The ForestFoundation

Solving the Wildfire CrisisThrough Restoration Forestry

ProtectingCommunitiesand SavingForests

By Thomas M. Bonnicksen, Ph.D.

Table of Contents

Protecting Communitiesand Saving Forests

Solving the Wildfire CrisisThrough Restoration Forestry

Introduction 3

Forest Health and Wildfire 5

The Forest Health and Wildfire Crisis 6

How Did It Get So Bad? 9

Environmental Impacts 13

Wildlife and Biodiversity 14

Air and Water Quality 17

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 21

Firefighting Challenges 25

The High Cost of Firefighting 26

Protecting Communities 29

Restoration Forestry 33

Why We Must Restore Forests 34

How To Restore Forests 36

What To Do with the Excess Fuel 40

Post-Fire Restoration 44

Science and Technology 46

Getting Involved 49

What You Can Do To Help 50

About the Author 52

Acknowledgements 52

1

In California,37 million acres– or roughly 48percent of thestate’s land base– face high, veryhigh or extremefire threats.Managing forestedresources is criticalto protectingcommunities andmeeting the needsof a growingpopulation.

2

I also know something about forests,having studied them for more than 35years and authored the definitive book onthe history of our forests and the nativepeople who lived in them, America’sAncient Forests: From the Ice Age to the Ageof Discovery (John Wiley, 2000).

Perhaps it is because I have dedicatedmy professional life to understanding,conserving, and restoring forests that Iam alarmed at what we are allowing tohappen to forests in California and theNation. Misguided attempts to “save”our forests by leaving them alone areaccelerating their decline and endangeringthousands of lives at the same time.

The problem is that many forests are toocrowded with trees. Anyone with a trainedeye can tell you that. So can history. Inforests throughout the Sierra Nevada, forinstance, history tells us that roughly 50-70

trees stood per acre. Today on publicforestlands in the Sierra, 300 – 500 treestypically stand per acre, upwards of 1,000trees per acre in some areas.

Unnaturally dense forests provide fuelfor unnaturally severe wildfires. Moretrees mean more fuel, which translatesto bigger, hotter, more damaging fires.Between 2000 and summer 2008, morethan 3.1 million California acres burnedand California taxpayers doled out anawful lot of money to fight fire.Firefighting costs on national forestlandin California top $1 billion per year.

Furthermore, catastrophic wildfire hasbecome a significant source of greenhousegas emissions. If California is serious aboutreducing carbon emissions, it must addressits overgrown forests. Policies thatencourage forest management to reduceemissions from wildfires and encouragethe use of clean energy from wood andgreen building products from sustainedforests must replace the hands-off

approach that has put our forests,lives and climate in jeopardy.

Greenhouse gas emissions from oneacre of burned forest are about thesame as the exhaust from 48 cars forone year. That’s the equivalent of onemillion cars belching pollutants foreach 21,000 acres burned.

Today more than 8 millionCalifornia acres remain at high riskof catastrophic wildfire – manyfilled with dead trees killed by barkbeetles because forests are choked

with too many trees. The wildfire risksto global warming, wildlife and humanlives are staggering.

Wildfires are not the only problem. Inthe East, red maple is replacing oak andeastern white pine because it toleratesshade. In the Pacific Northwest, westernhemlock is taking over Douglas-firforests because it also grows in shade.White fir is taking over pine and oakforests in California’s Sierra Nevadabecause it grows in shade. Aspen foreststhroughout the West are endangeredfor the same reason.

The roots of a growing crisisPart of today’s forest health and wildfirecrisis can be traced to past firesuppression policies. By putting outforest fires for over 100 years instead ofletting them clear the forest of excessgrowth and debris, overgrowth nowclogs forests, choking out certain plantsand destroying wildlife habitat.

I wrote this booklet because I love forests and wantour forests to stand tall for generations.

Policies that restrict forest managementand attempt to preserve forests as staticlandscapes have led to dangerous conditionsin California’s forests.

Author Thomas M. Bonnicksen, Ph.D.

Wildfires have become larger and more costly to fight.

Introduction

3

Preservationist policies that restrict publicaccess and forest management in publicforests also play a part in our forests’decline. Preserving dynamic ecosystemsin a static state is just not possible. Nordoes preservation recognize that peoplehave been a natural part of forests for

more than 10,000 years. ‘Hands-off ’policies that consider all fire natural andgood fail to adequately protect lives orrecognize the value of managing foreststo provide clean water, reduce carbonemissions, generate clean energy andconserve our renewable resources.

The underlying theme for many of thethings causing forests to decline is anenvironmental disconnect – people areremoved, or disconnected, from theland that feeds and shelters them.Without a connection to forests or anunderstanding of how natural resourcesbecome the comfortable homes, tables,and other products we use every day,it’s easy to subscribe to popular mythsabout forests and inflict great harmunintentionally.

The seeds of a solutionRestoration forestry aims to bridge theenvironmental disconnect, reacquaintpeople with their forests and restoreforests to their historic grandeur.Using history as a guide and modernscience as its primary tool, restorationforestry acknowledges the many valuespeople expect from forests, such asthe need to keep forests biologicallydiverse and productive, and theimportance of ensuring the safety offorest communities. It addresses theeconomic realities, ecological challengesand social demands of making forestsgreat again.

Restoration forestry will create beautiful,natural forests, and encourageproductive use of resources that mightotherwise go up in smoke. It sets fortha feasible way to provide abundantwildlife habitat, safe communities, cleanair, sustainable energy, greenhouse gasstorage to help address global warmingand a dependable source of woodproducts. At the same time, it returnsto the landscape forests that look andfunction much like they did hundredsof years ago.

Managing forests can reduce thethreat of catastrophic wildfire andprovide diverse habitat for wildlife.

4

Forest Healthand Wildfire

Forest Health and Wildfire

Historically, low-intensity fires werecommon in California. Most forestsburned often and gently,with low flames creepingthrough grass and pineneedles while lickingbenignly at the base oflarge trees. Where brushhad grown dense orpatches of older treeswere unusually thick,flames would flare up,leaving in their wake smallopenings where young treescould flourish.

These low-level fires were the norm forthousands of years. About half the fires

were ignited by lightning strikesand the rest by native

peoples who usedfire to improvehunting conditions,create safer living

areas, thin oaks toincrease acorn crops and

other purposes. They keptCalifornia’s forests open, with a

mosaic of patches of trees of differentsizes and ages on the landscape. Large,catastrophic fires were rare and foreststeemed with wildlife.

However, that has changed. Starting inthe early 1900s, people began puttingout forest fires and altered the naturalfire regime. Without low-intensity firesto keep them open, forests began togrow more crowded. Many forests wesee today are not natural, but far denserversions of their historic predecessors.

California’s changingforest landscapeForests that just 150 years ago weredescribed as being open enough togallop a horse through without hittinga tree are now so dense you can barelywalk through them. In California’smixed-conifer and ponderosa pineforests, 500 or more trees per acre oftennow stand where less than 70 trees peracre stood historically.

Today, forests in the Lake Tahoe Basinare four times denser than they were inthe 1850s, and most government-ownedforests in the Sierra Nevada are about

California and the nation face a forest health and wildfire crisis.Many forests, particularly those on public lands, have growndangerously overcrowded due to a century of fire suppression anddecades of restricted timber harvesting.

The Forest Health and Wildfire Crisis

Tahoe National Forest, 1911

Tree densityon Californiaforestland

Native peoples used fire as a tool to managetheir environment and make productive use offorest resources.

6

10 times denser than natural. Forestdensity has increased by more than70 percent in Southern California’sSan Bernardino Mountains in the last60 years alone.

This overcrowding has horrificimplications on forest health andwildfire behavior. It also can havedevastating effects on wildlife. Theplants and animals that need sunnyopenings are disappearing – whengrasses and shrubs get crowded out, thewildlife that needs that habitat for foodor cover is lost. Streams are drying upas thickets of trees use all the water.Insect infestations and tree mortalityare reaching epic proportions.

Beetle invasionsBark beetles have thrived with the onsetof unnaturally dense forests. Bark beetleoutbreaks in California increasedroughly 30-fold between 1998 and 2004,a year in which more than1.7 million acres of nationalforestland in Californiaexperienced insectinfestations. InSouthernCalifornia, beetleskilled millions oftrees between 2001and 2004. Expertspredict more than21 million additional acres of Westernforests will suffer significant treemortality from bark beetle attacksduring the next 15 years.

Bark beetles have already killed up to33 percent of the trees in some parts ofthe Lake Tahoe Basin and nearly half ofthe pine trees are dead in the SanBernardino and San Jacinto Mountains.The same is true on SouthernCalifornia’s Palomar Mountain.

Too many treesMany of California’s public lands simplyhave more trees than the land cansustain, which is causing forest healthto suffer. Humans have put out the firesand restricted the timber harvesting thatcould have thinned these forests.Harvesting on California’s publicforestlands, for example, has droppednearly 90 percent since 1990.

In healthy forests, trees can fight barkbeetle attacks. They encase the attackinginsects in sap and keep them out.

But in overcrowded forests, treescompete for water, food and sunlight.Without enough nutrients to go around,trees become stressed and susceptibleto insect attacks.

With forests unnaturally dense, treeshave barely enough moisture to producethe sap needed to keep out bark beetleseven in relatively wet years. They cannotresist attack during dry years.

A healthy forest can survive a beetleattack during a drought with onlymoderate mortality. A thick and stressedforest cannot. Drought may havetriggered some recent insect epidemics,but it didn’t cause them. The real causeis overcrowded forests.

Too many trees is also the reason thatcatastrophic fires have become morecommon in recent years. With anabundance of dead, dry trees in forests,fires burn hotter than natural. They caneasily blow through, or hurl firebrands(bits of burning trees) over, fuel breaks.That’s what happened in South LakeTahoe in 2007 when the Angora Firedestroyed hundreds of homes.

