Salvage logging has no environmental benefits

Michael Newton's April 5 "As I see it" column on the presumed benefits of salvage logging is based on old-school forestry. There are at least four assertions he makes that are dead wrong:

First, contrary to his assertion that there is "a lot of ecological value" in salvage logging and replanting burned areas, the growing scientific consensus is that this activity is often detrimental, and sometimes severely, to ecosystem recovery following fire. This includes over two dozen studies from Australia to the Americas and a major summary published by the U.S. Forest Service.

One of the authors of the Northwest Forest Plan, Jerry Franklin, said, "Salvage logging of large snags and down boles does not contribute to recovery of late-successional (older forests) forest habitat; in fact, the only activity more antithetical to the recovery process would be removal of surviving green trees from burned sites."

Second, Newton recommends converting charred forests to tree plantations, which recent studies have shown burn much more severely than natural forests. Newton bases this assertion on a report written by John Sessions and colleagues from Oregon State University's School of Forestry that was widely criticized by scientists for ignoring the environmental impacts of salvage logging. Contrary to the report, forests cannot be "engineered" through salvage logging and tree farming without significantly affecting biodiversity and increasing the risk of fire.

Third, it is simply not true that replanting and "weeding" can restore natural forests far more quickly than nature, particularly when soils are damaged by logging and large dead trees are cut down. Thirty-five years of research in the Northwest has shown tree plantations have far less biodiversity than mature natural forests.

Even the large dead trees — that Newton would like to see cut down — allow for recovery to happen after a fire. Large dead trees anchor soils, provide shade for developing seedlings and habitat for scores of natural enemies of destructive insects. Dead trees contribute little to combustible fuels, as much of the branches and needles were burned off in the previous fire. The real fire danger is from slash left behind after salvage logging and replanting the burned area with densely stocked small trees that can act as a "fire bomb" when ignited.

Finally, Newton compares apples to oranges when he equates the Tillamook as the post-fire recovery standard. The Tillamook Forest, which burned in the 1933, is now largely a tree farm. Tree growth rates on the Tillamook, a coastal temperate rainforest, are much faster than in other forested areas, including the area burned in the Biscuit fire in southwest Oregon.

Naturally recovering post-fire landscapes are some of the most fragile and rare ecosystems in the Northwest. While Mother Nature can certainly use a boost in some places through tree thinning in plantations and carefully managed prescribed fire, salvage logging and widespread tree farming are anything but a post-fire remedy. The reality is salvage logging has nothing to do with ecological recovery and is purely an economic activity.