability, and leaves behind the smaller diameter trees and logging slash that have little to no commercial value but are the most flammable fuels;

and

-- Logging after fire impedes natural recovery - High-intensity fires can kill trees and surface vegetation, but natural recovery processes are fully capable of re-vegetating burned stands.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and as defined under the provisions of "fair use", any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment for non-profit research and for educational use by our membership.