Bark beetles have killed up to 90 percent of thetrees in some San Bernardino Mountain forests.

7

Tahoe National Forest, 2003

There is nothing natural about a 200-foot wall of flames racing across thelandscape. California’s historic forestswere more open, fuels didn’t accumulateand fires stayed mostly on the ground.

The wildland-urban interfaceHumans have long been a naturalpart of California’s forests, but thecombination of an increasingpopulation and overgrown forestlandhas created extraordinary dangers.

According to the California Departmentof Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fireand Resource Assessment Program(CDF-FRAP), about 8 million peoplenow live in the wildland-urban interfaceand are at significant fire risk. Californiais expected to add another 6 millionpeople in the next 15 years, so dangerin our forests is only likely to increase.

Living amongst the trees without caringfor and thinning the forest has provento be lethal. In the decades precedingthe Southern California firestorm of2003, forest management came to a

virtual halt in the San BernardinoMountains and elsewhere. As early as1994, forestry and fire ecology expertsidentified the dangers the overcrowdedforests in Southern California posed andproposed actions to reduce the fuel loads.Their recommendations went unheeded,the proposals left on the shelf.

In 2003, Southern California wildfiresclaimed two dozen lives and destroyedsome 3,700 homes in a predictable andpreventable catastrophic event.

Getting worse, not betterSouthern California is still not safe.Millions of dead trees cover themountains around Lake Arrowhead,Big Bear and Idyllwild. Thousands ofacres stand in tinderbox conditions.

Furthermore, conditions similar to thosein Southern California’s forests beforethey succumbed to beetles and flamesin 2003 are appearing increasinglythroughout the Sierra Nevada and LakeTahoe Basin.

All told, more than 3 million CaliforniaAcres burned between 2000 and 2008,and 8 million acres remain at high riskof catastrophic wildfire. The mainreason is that humans have alteredthe natural fire regime and severelyrestricted forest management that couldmimic natural effects to thin forests.

Leaving forests alone doesn’t work.California’s 2003, 2007 and 2008firestorms make clear what professionalforesters have known for years: forestsneed management to be safe, healthyand productive.

Today, California’s historically patchyforests are gone and in their place standunnatural, dangerously thick forests thatspread across the landscape as onecontinuous blanket of fuel. We have thescience, expertise and technology torestore them to their naturally healthycondition if we want to. With restorationforestry, we also have a viable plan fordoing so.

California is expected to add the population equivalent of three Los Angeleses between 2006 and 2020.

8

The myth of the pristine forestThe vision of pristine, untouched pre-settlement forests may be alluring, butin reality, forests have been managedfor at least 12,000 years. The Californiaforests European explorers discoveredin the 1800s were neither pristinenor untouched.

They were, however, beautiful and farmore open and diverse than today’sforests.

The vision of pristine forests manypeople hold – babbling brooks flowingthrough majestic tall trees and grassymeadows with deer and other wildlifein abundance – are typically images ofcarefully managed forests. Naturalforests to be sure, but forests nonethelessshaped by native people and otherinfluences.

Other mythical pristineforests – dark,mysterious places withhuge trees, moss-covered logs under footand chattering wildlifein tree canopies highoverhead – are fleetingglimpses of reality atbest. Some suchpatches historicallydotted the land muchlike today’s old-growthforests do, but theywere relatively few andfar from permanent. Fires may havepassed by them for a while, buteventually they burned. Forests aredynamic – once they reach maturity,their next step is to become young again,usually at the hand of a fire.

Fire has played a significant role indeveloping California’s forests forthousands of years. However, becauseCalifornia’s historic forests were sodifferent from the dense forests we seetoday, fires burned differently then.

Fire versus FIREThe fires that were a natural part ofCalifornia’s historic landscape clearedthe forest floor of debris and smalltrees. The difference between the fires

that historically shaped California’sforests and the blazes that ravagethousands of acres at a time today ismostly a matter of degrees.

Historically, forest fires were generallylow-intensity affairs. Fires might coverlarge areas, but flames stayed closeto the ground with relatively modesttemperatures. Today’s infernossometimes tower above the groundand reach 3,000°F, hot enough to meltmetal. They can travel 20 miles in aday and sterilize soils.

In the low to moderate-intensity firesthat historically dominated the interiorWest, animals could generally avoidthe immediate effect of flames.

It has taken a combination of several factors to create thedangerous, unnatural conditions that now dominate California’sforests. Misinformation and widely held misconceptions aboutforests have played a role, as have well-intended policies thathad unintended consequences.

How Did It Get So Bad?

Historically, old-growth forests did not dominatethe landscape, but appeared in sporadic patcheson the landscape.

Natural fires generally burned close to the ground in low-intensityevents in California’s historic forests.

9

The high-intensity blazes that havebecome more common recently havea greater impact on wildlife. It’s harderto get away. Fish die in boiling streams.

While fire is a natural part of mostAmerican forests, catastrophic blazeswere rare historically. For centuries,fire shaped California’s forestland in abenign cycle – frequent low-intensityfires cleared the understory and keptthe forest open, which guarded againstmega fires. Today’s high-intensitycrown fires, however, often leave intheir wake devastated moonscapes ofdead trees and baked, eroding soils.

When fire is suppressedThe nature of fire in America’s forestsbegan to change about a centuryago. Following deadly fires in 1871(Wisconsin), 1881 (Michigan) and 1884(Minnesota), public reaction began ashift toward fire suppression – puttingfires out before they became dangerousto humans. Those sentiments weredriven to a fever pitch following the1902 Yacoult Fire (Washington andOregon) and 1910 Great Idaho Fire,which claimed 38 and 85 lives,respectively.

By the 1920s, USDA Forest Serviceresearchers had published reportsarguing that fire should besuppressed to ensure publicsafety. By the mid-1930s, theForest Service adopted the“10 a.m. Policy,” whichstipulated that fires should becontained by 10:00 themorning after ignition.

out fires to minimize threats tohumans, however, also meantputting out fires before theycould burn-off fallen branchesand other fuels on the forestfloor. With no natural thinningagent, forests began to get morecrowded. Shade-tolerant treesfilled the understory as forestsgrew denser and unnatural fuelloads accumulated.

Fire intensity and firefightingcosts soon began to escalate.By the late 1970s, the 10 a.m.Policy had become tooexpensive to apply on a largescale because millions of acresof forestland had becomedangerously overgrown withtrees and brush. So, the Forest

Service started letting some fires burn,even though they were oftencatastrophic. Since 1980, the size ofwildfires on national forests hasdoubled and it may double again ifwe let forests keep getting thicker.

By 2005, two-thirds of America’snational forests were at significant riskof severe wildfire. That’s more than 130million acres, and it’s worse in 2008.

Beware the ladder fuelsIn the absence of natural fire, shrubsand small trees that would have beenremoved by low-intensity flames insteadgrow aggressively. This understoryvegetation plays a critical role in fire

During the 2003 Southern Californiafirestorm, fire jumped freeways and otherfuel breaks, melted cars and destroyedmore than 3,700 homes.

Ladder fuels like dead limbs and young and leaning trees cancarry flames from the forest floor to tree canopies in seconds.

10

behavior – it becomes “ladder fuel” thatallows fire to move upward from theforest floor into the canopy. Ladder fuelscan be the difference between a relativelyharmless surface fire and a landscape-altering crown fire.

Forest fires generally fit into one ofthree categories:

Surface firesGround firesCrown fires

Surface firesSurface fires, slow or fast moving, burnfuels like fallen leaves, needles, grasses,twigs, small trees and shrubs. Theirflames seldom reach heights greater thanfour feet. Surface fires are relatively easyto control.

Ground firesGround fires are slow moving,smoldering fires that burn under theforest floor. Ground fires can flare-upinto surface fires under certain

conditions, but usually follow fast-moving fires and consume tree roots andother materials they leave behind.Ground fires are relatively easy to control.

Crown firesCrown fires are the most spectacularand lethal of all fires. In crown fires,flames leap from treetop to treetop withflames anywhere from five to 200 feethigh or more. Crown fires move veryfast and are almost impossible tocontrol. They tend to be wind-driven,

Crown fires race through treetops and are the most difficult type of forest fire to contain.

11

but also burn against the wind, just notas quickly. Crown fires can also changedirection as quickly as the wind shifts,making them unpredictable anddangerous to fight.

It usually takes a change in weather –such as a drop in wind, rain or snow– to stop a crown fire. This is what savedthe towns of Lake Arrowhead andBig Bear during the 2003 SouthernCalifornia firestorm. Firefighters workedvaliantly to protect lives and homes, butultimately a shift in the wind and sometimely rain staved off near-certaindevastation.

Influencing fire dynamicsFuel loads, weather conditions andlandscape topography all influence firebehavior. For instance, fire usually movesfaster uphill. During the 2003 SouthernCalifornia firestorm, however, fuel loadswere so extreme that firefighters

reported witnessing fires race downhillas fast they moved uphill.

Unlike weather and topography, we cancontrol fuel loads. We can reduce fuelloads and improve overall forest health.Much like a master gardener will pruneroses, fight aphids and slugs, and pullweeds, foresters can remove excess fuelsand create conditions that benefit treesand wildlife.

We are still feeling the effects ofaggressive 20th century fire suppression.Deliberately set fires, or “prescribedburns,” can be an effective forest-management tool, but many publicforests that surround communities aretoo dangerous and overgrown with treesand debris to safely reintroduce firewithout first harvesting some trees toreduce fuel loads.

However, public sentiment toward forestmanagement has swung toward

preservation – leave the forest alone,keep it exactly like it is and let naturetake its course. More often than not,efforts to manage California’s forestsand reduce fuel loads are blocked byappeals and lawsuits – despite the factthat humans have allowed unnaturalfuel loads to accumulate. The forests wewould leave to nature are not natural,so the fires that burn them are notnatural either.

