position statements: salvage harvesting
position
The Oregon Society of American Foresters supports the well planned, timely, and careful use of salvage harvesting after uncontrollable events have killed or damaged large numbers of trees in a forest. Potential benefits can include mitigating economic losses, recovering useful wood products, reducing fire, insect, decay, and safety hazards and creating desired environmental conditions for successful reforestation. Application of scientific principles by professional foresters and other resource experts can ensure that economically viable salvage harvesting will be conducted with proper consideration of environmental and social concerns.
issue
Salvage harvesting has generated considerable controversy, particularly when proposed on public lands. Some view salvage harvests as a way to use resources that would otherwise be wasted and to generate some economic benefits in impacted communities. Others view salvage harvests as causing additional harm to the environment and some also view salvage and other commercial harvesting on federal forest lands as inappropriate. In recent years these contrasting perspectives have resulted in major disagreements over salvage harvesting on public land, including legal actions to prevent or to expedite its use. Actions that delay salvage harvesting are an important issue because damaged trees quickly deteriorate and lose value, which can limit project viability and harvest system options as potential timber values decline.
background
Salvage harvesting removes timber from an area that has been altered by an unforeseen and uncontrollable event, such as wildfire, that results in large concentrations of dead and damaged trees. Salvage harvesting is a reactive treatment with the principal purpose of recovering economic value of the trees that have been damaged. Other objectives may include reducing the risk of future wildfire, insect, or safety problems or promoting faster reforestation. Because dead and damaged trees decay quickly and consequently lose economic value, the timeliness of conducting salvage harvesting is imperative.
Since the late 1980s, major wildfires and forest health problems in the West generated numerous salvage harvesting plans on federal lands, many of which were appealed by interest groups opposed to the practice. In 1995 Congress passed the "Salvage Rider" (PL 104-19) to restrict such administrative appeals, an action that sparked further controversy and arguments between opponents and proponents of salvage harvesting. Although the Salvage Rider expired in 1996, the difference of opinions concerning salvage harvesting continues because of contrasts in philosophy as well as in the interpretation of science related to the issue. Some scientists believe that human intervention following wildfires should be a low priority and that "natural" recovery of the forest is most appropriate1.
However, this approach largely ignores important economic and social concerns. Many other scientists and forestry professionals conclude that careful management of forests based on evolving research and experience can facilitate the development of desirable forest conditions.
Salvage harvesting triggers legal requirements for reforestation, which normally exceed the mandates for forest restoration following wildfires or other catastrophic events. Additionally, the money generated from salvage harvesting can help fund restoration practices that can mitigate some of the adverse impacts of the catastrophic event. Examples include erosion control, invasive weed control, and active reforestation. This is particularly important on federal lands where a portion of receipts from any harvest is dedicated to forest restoration.
Research on salvage harvesting is limited and has been subject to different interpretations. However, existing research indicates that variability among forest sites and harvest methods can result in similarly variable effects on forest resources. This variability points to the need for site-specific plans for salvage harvesting that address environmental, economic, and social concerns. Additionally, it is important to consider the environmental, economic, and social effects of not salvaging. Although the random nature of catastrophic events precludes the preparation of detailed, site-specific plans beforehand, the value of preparing preliminary salvage plans should be recognized and integrated with routine forest planning activities. Finally, an efficient public participation process allows both adequate opportunities for constructive public input as well as timely implementation of approved plans.
1Beschta et al. 1995. Wildfire and salvage logging: recommendations for ecologically sound post-fire salvage logging and other post-fire treatments on federal land in the wests. Report to Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, OR. Available online.
selected references
Fitzgerald, S.A. 2002. Post-Fire Salvage Cutting and Rehabilitation Treatments. In Fire in Oregon's Forests: Risks, Effects, and Treatment Options. S.A. Fitzgerald (ed.). Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Portland, Oregon.
McIver, J.D. and L. Starr. 2000. Environmental Effects of Postfire Logging: Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-486. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. Available as a pdf file.
Adopted by the Oregon Society of American Foresters (OSAF) Executive Committee on May 7, 2003. This statement will expire May 7, 2008 unless after thorough review it is renewed by the OSAF.