Percent of target log-volume goal sold by USDA Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest, 2008…74

Percent of target log-volume goal achieved by USDA Forest Service, statewide 2008…54

Average annual log-volume delivered from Stanislaus National Forest, 1980-1990…132 mmbf

Average annual log-volume delivered from Stanislaus National Forest, 1998 – 2008…17 mmbf

Log-volume delivered from Stanislaus National Forest, 2008…12 mmbf

Average annual log-volume delivered from Eldorado National Forest, 1980-1990…147 mmbf

Average annual log-volume delivered from Eldorado National Forest, 1998 – 2008…45 mmbf

Log-volume delivered from Eldorado National Forest, 2008…24 mmbf

Percent of planned forest thinning blocked due to litigation, Stanislaus National Forest, 2008…41

Percent of annual Forest Service wood volume blocked by litigation, statewide…33

Approximate percent of forest thinning in the Sierra Nevada that would be blocked by the most recent lawsuit against the USDA Forest Service…95

Estimated percent of USDA Forest Service resources spent on planning, administrative appeals or litigation…40

Volume of wood on California’s national forestlands currently blocked by litigation…400 mmbf

Number of average-size sawmills that could operate for a year on 400 mmbf…5

Percentage of wood used in California that is imported…75

Percent decrease in timber harvest on federal lands since 1990…90

Percent of California sawmills closed since 1990…70

Potential direct jobs created by returning harvest to half of 1990 levels…3,000

Tree mortality, Stanislaus National Forest, 2008…38

Increase in acres burned by severe wildfire in California in 2007 and 2008 respectively, over previous five-year average…300, 315

Cost per acre to taxpayers to reduce fuel loads in the Sierra Nevada, with local sawmills…$500-$2,500

Cost per acre to taxpayers to reduce fuel loads in the Sierra Nevada, without local sawmills…$1,000-$5,000

Potential cost per acre to reduce fuel loads through public-private partnerships…$0

Millions of acres of productive national forestland at serious risk of catastrophic wildfire…7

Percent reduction possible, in severe wildfire through increased forest management…50-60

Taxpayer costs to fight wildfire, 2008…$1.4 billion

Data sources: U.S. Forest Service, Calif. Dept of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Board of Equalization or analysis of Forest Service data by California Forestry Association

Timber harvesting from National Forest land, the single largest timberland holding in the nation, has decreased by some 80% over the past two decades. The impacts of this decline have been far-reaching and well documented. Insect epidemics, fire hazard, fire frequency, and fire control expenditures have increased hugely. Community dislocation, business closures, job losses, and school and local government distress are widespread.

While the fact of the decline is widely known, the public would seem to have little understanding of the relationship of harvesting to forest growth, mortality, and the realities of management and forest health. The widespread misconception that the Forest Service was “overharvesting” the timber on the National Forests contributed to the demand, led by environmental activists, that the Forest Service reduce, or eliminate entirely, commercial harvesting of timber from its lands. This image of a national resource being decimated by a rapacious timber industry was a far cry from actuality. The record shows that at the apex of harvesting the agency cut each year only 50% of the gross annual growth, while the equivalent of about a quarter of the volume grown died and slightly more was added to the inventory of standing trees.

In contrast, today the Forest Service is harvesting only 6% of the growth (a remarkably low figure) while 36% dies, adding to the fuel loading and increasing fire hazards and suppression costs. The remaining 58% of the growth is added each year to the existing volume, resulting in over dense, fire-prone stands and deteriorating wildlife habitat.

Although the emphasis has been on correcting past mistakes by reducing the volume of the cut, the problems seen by environmentalists and others of the concerned public stemmed not from the “quantity” of the harvest but from the its “quality”. Extensive (and unsightly) clear cuts on unstable slopes, logging on unsuitable terrain and of heritage stands of patriarch trees, failure to use Best Management Practices with resultant harm to soil, water, and esthetic resources, reluctance to implement the imperatives of the Endangered Species Act—all have contributed to the public demand for a more restrictive approach to timber management on public lands. The Forest Service’s and industry’s belated recognition and correction of many of these errors came too late and the perception of the Agency as permanently favoring timber as the “best among equals” now appears to be embedded as dogma in a large part the environmental community. This view may be the single most important impediment to balanced resource management on our National Forests.

Is current National Forest timber management making its optimum contribution to the “Greatest good for the greatest number in the long run”? Does the current ratio of growth/harvest/mortality represent sound forest management? Should this ratio be changed? In what way? Can it be changed? How do you answer these questions?

May 27, 2009
W.V. (Mac) McConnell
U.S.F.S. Retired (1943-1973)