Such “hands-off” attitudes, ofteninspired by the myth of the pristineforest, lead to inaction that fosters thekind of catastrophic fire that can eraseforests from the landscape for centuries.While court cases drag on, trees keepgrowing and forests get more crowded.Tinderbox conditions are spreadingthroughout California’s forests.

By doing nothing in our forests, we aredoing something – creating conditionsthat are far more conducive to unnatural,devastating crown fires than naturallow-level surface flames.

“Prescribed burns” can be an effective forest-management tool once fuel loads have been reduced to safe levels.

12

EnvironmentalImpacts

Environmental Im

pacts

The current condition of California’s forests is wreaking havoc onwildlife habitat and biodiversity.

Wildlife and Biodiversity

Even before they burn, overcrowdedforests can have detrimental effects onwildlife. Many species are simply losingtheir habitat as forests change inresponse to out-of-control tree growth.

Before the flamesCalifornia’s once-open forests teemedwith abundant, diverse wildlife. Now,however, many forests have up to 10times more trees per acre than what washistorically natural.

Overly dense forests block sunlight andintercept precipitation that once reachedthe forest floor. Herbaceous plants,grasses and flowering shrubs don’t getthe moisture, sunlight and nutrientsthey need, and die out. When grassesand shrubs are lost, the wildlife thatneeds that habitat suffers, and ultimatelymay be lost too.

Songbirds, rabbits, deer and otheranimals are struggling as conifer forestsovertake their open habitat environ-ments. Surveys of the Sierra Nevada in2000 identified 12 bird species as havingsignificant negative population trendsbecause of closing tree canopies (Saurer,et. al. 2000). Another study found thenumber of bird species in the SierraNevada dropped markedly in the 20thcentury due to increased canopy closure(Bouldin, 1999).

Butterflies are suffering, too. LassenNational Park, about 50 miles east ofRedding, California, is home to 108species of butterflies. As conifer treeshave increased in density, they have

displaced theunderstoryplants thatcomprise 95percent ofthe larvalbutterflyfood supply in the park. The loss of acritical food source is having severeconsequences on butterfly populationsin the park.

Numerous studies show that mostvertebrate species need open or diverseforest conditions. One analysis of SierraNevada wildlife found that meadowsand open forests provided optimumhabitat for more than five times asmany vertebrate species as dense,multi-layered forests. Furthermore,

As forests grow overcrowded, many species, likethe gray fox, black-tailed jackrabbit and mountainbluebird are losing critical habitat.

14

a University of California-Berkeley studyof 255 species on the western slopeof the Sierra Nevada found that novertebrate animals lived exclusivelyin any single age or type of forest.

During the fireCalifornia’s wildfires are increasinglyhigh-intensity crown fires that burnhotter than their historic predecessors.Whereas coyotes, mule deer, elk, blackbears and other animals could outrunmost historic fires, catastrophic firesovertake many animals in their path.

The leading cause of death in landanimals during wildfires is not heat, butsmoke inhalation. Billowing clouds ofthick smoke often race ahead of crownfires, suffocating mammals and ground-nesting birds.

Fish and amphibians stand little chancewhen catastrophic fires cause rivers to boil.Studies have shown stream temperaturescan increase as much as 62°F even afterflames die out. That is more than enoughto kill fish and other aquatic life.

After the fireA relatively lifeless moonscape canfrequently replace a dense forest after acatastrophic fire. High-intensity blazescan eradicate virtually all vegetation ona site and sterilize the soil, altering

In high-intensity wildfires, smoke frequentlyovertakes fleeing animals and streamtemperatures become lethal to aquatic wildlife.

Some species prefer burnt trees, but don’t needentire mountainsides blackened to survive.

15

wildlife habitat for centuries if theland is not replanted (studies show thevast majority of severely burned publicforestland is not reforested). Manyanimals simply get displaced.

Furthermore, post-fire erosion can buryfish spawning gravels and choke entirewatersheds with sediment for five yearsor more – once the vegetation that heldsoils on hillsides is burned, there is verylittle preventing rain from washinglayers of topsoil into rivers and streams.The loss of streamside vegetation alsomeans waterways will receive moresunlight, and fewer leaves will fall into

the water, so the stream’stemperature and nutrient mixwill certainly change.

After Arizona’s 2003 Picture Fire,fish populations in three streamsdeclined by 90 percent. The LakeComplex Fire in New Mexicoand the Aspen Fire in Arizonacaused the loss of the endangeredGila chub in two streams. AnIdaho fire left a stream withoutadequate food sources tosupport fish for 11 years.

While some species thrive inburned forest conditions –like wood boring beetles andwoodpeckers – those speciesdo not need vast landscapescharred, and only use thathabitat for a short time.Foresters replanting burnedprivate forestlands, for instance,leave some snags (standing,dead trees) and charred logsto accommodate certain species.At the same time, they acceleratethe return of a healthy forest.

Spotted owl mythsMany forest management and fuelreduction plans in California since thelate 1980s have been blocked by effortsto “save” the spotted owl.

It turns out, ironically, that forestmanagement may hold the key to theowl’s survival.

By prohibiting tree harvesting nearspotted owl nesting locations, or evenwhere owls were thought to potentiallynest one day, those forests have becomeovergrown. That has affected the owl inat least two ways. First, habitat for theowls preferred prey in California, the

dusky-footed woodrat, has diminishedgreatly. Second, fire has become themain threat to the owl’s nesting sites.

Recent research shows that what wasonce accepted as fact – spotted owls liveonly in old-growth forests and loggingwas destroying the owl’s last remaininghabitat – is a myth. In fact, large tractsof old-growth forests are detrimentalto spotted owl habitat, in part becausethe animals they prey on need a morediverse habitat. In many areas, spottedowls do best in a mix of forest conditionsand need young forests that providesuitable hunting grounds. Research alsoshows that owls will indeed nest in andnear managed forests.

Fire, however, is simply destructive.In New Mexico’s Cerro Grande Fire,20 Mexican spotted owl nesting siteswere lost. Between 1999 and 2002,the USDA Forest Service identified 11California spotted owl nesting sites aslost to wildfire. In 2002, the Biscuit Firedestroyed tens of thousands of acres ofcritical spotted owl habitat in SouthernOregon and Northern California,including 49 known nesting sites.

Unless we thin and manage forests, morehabitat loss lies ahead.

Diverse habitats neededThe best way to ensure diverse wildlifeis to have diverse habitats on thelandscape. In such an environment,catastrophic wildfire is rare and a widerange of animals can find food, waterand cover.

What California has now, unfortunately,is increasingly dense forests that threatenbiodiversity and a litany of legal actionto prevent the forest management thatcould change that.

The spotted owl is a far more adaptive creature than firstbelieved and nests extensively in managed forests. Wildfire posesthe most significant threat to spotted owl habitat in California.

16

When overcrowded forests burn, ashcan fill the sky for hundreds, eventhousands of miles.

Poor air quality causes public healthconcerns, aggravates asthma and leadsto other ailments. Carbon monoxidecan cause nervous system and braindamage. Ozone irritates the eyes, noseand respiratory system, and mayincrease the risk of heart attack.

While historic fires burned close to theground in most forests and producedsome smoke, today’s high-intensity firessend smoke thousands of feet high andfoul the air for thousands of miles.

Wildfire, climate changeand tailpipesWhen a forest isn’t burning, it’s helpingto clean the air. Whereas healthy forests

absorb greenhouse gases like carbondioxide, catastrophically burningforests release tremendous amountsof carbon and other pollutantsin massive outbursts.

Carbon monoxide is oneof the main componentsof wildfire smoke, andchemical reactions inwildfire smoke cantrigger ozone production.According to the National Center forAtmospheric Research, wildfires that in2004 scorched 11 million acres duringtwo months in Alaska and westernCanada raised ground-level ozone by

up to 25 percent in parts of the northernUnited States and 10 percent as far awayas Europe. Those same wildfires spewedas much carbon monoxide into the airas all the cars and factories in thecontinental United States combinedduring those same months.

Well managed forests, by contrast,absorb and store vast quantities ofgreenhouse gases. According to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,forests in the United States absorbabout 17 percent of total annual U.S.greenhouse gas emissions – equivalentto removing the carbon dioxideemissions from 235 millionautomobiles annually.

Catastrophic wildfire smoke spewssimilar pollutants as automobiletailpipes into the air. Wildfire smoke

The tremendous smoke plumes that rise above catastrophicwildfires carry toxic pollutants far and wide. Wildfires in Californiacan foul the air for weeks and affect visibility over the GrandCanyon. In 2004, Alaskan wildfires degraded air quality acrossmuch of North America and even Europe.

Air and Water Quality

Wildfire smoke can spread toxic pollutants andash over communities for hundreds of miles.

Smoke from wildfires can cause health problems,cancel outdoor activities and foul the air for weeks.

Forests in the U.S. absorb the carbondioxide emissions from 235 millionautomobiles annually.

17

can blanket entire cities, affecting morepeople than at any time in history, andcan cancel athletic events and otheroutdoor festivities. It often promptshealth advisories that encourage peoplewith respiratory problems to stayindoors.

Historically, the devastating fires thatcause this kind of air quality degradationwere rare. With overcrowded forestsproviding abundant fuel, today theyare not.

When trees are harvested and forestsreplanted, forest resources become woodproducts like lumber and furniture.With careful management the threat ofwildfire goes down and the carbonoriginally trapped in the forest byvigorously growing trees stays trappedin wood products long-term. Furniturefrom the Elizabethan era still holds thecarbon fixed hundreds of years ago.Replanting forestland continues thecycle of air cleansing and carbon storage.

