Prof. McKillup Responds to Prof. Wilson

9/2/03
Editor, Washington Post
Please accept this as a guest commentary or op-ed piece.
William McKillop
Professor Emeritus of Forest Economics
University of California
Berkeley CA 94720-3114
Phone 925-938-6720

*************
National Forest Planning : the proper perspective

The guest commentary "Selling out our forests" (08/28/03) by Edward O. Wilson shows a misunderstanding of the issues. Here is the proper perspective:
Prior to European settlement, much of the forest of the Western U.S. was burned periodically by light fires set by Native Americans or started by lightning. These fires created a shifting mosaic of all types of tree cover, including patches of seedlings, groups of young trees and open stands of mature trees.
Because of the suppression of wildfires in the last 100 years or so, our National Forests in California and the West are highly vulnerable to destruction by fire, insects and disease due to very dense tree cover and a heavy accumulation of fuel on the ground. A 1997 report to Congress by the Forest Health Science Panel, chaired by Professor Chad Oliver of University of Washington, provided a detailed analysis of the forest health problem.
The pre-European-settlement forest ecosystem was robust against catastrophic wildfire and provided a diversity of habitats for wildlife species that have been, or might be, listed, under the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are now beginning to realize that, because of the high probability
of extremely destructive wildfire and the dynamic nature of forest ecosystems, a "no-touch" forest management policy is not beneficial to species of concern.
A proper management goal for our National Forests is to restore existing forest stands to the pre-European-settlement condition as quickly as feasible. As the disastrous Los Alamos fire demonstrated, use of only prescribed burning is environmentally, technically and financially infeasible. A 1998 report to the U.S. Congress by Professors Oliver, Tom Bonnicksen of Texas A & M University, Gene Wood of Clemson University and myself said: "The difficulties of using (prescribed fire) should not be downplayed. For example air quality restrictions and budgetary constraints are major barriers to its large-scale implementation. In addition, there are very limited periods and opportunities when all of the factors such as fuel loadings, fuel moisture, existence of defensible perimeters, and
weather conditions, especially wind velocity, are at levels appropriate to burn. Furthermore, it must be realized that the dangers of fire escapement require fire crews to be on stand-by and have good access by road to the area being subject to prescribed burning".
The only economically feasible way to restore forest ecosystems is to use a timber-harvesting program to reduce fuel loadings before using prescribed burning. Silvicultural techniques, such as group selection, which make small openings in the forest, will recreate the mosaic of all age classes of trees without significant aesthetic or environmental effects.
Protection and restoration of forest ecosystems cannot be accomplished without a well-maintained road system. Furthermore, recent proposals to ban road construction on the National Forests ignore the welfare of the great majority of the population. For example, an adequate road system is necessary for recreation on the National Forests (99 percent of it is road-based).
Revision of current procedures as proposed by President Bush is much needed. The old planning rule is infeasible. It is ridiculous that it usually takes about seven years to prepare plans that only last for fifteen years and that planning absorbs thirty percent of the U.S. Forest Service budget. A former Chief of the Forest Service, a Clinton appointee, has said that there is not enough gold in Fort Knox to implement the old rule.
The proposed planning rule does not nullify the National Environmental Policy Act or the Endangered Species Act. In fact, it will enhance environmental and wildlife protection by making it possible to improve forest health and resistance to wildfire. It is designed to speed up only those projects whose purpose is to restore or protect the forest.
The National Forests are an important source of wood products for home-construction and other every-day needs. In 1990, they produced about 24 percent of the nation's softwood lumber consumption. Wilson, in trying to diminish the importance of National Forest timber, refers to a draft U.S Forest Service report [1995 Draft RPA Program document] that was withdrawn after Dr.Con Schallau, Professor Wilbur Maki and I revealed its gross defects in a 1998 refereed paper in the Forest Products Journal.
We already have almost 250 million acres of forest in the U.S. which are in parks or wilderness areas or not suitable for growing timber. Our National Forests have 85 million acres of forest that are capable of producing timber, but timber harvesting is prohibited on much of that. For example, National Forests in the California Sierra Nevada have a total forest area of 7.6 million acres. Timber harvesting is permissible on less than half of that, and may be conducted only if it uses silvicultural methods, such as group selection, that are environmentally and aesthetically preferable.
Timber growth and mortality on our National Forests far exceed timber removals. A timber harvesting program should be initiated to remove an annual volume that is, at least, equal to mortality. Such a program will move us towards the pre-European-settlement ecosystem that was resistant to catastrophic fire and also provided the mix of habitats necessary for
endangered species. At no cost to the taxpayer, it will provide jobs and revenue to local governments and ensure an adequate supply of wood products to meet the needs of consumers. It is a win-win proposition.

William McKillop is Professor Emeritus of Forest Economics at the University of California, Berkeley