Clean, abundant waterRoughly 75 percent of California’sdrinking water originates in forestedwatersheds. When forests are managedand fires not severe, forests act likenatural filters, helping soils absorbnitrates, phosphorus and othernutrients. Tree canopies also deflect rain,allowing soils to soak up water ratherthan have raindrops wash them away.

California’s forest health and wildfirecrisis threatens to change the role forestsplay in filtering drinking water, and inthe quality and quantity of wateravailable for aquatic species and people.Today’s intense fires also cause waterpollution from excess nutrients andsediments from eroded soils.

Healthy forests filter water naturally and help keep soils on hillsides as in this managed, private forestlandin Humboldt County.

18

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

$20 MillionCost of water resources lost to degraded quality

$50 MillionRepair andrestoration costs two years after fires

$450 MillionTotal estimated repair and restoration costs

0

Millions of dollars

Source: Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority

It is the unnatural number of trees, notthe amount of precipitation that is atthe root of the problem. With 50-70 treesper acre as was historically natural for muchof California, forests could survive limiteddroughts relatively unharmed. However,with five to 30 times that amount of trees,even relatively wet years may not providesufficient moisture for the trees.

Water is also key to a tree’s ability tosurvive bark beetle attacks. When a treehas sufficient moisture available, it can“pitch out” beetles by blocking the holesthey bore into the tree with sap. Moisture-stressed trees, however, cannot. Theysuccumb to insect infestation andbecome fire hazards.

Predictable pollutionOne of the easiest things to predict isthat after a catastrophic fire, erosionand the amount of sediment reachingwaterways will increase.

When forests burn in a severe wildfire,the soils under the surface can bake sohard that water cannot get through – itforms a hydrophobic crust that repelswater. High-intensity wildfire alsoremoves vegetation whose root systemscould hold soils on a hillside.

Post-fire rainfall can quickly reach thehydrophobic layer and wash nutrient-richsoil away at more than 100 times pre-firerates. Ash and sediment in extraordinarylevels can clog watercourses, choking fishand burying spawning gravels. It pollutesdrinking water, fills aqueducts and blocksdownstream irrigation systems.

The effects are both immediate and long-lasting, and they can be deadly. More thana dozen people lost their lives duringmudslides in burned areas of the SanBernardino Mountains following the 2003Southern California firestorm.

Sediment and dollars add up

Following the 2003 Grand Prix, Oldand Padua fires that burned nearly175 square miles in the San BernardinoNational Forest, rains washed anestimated 700 million cubic yards ofrock, sand and debris into the SantaAna River watershed. In steep terrain,flood-driven sediment blasted outaquatic and riparian species. In flatterplaces, wildlife habitat was smotheredwith sediment.

Water delivery systems were cloggedand damaged, too. The Santa AnaWatershed Project Authority (SAWPA),which delivers water to more than5 million Southern California residents,spent more than $50 million on repairsand restoration by the end of 2005.It estimates total costs to mitigate thefires’ effect on water quality and repairdamaged flood control and water-delivery infrastructure will reach$450 million.

After a forest burns, soils are exposed anderosion can increase dramatically.

Post-fire rains anderosion causedsignificant damage inthe Santa Ana Riverwatershed andincreased the costof providing cleandrinking water to morethan 5 million SouthernCalifornia residents.

Post-fire water quality costs

19

SAWPA estimates that more than$20 million in water was lost to the seadue to degraded quality, increasing itsreliance on imported water.

After the 2002 McNally Fire burned150,000 acres near the Giant SequoiaNational Monument, more than 50million cubic yards of topsoil and debriswashed into streams and Lake Isabella.The normally clear Kern River ran darkbrown, thick with sediment a full yearafter the fire. Also, a year after the firethe California Water Service Companyreported 500 percent sediment increases– power plants were closed because intakevalves were clogged and fish hatcherieswere closed for lack of clean water.

Comparing sediment loadsWhile erosion is a natural process andwaterways will always have normal, or“background” sediment, the massiveinflux of debris into streams that followscatastrophic wildfires is neither naturalnor normal. Immediate reforestationand erosion control efforts can reducethe amount of debris that reachesstreams, but such efforts are rare onpublic forestlands. Appeals and lawsuitsdelay on-the-ground regenerationand often stop reforestation leavingwatersheds exposed.

Whereas sediment loads can easily top250 times their pre-fire levels whenforests burn in severe fires, the forestmanagement that could dramaticallyreduce the threat of those fires includeseffective erosion-mitigation measuresand produces little sediment. A studyon California’s North Coast, forinstance, found that tree harvestingoperations accounted for about2 percent of sediment in nearby streams,and only for a short time.

The way to break the cycle of fire, floodand mud that fouls our water and airis to manage forests to prevent thegigantic wildfires that cause suchextensive damage. Restoring foreststo their natural beauty and resistanceto catastrophic fire would pay lastingdividends.

When charred landscapes are exposedto rain, debris and sediment can foulwatercourses for years.

A full year after the McNally Fire, the Kern River ran brown with sediment, mud clogged water deliverysystems and fish hatcheries were closed.

20

Restoration forestry offers a best casescenario for global warming – feweremissions, less severe fires, carbon safelystored – and it’s possible to do withoutsignificant investment of tax dollars.The worst case scenario for our forestswould be more hands-off policies, whichincrease emissions, raise firefightingcosts and do little to ensure the safetyof more than 10 million Californiansliving near forested communities.

During one week in Oct. 2007, SouthernCalifornia wildfires released 19 milliontons of greenhouse gases to the air.That’s more than twice the emissionsthe state of Vermont generates in a year,and that’s only the impact from the fire’scombustion. As the trees killed by thefire stand dead on the land and decay,the emissions from the fire event willexceed 29 millions tons. That’s aboutthe same as 5.3 million cars onCalifornia’s roads for a year, or 38percent of all California’s auto emissions.

Even the relatively small Angora Firenear South Lake Tahoe in June 2007,put 143,000 tons of greenhouse gasesinto the air. Its total carbon emissionswill reach 572,000 tons if the dead treesare not harvested before they rot.

No tool can be more effective in our effort to battle globalwarming than restoration forestry. Too often, severe wildfiresundo much of the good work Californians do to reduce theircarbon footprint. Restoration forestry not only helps reduce theamount of greenhouse gases that get released in the first place,it gets back carbon dioxide that has already been emitted.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gases from the 2007 Angora Fire go up in smoke over Fallen Leaf Lake and Lake Tahoe.

21

Alarming numbersA thorough study of four Californiawildfires revealed the extent to whichwildfires increase greenhouse gasemissions and contribute to the effectsof global warming. The study examinedfour incidents:

Angora Fire, burned more than 3,100acres near South Lake Tahoe

August 1992 Fountain Fire, burnednearly 60,000 acres east of Redding

September 2001 Star Fire, burnedmore than 16,000 acres in the Tahoeand Eldorado National Forests

September 2007 Moonlight Fire,burned more than 65,000 acres inand around the Plumas NationalForest

A study found that fourCalifornia wildfires releasedmore than 38 million tonsof greenhouse gases to theatmosphere.

Private forestland owners planted more than 17 million trees following the Fountain Fire — trees that are aggressively removing carbon from the air and nowstand about 25 feet tall.

22

The study found that the four fires willcollectively put about 38 millions tonsof greenhouse gases into the atmospherethrough fire and subsequent decay – orthe equivalent of emissions from 7million cars on the road for a year.

In each case, emissions from initialcombustion could have been reducedthrough more aggressive fuels reductionand the comprehensive managementrestoration forestry uses. In each case,restoration forestry could also help getthe lost carbon back.

In fact, where the fires scorched privateforestland, most of the gases have beenrecaptured by removing dead trees,turning them into wood products thatstore carbon, and replanting. Many ofthe more than 17 million seedlingsplanted after the Fountain Fire nowstand 25 feet tall – their growth fueledby sunlight and removing carbon fromthe air and storing it in wood fiber.Where burned trees have not beenharvested, the decay and emissionscontinue.

It is estimated, for example, that hadthe Angora Fire site been quicklyharvested and replanted, some 98percent, or 560,000 tons of carbondioxide released by the fire could havebeen reclaimed.

Climate impactsThere are at least two ways to look atforests and climate change. The firstand seemingly most popular is to takethe alarmist perspective, cordon-offforests like museum exhibits andpredict that if the climate gets warmer,already overgrown forests will getdryer and the wildfire danger will geteven worse. Most models bear out thatrelationship.

Overgrown forests become the source of significant greenhouse gas emissions.

23

The second is to look at our forests likethe living, breathing lungs of the planet,and note that if we manage them withgreenhouse gas reductions in mind wecan reduce the affects of climate changeon forests and help prevent the wildfiredanger, and related greenhouse gasemissions, from rising. Science bearsthat out, too.

There is a choice to make.

Forest health and fire conditions arealready bad enough. We don’t have towatch idly while the emissions fromtoday’s fire increase the likelihood of

even more fire-related emissions downthe road. We can manage forests tominimize greenhouse gas emissions andthe future affects of global warming onforests. Reducing the number andseverity of wildfires may be the singlemost important action we can take inthe short-term to lower greenhouse gasemissions and fight global warming.

Harvesting trees, storing the carbon theycontain in wood products, and replantingtrees must be part of the solution.Investments also must be made in newmills and forestry infrastructure in orderfor restoration forestry to be successful.

The alternative is declining forest health,bigger fires, more emissions, and an increasein the loss of life and property.

Prioritize and ActWe know where forest conditions areworst and community dangers are thehighest. Find the densest stands of treesand the most unhealthy forests and youwill have excellent starting points in theeffort to restore California’s forests. Ifwe fail to act, we will miss an opportunityto address the wildfire crisis and globalwarming head-on, and will continue toexacerbate the problem.

Actively managing forests reduces greenhouse gas emissions from wildfire and stores carbon safely in wood products. Wood is about 50 percent carbon by weight.

24

FirefightingChallenges

Firefighting Challenges

Catastrophic wildfire takes its toll in property and lives lost, aswell as air and water quality degradation and environmentaldevastation. While communications and firefighting technologyhave helped make today’s firefighters more efficient and effectivethan ever, wildfires are getting bigger, more destructive and moreexpensive to fight.

The High Cost of Firefighting

More than 3.1 million California acresburned between 2000 and 2008. In thattime, more than 11,300 structures weredestroyed and the damaged caused bythose fires exceeded $1.8 billion.

Taxpayer dollars up in smoke

Nationwide, taxpayers paid morethan $10 billion to fight fires on federallands between 1994 and 2006.Californians spent more than $3 billionon firefighting just between summer2000 and spring 2008.

The trends behind the numbers are asalarming as the dollar figures them-selves. In the last eight years, theCalifornia Department of Forestry andFire Protection (CDF) has spent $1.7billion fighting wildfires; before 1996,

What’s wrong with this picture?Timber harvests in California have decreased 60 percent since 1990 –harvesting on government-owned lands is down about 90 percent. Now,California imports about 75 percent of the wood consumed in the state.

As public forestland has grown increasingly overcrowded over the sametime period, California’s wildfires have gotten larger and firefighting costshave skyrocketed.

Billi

ons

of B

oard

Fee

t

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Expe

nditu

re (M

illio

n $)

0

50

100

150

250

300

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

200

CDF FireSuppressionCostsSource: CaliforniaDepartment of Forestryand Fire Protection

TimberHarvest Volumein CaliforniaSource: CaliforniaBoard of Equalization

Wildfires in California claimed more than three dozenlives, destroyed more than 11,300 structures, causedmore than $1.8 billion in damages and cost morethan $3 billion to fight between 2000 and 2008.

26

the most CDF had ever spent was $86million. CDF’s average annual firefightingcosts between 1990 and 1995 were almost$63 million; between 2000 and 2008 theannual average jumped to nearly $210million.

Not entirely coincidentally, timberharvesting plummeted between 1990 and2007. Timber harvesting on California’sgovernment-owned forestland droppednearly 90 percent during that time.Overall harvesting in California wasdown 60 percent.

With more treeson the landscape,wildfires burn hotteracross larger areas.The extra fuel – unharvested trees anddense brush in overgrown forests – makesfires harder to put out. Furthermore,wildfires near heavily populated areas canprove more difficult and costly to fight.These fires pose the greatest threat tohuman lives and must be battled to thefullest extent possible.

A better use of tax dollars

California is home to perhaps the best,most efficient firefighting agency in theworld. Unfortunately, making firefightingorganizations more effective won’t solvethe wildfire crisis. Nor will throwingmoney at the problem withoutaddressing the root cause – overcrowdedforests and aging brushfields.

California’s annual fire-suppression costs between 2000 and 2008 averaged nearly$210 million according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Improving firefighting capacity will not solve California’s wildfirecrisis. Without managing forests to reduce fuel loads, firefightingcosts are likely to continue to rise.

27

However, we can reduce the fuel loadsthat drive catastrophic fires in the firstplace. We can make our forests safer byremoving excess growth and dead trees.We can do so cost-effectively whileenhancing biodiversity, water qualityand air quality.

According to the Journal of Forestry’sJanuary/February 2006 edition, theaverage total fire damage and firefightingcosts per acre in high-risk forests are:

Fire suppression: $481

Facility losses: $150

Timber losses: $772

Regeneration: $120

The same publication states the averagecosts per acre to reduce fuels andmanage those forestlands safely are:

Operational costs: $374

Forest Service contractpreparation fees: $206

Environmental benefit of fuel reduction:Priceless.

A simple analysis proves an old adageto be true: an ounce of prevention isbetter than a pound of cure. In the caseof preventing or fighting wildfires,taxpayers could save an average of about$940 per acre by investing in forestmanagement. In California, an averageof 387,000 acres burned each year from2000 to 2008. In bad years, the numberof acres burned can exceed 1 million.

Managing forests to reduce the threatof wildfire not only saves lives andpays environmental dividends, it canmake productive use of a renewableresource that otherwise may burn.

A ray of hopeWhile fire season is an annualevent in California, there are signsof hope.

California forests increased slightly, by1.1 percent in 2005 as efforts to thinovercrowded forests accelerated. Whileharvesting on government-ownedforests did increase, it remains just 17percent of what it was in 1990. The trend

of diminishing harvests and increasingfirefighting costs must stop.

Following the Southern Californiafirestorm of 2003, Governor ArnoldSchwarzenegger convened a BlueRibbon Commission to study whathappened and make recommendationsto prevent such catastrophes in the

future. The Commission’sreport supports forest

management and reducingfuel loads. It says:

Unfortunately, the Commission’sencouragement has yet to translate intosignificant forest management on theground. Some gains have been made,primarily through Fire Safe Councils,one-time grants and private landowneraction. But between 1989 and 2002,more than 700 legal challenges werefiled in federal court to stop USDAForest Service land management. Forestmanagement efforts continue to beblocked by appeals and lawsuits, whichmakes it difficult to restore forests tosafer, more natural conditions.

“The protection of life andproperty from wildfire cannotsimply rely on the availabilityof firefighting resources.Until the removal of thousandsof acres of dead bark beetle

infested trees and sound foreststewardship is achieved, SouthernCalifornia and other forest areasin the state will continue to havehazardous standing fuel justwaiting to become the nextconflagration. Fuel reduction andfuel moderation programs areessential to reducing the potentialthreat of major … fires.”

Fires are less severe and more easily contained inareas that have been thinned.

28

Safety on the groundFuel breaks are strategically locatedstrips of land where trees are heavilythinned and ground fuels removed.They provide attack points and relativelysafe access for firefighters to battle ablaze with less severe fire behavior.

Way too much emphasis has been puton fuel breaks. Fuel breaks are part ofthe solution for protecting communitiesfrom wildfire but they won’t work bythemselves.

Fuel breaks have shortcomingsfrom both fire protection and forestrestoration perspectives. While fuelbreaks can help drop a crown fire to theground, for instance, they only providemeaningful protection if a sufficientfirefighting force is deployed in thefuel break when the fire enters it. Iffirefighters aren’t on the scene at thatprecise moment, the fire can actuallyaccelerate through the fuel break at thesurface level and erupt out the otherside with the same fury it had beforereaching the fuel break.

Furthermore, most fuel breaks aretoo small to stop a catastrophic fire – a200-foot wall of flame can easily jumphighways and other breaks. Catastrophicfires often launch firebrands – bits of

burning branches, twigs and cones –a mile or more ahead of the main fire.Firebrands also catapult burning emberson rooftops. During the Los AlamosFire of 2000, hundreds of homes, eventhose that had cleared defensible space,burned when firebrands from afarlanded on pine needles near homes.

During the 2003 Southern Californiafirestorm, hundreds of homes that weretheoretically protected by fuel breaksburned. The Old Fire, for example,simply swept around the east and west

ends of Highway 18 that firefighterswere using as a fuel break to protectLake Arrowhead.

Unsightly scarsFuel breaks not only provide inadequatecommunity protection, they fail torestore forests or address the root causeof our wildfire crisis.

The extreme thinning used to constructmost fuel breaks leaves tracts offorestland devoid of most plant andanimal life. With understory and surface

Fuel breaks often provide a false sense of security – wildfires can burn through or around fuel breaks, ashappened in the 2001 Star Fire near Lake Tahoe that charred more than 16,000 acres.

Protecting Communities

Many people equate protecting communities with constructingfuel breaks. Fuel breaks are areas manipulated to reduce fuelloads and curtail the spread of wildfire in forests, usually throughvery aggressive thinning. Unfortunately, fuel breaks provide afalse sense of security more than effective fire protection.

29

vegetation removed, many fuel breakslook more like a sea of telephone polesthan a forest. Biodiversity suffers in fuelbreaks because wildlife needs a varietyof vegetation for cover and food.

Fuel breaks are also expensive toconstruct and maintain – themaintenance is particularly important.If a fuel break is not maintained at10 or 15-year intervals it will soon beovergrown with brush and other highlyflammable fuels that can worsen fireconditions. This is happening all too

frequently throughout the West asfuel breaks built in the 1960s and 1970shave been abandoned due to budgetconstraints.

A better wayRestoration forestry offers a moreeffective, sustainable way to protectcommunities. It incorporates fuelbreaks with moderate thinning as partof an overall plan rather than relyingon narrow strips of heavily thinnedforests that may or may not be placedeffectively.

The real problem is that huge tractsof public forestlands are vastlyovercrowded. As long as that remainstrue, communities near those forestswill not be safe. Restoration forestryaddresses that.

Whereas a fuel break is the last desperateline of defense, a restored forest providesthe most effective first line strategy.Restoring forests so they look likehistoric forests in which catastrophicfire was rare is the best way to protectcommunities. By recreating a patchy

Fuel breaks, like this one in the Tahoe National Forest created eight years before this photo was taken, need expensive ongoing maintenance.

30

forest mosaic with openings, young andopen older forests and some densestands of trees, there will be only limitedopportunities for fires to reach theextreme temperatures they do today.

Levels of defenseThe best way to protect communities isthrough restoration forestry and itslevels of defense that include defensiblespace around structures, restoration fuelbreaks, and restoring the forest at large.

The fires that threaten lives and propertyfrequently start in distant forestlands.Addressing the whole forest andreducing fuel loads in a sustainablefashion, therefore, is essential.

Protecting communities with a practicalsolution requires establishing multiplezones that break up concentrations ofhighly flammable fuels. The use of fire-resistant roofing materials also isprudent where possible.

The first zone is defensible space nearhomes. California law requires thatclearings extend at least 100 feet from abuilding. In the 30 feet closest to thehome, grass or other low-lying vegetationis appropriate; firewood should be storedaway from houses and tree limbs thathang over houses should be pruned.In the last 70 feet of the clearing, thinlarge trees so their crowns don’t touch.In brushlands, thin 50 percent of thebrush and remove lower limbs.

Meaningful, sustainable protection means establishing multiple layers of defense and fuels reduction.

31

The second zone is restoration fuelbreaks around communities. Fuel breaksshould be at least a quarter-mile wide.Restoration fuel breaks feature a patchydistribution of trees and shrubs witheach patch a different age. Most patchesshould be small, generally less than aquarter acre. Surface and ladder fuelsare removed, but some large logs andsnags should be left near the outer edge.Restoration fuel breaks provide lesssevere burning conditions and serve asan anchor point for restoring the entireforest. They are also sustainable andprovide habitat for wildlife.

The third zone is restoring the forestbeyond fuel breaks. This zone, the largestof all, will ultimately resemble historicforests with lesser concentrations ofhighly flammable fuels. Re-establishingthe patchy forest mosaic that dominatedCalifornia’s lands before Europeansettlement addresses the root cause ofthe wildfire crisis and can reduce theincidence of catastrophic wildfire.

While the same strategy can alsorestore brushlands, re-introducing low-intensity fire can help sustain reasonablefuel loads in brushlands. The goal inbrushlands is to establish a mosaic inwhich half of the vegetation is less than20 years old.

Sustained protectionMore than 1,100 California communitiesface a high risk of catastrophic wildfire.Building and then abandoning isolatedfuel breaks will not offer thosecommunities relief. Sustaining a safer,more natural forest with modernforestry supported by a robust forestryinfrastructure will protect people, forestsand wildlife.

Communities in forested areas aresafer when the forests around themare managed to reduce fuel loads.

32

RestorationForestry

Restoration Forestry

Forests are among the most beautiful and renewable naturalresources with which we have been entrusted. We have a moralobligation to make wise use of those resources and ensure thatforests stand tall for future generations to use and enjoy.

Why We Must Restore Forests

People expect a great many values fromtheir forests, from recreation andspectacular vistas to clean water and air.Forests can also help reduce greenhousegas emissions. And though few makethe connection between forests and the2x4s they buy at the hardware store,wood remains the most environmentallyfriendly available building material onthe planet – non-renewable resourceslike steel and concrete require far moreenergy to produce and releasegreenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The environmental disconnectModern conveniences tend to sever ourties to the land that feeds and sheltersus. They distance us from how naturalresources become homes, dinner tablesand things we use every day.

More than 90 percent of Californiansnow live in urban or suburbanenvironments where highways and masstransit are the norm, not complexecosystems. That disconnect can dogreat harm. Not only to California’sforests and families whose livelihoodsdepend onworking theland, but alsobeyond ourborders wheretrees are beingharvestedaggressively tomeet the wooddemandCalifornianscreate.

California has drastically reducedharvesting in the state, but Californianscontinue to consume wood at literallyworld-record levels. As a result,California now imports about 75percent of the wood used in the statefrom places where Californians have nosay on environmental practices.

While California transfers environ-mental responsibility for its woodconsumption beyond state borders,less than one-third of new growth inCalifornia’s forests is harvested. Newgrowth, in fact, has exceeded harvest inCalifornia for decades – a report for theUSDA Forest Service Pacific NorthwestResearch Station found that growthexceeds harvest on California’s nationalforests by a ratio of almost six to one;thus the overcrowded conditions thatnow plague our government-ownedforests and fuel the wildfire crisis.

As California grows – the state’spopulation is forecast by the U.S. CensusBureau to reach 46.4 million by 2030 –more and more demands will be placedon California’s forests. New Californians

Managing forests helps ensure they standtall for generations and meet the needs of agrowing population.

Logs being off-loaded in Humboldt Bay.California, a state with more than 30 million acresof forest, now imports about 75 percent of thewood it consumes, according to CDF-FRAP.

34

will expect abundant clean water andample recreation opportunities thatcurrent Californians have. They will wantto build homes for their families too.

Fortunately, California is recognized asa world leader in sustainable forestry,with some of the best educationinstitutions and technology anywhere.

California-grown wood is cultivated andharvested in accordance with the highestenvironmental standards in the world.When private forestland in California ismanaged, it is managed sustainably.

Productive forests, safer forestsBetter yet, the same managementpractices that can provide woodproducts and recreation opportunitiescan also reduce the threat of catastrophicwildfire. By reducing excess fuels andcreating growing conditions thatencourage naturally open forests to

return to California’s landscape, themonster fires that now strike withshocking regularity can once againbecome rare occurrences.

California’s history has been built onwood – fromrailroad trestlesto the rise ofmining townsand therebuilding ofSan Franciscoafter the 1906earthquake.Wood from thestate’sproductiveforests has helped make California whatit is. The state’s climate and rich soilsare perfect for growing trees. Today,harvesting trees in accordance with lawsthat require long-term sustainabilityplans can deliver myriad forest values

and ensure the survival of both forestsand the wildlife that calls forests home.

In fact, many threatened andendangered species that concern ustoday could recover more quickly if

provided thevariety of habitatsthat existedhistorically.Diverse wildlife,wood, recreation,safe communities,clean water andair are all amongthe compre-hensive benefitsof restorationforestry.

California-grown wood is cultivated and harvested in accordance with the highest environmentalstandards in the world.

Wood helped buildCalifornia. Wood is theonly entirely renewable,recyclable andbiodegradable resourcewe have. Sustainableforestry can providewood and diverseforested landscapes.

35

Leaving forests alone is not a sustainableapproach to managing naturalresources. People are dying in high-intensity wildfires, biodiversity issuffering, and the situation is gettingworse as an increasing population putsmore demands on forests. “Leave italone” is a simplistic ideology thatignores the fact that native people helpedcreate natural forests. Nor does itacknowledge that through inaction,people are creating dense forestconditions and fueling massive insectinfestations and catastrophic wildfires.

Restoration forestry, on the other hand,is a real-world solution for addressingthe forest health and wildfire crisisCalifornia is facing. It is a practical ratherthan ideological course of action thatuses history as a guide and science as itstool to address the problem.

Restoration forestry is a comprehensiveplan that could:

Restore natural forest conditions toCalifornia’s landscape

Reduce the threat of catastrophicwildfire

Enhance biodiversity

Protect water and air quality

Pay for itself

Encourage use of renewable resources

Save taxpayers millions of dollars

Learning from historyRestoring forests must start with theunderstanding that California’s foreststoday stand in sharp contrast to historicforests that were more open because oflightning and native American-ignitedfire. There is overwhelming evidencethat by suppressing fires for more than

How to Restore Forests

There is ample evidence that indicates recent declines in forestmanagement have had undesirable consequences for forest healthand wildlife. Yet public attitudes continue to be driven towardtotal preservation.

Today’s forests stand in sharp contrast to historic forests that were moreopen because of lightning and native American-ignited fire.

This photo shows the upper Yosemite Valley in 1899 with meadowsoccupying much of the valley floor.

This photo shows the same location in 1994 crowded withdense conifers and woody plants.

36

100 years and curtailing tree harvestingfor decades, forests have becomeincreasingly overcrowded.

Restoration forestry aims to restoreecologically and economically sustainablenative forests that resemble historicforests. Fortunately, a great deal is knownabout California’s forests beforeEuropean settlement. We know, forinstance, that those forests featured smallpatches of trees about the same age andsize. We also know that patches movedthrough a cycle of development, fromyoung to old, and the relative proportionsof each type of patch that appeared onthe landscape. In many mixed-coniferforests, for example, patches of old treeswith a thick layer of smaller trees growingunderneath covered less than 8-12percent of the landscape.

Young forest patches begin in openingswith full sunlight. They attract wildlifebecause of the lush vegetation. Middle-aged forests are characterized by anopen understory because the thickcanopy blocks sunlight. Mature and

older forests have taller, more widelyspaced trees that provide enoughsunlight for diverse understories,although gentle fires kept most of themopen. Older forests tend to have largetrees and more downed wood and snags

(dead, standing trees). As the successioncycle continues, older forests eventuallybecome new openings where youngforests renew the cycle, usually due toa fire or other disturbance such as barkbeetle infestation.

Using pre-European settlementforests as a “reference historic forest,”restoration forestry can recreate similarlandscapes with most of their originaldiversity. Such a reference historic forestis inherently sustainable and diverse.It represents thousands of years ofecological development and use bynative people, it existed during a periodwith similar variations in climate, andit is more thoroughly documented thanforests from an earlier time.

Trees must be harvestedNative people shaped their landscapeprimarily through the use ofintentionally set fire, although they alsocut trees. And while “prescribed burns”can be an effective forest-managementtechnique today, they are just one toolin a forester’s toolkit.

This photo was taken in the 1890s. The location is along the east branch of thenorth fork of the Feather River in Plumas County, California. The area had notbeen logged.

This photo was taken in 1993 at the same location as the photo at left.The ridge to the left had been logged seven years earlier, the remaininglandscape was untouched.

Middle-aged forests feature an open understoryand attract many diverse wildlife species.

37

Prescribed burns have their place inrestoration forestry, but they do not makeproductive use of forest resources, doraise air quality concerns and cannot beused safely where forests are dangerouslyovergrown. Prescribed fires can and doget out of hand and cause considerabledamage to communities that thoughtthey were safe. The Los Alamos fire of2000 was a prescribed burn that escaped.Research shows prescribed burns aremore likely to escape in California thanin any other state.

Mechanical tree harvesting also canbe an effective forest-managementtechnique. Today’s harvestingtechnology is computer driven, lighton the land, and precise. Combined witherosion control and wildlife habitatconservation strategies, mechanicalharvesting can create a range of desired

forest conditions and restore forestswhile making productive use of forestresources.

Mechanical harvesting can be used toimplement even-aged and uneven-agedforest management strategies. Even-aged management means harvestingmost of the trees of a certain age or sizefrom the landscape, leaving a fewtrees for wildlife habitat. Even-agedmanagement, sometimes called“clearcutting,” is rarely practiced onpublic lands and heavily regulated onprivate lands in California, restrictedto small patches of land. It can createopenings in dense forests and edge zonesthat allow biodiversity to flourish in away similar to how fire created openingsin historic forests.

Uneven-aged management involvesharvesting selected trees of different

ages or sizes, or small patches of trees.When individual trees are removed it iscalled single-tree selection and whensmall patches of trees are removed it iscalled group selection. Single-tree andgroup selection are the most effectiveways to restore and sustain California’spublic forests. The result is a thinnedforest that retains much of its historicalcharacter and visual aesthetics.

Most forest management includesreplanting harvested land with nativespecies acclimated to a site’s elevationand other characteristics. On privateforestlands for example, many trees arereplanted for every one harvested.

Vision comes firstRestoration forestry focuses on whatforests will look like after the land hasbeen treated, not on what vegetation isbeing removed. While densely packedsmaller trees may present the greatestfire danger, for instance, removing onlyyoung trees would ultimately result ina senior-citizen forest that would presentits own challenges. You don’t want justold, decaying trees on the landscape;they are not productive, diverse, norsustainable.

This is why the reference historic forestis so important. By understanding theforest characteristics that were presenthistorically in a region, forest managerscan return those characteristics to thelandscape. Restoration forestry simulatesthe dynamic character of historic forestsby maintaining the natural variation ofpatches of older and younger treeswithin the forest mosaic.

To get back to a natural forest landscape,trees of all ages must be harvested indifferent numbers at different times.While older forests must be part of the

Mechanical harvesting allows efficient, precise tree removal.

38

mosaic, for instance, harvesting someolder trees provides space for new, youngforests that are essential in establishinga sustainable cycle of forest succession.

Flexibility required

Under the restoration forestry umbrella,foresters must have a full set of tools attheir disposal and the flexibility tomanage each forest as site-specificcharacteristics dictate. The one-size-

fits-all regulations that govern privateforest management in California andmost public forests will likely prove toorestrictive to encourage true forestrestoration. A focus on results would bepreferred.

Different types of forests requirecustomized treatments, even though therestoration concepts are the same. Forinstance, a forester’s approach to acoastal redwood forest would be

markedly different from that of aninland mixed-conifer forest, but in eachcase, the plan would result in the typesof patches historically found on thelandscape and in similar proportion.[For more information of restoringspecific types of forests, visitwww.calforestfoundation.org.]

People have altered the natural fireregime and forest landscape. It’s upto people to restore it.

Having a vision of what a restored forest should look like when work is completed is essential before work starts.

39

Sometimes in their rush to “save” forests,people forget that wood is a renewableresource. We use wood products everyday, from lumber and furniture forhomes to newspapers, cardboard – evencamera film, cosmetics and cellophanewrap are made with wood byproducts.

Wood is the only commerciallyavailable renewable, entirely recyclableand biodegradable building material.Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder ofGreenpeace notes, “We have been ledto believe that when we use wood weare causing a bit of the forest to be lost.This is not the case. When we buy

wood we send a signal into themarketplace to plant more trees, andproduce more wood.”

We have at the same time, too muchwood standing in our forests andan increasing demand for woodproducts. Harvesting trees could playan important role in sustaining forests,enhancing biodiversity and providingthe lifestyle Americans have cometo expect. Restoration forestryacknowledges the relationship betweenforest health and the need for wood,and allows for both.

Clean energy

California’s ongoing energy crunch,goals of deriving more energy fromrenewable sources, and efforts to reducegreenhouse gas emissions in the stateto 1990 levels by 2020 highlight anotherpossible use for excess forest growth:biomass energy.

Biomass energy is produced by burningorganic material and converting theheat to electricity or even convertingthe biomass to fuel for cars. Becausetrees can be replanted, forest biomassrepresents a largely untapped source ofrenewable energy.

Utilizing biomass energy has severaladvantages, especially when seen in the

context of global climate change,greenhouse gas emissions and reducingthe wildfire threat. Burning fossil fuelsto generate energy releases tremendousamounts of carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gases into the atmosphere.Burning biomass to produce energydoes not. In fact, biomass energy hasa “net zero” carbon impact on theatmosphere.

The more energy we derive fromrenewable sources like biomass, theless need we have to burn fossil fuelsthat spew greenhouse gases into theair. Furthermore, the more excess fuelswe burn to generate electricity,the less we have to watch burn incatastrophic wildfires.

What To Do with the Excess Fuel

There is no doubt that California’s forests are plagued withexcess fuels. What remains to be seen is how those fuels aredealt with. We could simply leave it there and watch it burn, wecould remove some of it in prescribed burns or we can harvestit and put it to good use.

Wood and wood products trap greenhouse gasesfor hundreds of years.

Burning biomass material from forests canproduce clean energy, reduce the threat ofcatastrophic wildfire and reduce greenhousegas emissions.

40

Unfortunately, California does not havea robust infrastructure for generatingbiomass energy. Plus, the process ofharvesting materials from the forest –usually the smaller trees and overgrownbrush with little or no commercial value– and transporting those fuels to energyplants is expensive. Without somefinancial incentives such as long-termstewardship contracts on public forestsand tax credits to encourage private-sector investment, California is unlikelyto realize the full potential of biomassenergy as a substitute for fossil fuels.

Economic realitiesAny plan to “save” forests that does notinclude a feasible way to pay for theexpense of caring for forests has no placein meaningful forest-managementdiscussions. Fantasy solutions have novalue in the face of the very real dangersplaguing our forests.

Restoration forestry acknowledgeswhat should be obvious but is oftenoverlooked – there are significant costsinvolved with caring for forests.The technologyand trainingnecessary tomanage forests areexpensive. But thecosts can beaddressed withoutburdening taxpayers.

Because restorationforestry is apractical solution,it can improveforest health andbiodiversity, reduce the threat ofcatastrophic wildfire, provide jobs andpay for itself. Selling the excess woodand biomass that must be removed tomake forests safe again can cover thecost of restoring forests.

Putting a price on forest careExactly how much it costs to thin andcare for forests varies from place to placeand depends on both the forest-management techniques employed andsite characteristics. According to dataprimarily relating to national forestlandsin California, prescribed burning costsrange from $50 to $400 per acre.Mechanical and manual treatment costsfrequently exceed $1,000 per acre.

In the Lake Tahoe Basin, fire districtsreport average thinning costs that top$2,000 per acre. In the San BernardinoNational Forest that was devastated bybark beetle attacks, costs in some areastopped $5,000 per acre.

Some 37 million California acres facehigh, very high or extreme fire threats,and nationwide approximately 73million acres of federal land are inserious need of fuel reduction. Assuming

that mostforests willrequiremechanicalthinningbeforeprescribedburning canbe usedsafely, andassumingthatprescribedburning will

be feasible on all acresthat need treatment, the

total initial cost for treatingAmerica’s forests would be about$60 billion.

At the current rate of governmentfunding ($400 million per year from2001-2005; $492 million in 2006), it

Biomass materials must be chipped in the forest and transported to biomass power plants. Each chip vancontains enough fuel to power one home for about 250 hours.

Estimated costs for treatingthe 73 million acres of

federal land nationwide inserious need of fuel

reduction.

41

$60 BillionEstimated costof initialtreatment

$492 MillionFederal fundsallocated in 2006

$30 BillionEstimated costof maintenanceevery 15 years

would take 150 years to complete theinitial treatment. By that time, the firstforests treated could be even worse thanthey are now.

Furthermore, treated forests will haveto be maintained in order to remainsafe – at a cost of about $30 billion every15 years.

Public-private partnershipsSolving the wildfire crisis is tooexpensive to achieve with taxpayer fundsalone. A practical solution dictates thatthe private sector must be involved.

The private sector has already madeconsiderable investments in forestryscience and technology. The latest high-technology harvesting equipment cancost upwards of a million dollars permachine. While the forestry and sawmillinfrastructure in California has beendecimated in the past two decades, itremains the most viable and efficientsystem for dealing with the volume of

wood that must be removed from thelandscape.

The private sector, however, will notinvest in making forests safer if it can’taccess the land that needs to be managedand expect to make a reasonable profit.How much money would you invest inbuilding a newbiomass energyfacility, forinstance, if youcouldn’t be sureyou’d have fuelsto burn? Landuse restrictionshave alreadyreducedCalifornia’spublicforestlandharvests roughly 90 percent since thelate 1980s, and the trend of legal actionmaking public lands off-limits to forestmanagement shows no sign of abating– even though California foresters

adhere to some of the highestenvironmental standards anywhere.

Unless the trend of incessantappeals and lawsuits to block forestmanagement is reversed, and theforestry companies are givenreasonable assurances of long-term

access tolands thatmust becared for,the privatesector isunlikely tomake asignificantdifferenceinaddressingCalifornia’s

forest health and wildfire crisis. It’s timeto embrace modern forestry and makemanaging forests a priority so that weensure that we have future forests.

Reduction of Sawmills in California

Num

ber o

f Mill

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

YearSource: California Forestry Association 1990-2003 mill census data

More than half of California’s sawmills closed between 1990 and 2003.

Without a strong infrastructure, Californiamay lack the ability to sufficiently

manage its forests.

42

Multiple dividendsEngaging private forestrycompanies to help manageforestlands that pose a threatto communities would yieldmany benefits. Safety,biodiversity, greenhousegas-emission reductionsand funds to pay formuch-needed forestrestoration are chiefamong them.

While the privatesector must beengaged to do muchof the on-the-groundwork, all efforts on public landsmust remain subject to public oversightthrough the USDA Forest Service. InCalifornia, the public has the right toreview and comment on forestmanagement plans, whether public orprivate. California’s current oversightprocesses, however, are in need ofserious reform. As it is today, state andfederal regulations often impede ratherthan help effective fire-safe manage-ment on private and public lands.

California’s private-land regulations areso stringent that two separate studiesby Cal Poly State University-San LuisObispo have found they are havingunintended consequences, includingencouraging the conversion offorestland to non-forest uses such ashousing developments. Regulatory costsalso tend to make preventive thinningso expensive that some landowners,particularly with smaller parcels, are notable to treat the land effectively, which

worsens thefire problem for everyone.

On public lands, abuse of the appealsprocess costs taxpayers millions ofdollars each year. Some fuel-reductionprojects are delayed so long the foreststhey are meant to protect burn beforethey are treated. Almost every post-firerestoration plan is challenged and oftendelayed to the point where it becomesimpossible to carry out restorationactivities. Once-vibrant forests insteadbecome brush fields littered withcharred tree trunks and branches.

Focusing on sustainable forestry andpositive results should be the goalof forestry policies and regulations.Right now, those goals are absent, andpeople, wildlife and forests are sufferingas a result.

Additional savingsNot only can involving the private sectoralleviate the tax burden of paying torestore forests, it can also significantlyreduce firefighting costs. Restored forestsare far less susceptible to catastrophicwildfire than today’s overgrown forests.Restoration forestry is the key tosustaining current and future forestsand stopping the trend of escalatingfirefighting costs.

43

California’s strict forest-managementregulations are having unintendedconsequences that harm forest health.

Most Californians have no idea thatCalifornia has at least 450,000 acres ofscorched public land in need ofrestoration, or that the USDA ForestService has replanted and/or releasedseedlings from being overtoppedby brush on less than 5 percent ofCalifornia’s national forests devastatedby wildfire in 2001.

The harm in doing nothingAfter a catastrophic wildfire, doingnothing to restore the forest can be asdestructive as the fire itself. Post-firerain can lead to massive erosion andmudslides. Once the vegetation hasburned and the roots have decayed,there’s very little to hold soils on hillsides.Charred trees falling on top of each otheralso increase future fire danger.

On mixed-conifer forestlands, shrubsand hardwoods often sprout quicklyafter severe fires. They fiercely competefor nutrients and water, and choke outemerging tree seedlings. In large burns,which are common today, there oftenare insufficient living trees remainingto re-seed the area, so brush replacesthe forest.

The difference between reforestingcharred landscapes and leaving themalone to “let nature take its course” canbe as stark as night and day. Privateforestland owners generally harvest deadtrees after fires to accelerate the returnof a healthy forest and keep their landproductive. They plant native-species,mitigate erosion, and provide snags andlogs for wildlife.

But on public lands, it’s a different story.In many places where private landborders public forestland, a distinctpost-fire property line emerges withgreen trees on the private side, shrubsand charred dead trees on the other.Without reforestation, forestlandconversion to brush fields may bepermanent or delayed by a centuryor more.

Costly delaysRemoving dead trees and creatinga landscape where trees can grow isa critical first step in post-firereforestation. Timing, however,is everything.

Taxpayers alone cannot bear the cost ofrestoring forests – there is far too littlepublic money available to treat the land

Post-Fire Restoration

Forests that are destroyed by wildfire must be restored.

Following the 1992 Cleveland Fire in the Eldorado National Forest, the USDA Forest Servicereplanted some lands and left some untouched in an experimental area. Today, 15-foot talltrees stand on replanted lands (right), but brush dominates the untreated areas (below).

44

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,000

$1,000,000$1,100,000$1,200,000$1,300,000$1,400,000$1,500,000

Value in real dollarsMBF= thousands of board feet

10/2002Operations

Began

6/2002NEPA Completed

and Appealed

8/2001Fire

MBF Value

and fund replanting. The solutionlies in engaging the private sector,allowing forestry companies to sellthe dead wood they harvest to coverthe cost of planning, site preparationand reforestation.

But delays can be fatal.

According to the USDA Forest Service,delays from overanalyzing options andscientifically unfounded appeals of post-fire restoration projects cost taxpayersnearly $5 million in 2001 in the TahoeNational Forest alone. Why? Because fire-killed trees rot and lose their value quickly,usually in a year or two. Delays meanmoney that the Forest Service could earnby selling the dead trees (which, if notharvested become fuel for the next fireand prolongs forest regeneration) insteadbecomes lost revenue. Consequently,reforestation that could be self-fundinggoes largely undone.

For most of the last half-century, charredforests were harvested and replanted asa matter of course and common sense –it was considered irresponsible to wastethis resource and let the forest turn tobrush. Many forests we enjoy today, likethose east of Sacramento that surroundthe Big and Sugar Pine reservoirs, are theresult of post-fire restoration.

Today, more often than not, activistlawsuits and appeals cause delays thatmake reforestation economicallyimpossible.

Choices must be made. Is it preferableto leave hillsides blackened and bare?Should we harvest other forestlandelsewhere more aggressively, or turn tocountries with lesser environmentalstandards to make up for the wood lost?Should we stop using wood in favor ofnon-renewable materials like concrete

and steel that increasegreenhouse gas emissions andrely on fossil fuels?

Reforesting burned forestlandmakes more sense.

Formula for successWe have the science andtechnology to harvest, replantand manage forests safely andefficiently after a wildfire. Wecan harvest wood and mitigateerosion. We can renew forestswhile providing diverse wildlifehabitat and help meet agrowing demand for wood.

The recipe for restoring fire-killed forests is straightforward.After careful preparation, cutmost, but not all the dead trees,leaving sufficient habitat forspecies that do well in burnedforests. Sell the logs to sawmillsto be turned into woodproducts, and use the revenuegenerated to pay for removingthe slash left behind andreplanting the forest. Replantnative trees in a patchy mosaicso the forest develops naturally.This includes leaving enoughsnags and logs for wildlifehabitat, and returning a fewyears after planting to removecompeting brush so trees growquickly and are protectedagainst future wildfires.

It will take several decades, buta natural forest will return tothe landscape with activereforestation. The alternativeis a brush field that may, ormay not, eventually become aforest if left alone.

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

15,000

18,000

21,000

24,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

6/2002Operations

Began

11/2002NEPA Completed

and Appealed

9/2001Fire

MBF Value

The Costs of Delay in Post-FireRestoration Projects

Volume and Value At Key Post-Fire Times

MBF = thousands of board feet Value in real dollars

Volume and Value At Key Post-Fire TimesSource: USDA Forest Service

Gap Fire – The Cost of Delay

Red Star Fire – The Cost of Delay

Removing burnt trees quickly has economic and ecologicaladvantages. Delays in harvesting fire-killed trees after the Gapand Star Fires in the Tahoe National Forest resulted in $4.7million in lost revenue that could have funded restoration ofthe burned areas. They also resulted in an increased fire risk.If left on the land, dead trees eventually fall to the ground andbecome fuel for inevitable future fires.

45

Furthermore, the technology usedto carry out forest managementplans on the ground, fromsatellite imaging andmapping systems to light-touch harvestingequipment that usetrimmed branches to forma carpet for the machinery towalk on, are state-of-the-art.Even at sawmills – whereincoming logs are computer-scanned, laser-guided bladesmake the most efficient cutspossible, and virtually 100percent of each log is put touse – innovative technologyis the rule in dealing withforest resources.

An army of “ologists”While many people equate logging –the physical act of cutting trees andloading them on trucks – with forestryor forest management, logging is onlyone small part of the process. It isperhaps the most visible aspect of forestmanagement, but on private lands,for instance, no legal harvesting cantake place until wildlife biologists,hydrologists, archaeologists, fisheries

biologists, geologists and otherspecialists work with an RPF

to develop and approvecomprehensive land

management plans.

In California, it generallytakes seven years of higher

education and passing theequivalent of the attorneys’ barexam to become an RPF. Forestmanagement plansmust comply with

long-termsustainabilityobjectives andfrequently encompass a

100-year planninghorizon. All plansmust be approved by

the CaliforniaDepartment of Forestry andFire Protection and regionalwater quality control boards.

Foresters depend on a wide range ofscientific input because forests arecomplex. Maintaining biodiversity inproductive forests, for example, requiresestablishing a balance of different agetrees, shrubs and meadows on thelandscape. This creates a forest that will

support a broad range of wildlife –not just large numbers of one kind ofanimal, but many kinds of animals –while taking care to conserve clean waterand fertile soils.

Tools of the tradeForestry professionals rely onsophisticated equipment to measure

soil quality, canopy densityand forest health.Computers are pervasivefrom planning to harvest– the microchip hasreplaced Paul Bunyan’saxe in the woods.

Foresters often start bymapping a forest and

taking inventory ofthe species, ages

and sizes oftrees present.They useGlobalPositioning

Systems (GPS),

Today’s forester’s toolkitincludes densiometers, GlobalPositioning Systems, infraredsensors and plenty of high-techequipment.

Science and Technology

The science and technology applied to manage California’s forestsis among the most advanced in the world. The educationrequirements to become a Registered Professional Forester(RPF) in California are the strictest in the nation, and theenvironmental standards set by state law rival the most highlyrespected, independent sustainable-forestry certification programs.

46

Geographic Information Systems(GIS) and relational databases tocapture comprehensive informationabout geographic characteristics aswell as computer modeling softwareto help predict how a forest willrespond to fire or other events.

Foresters also use lasers and LightDetection and Ranging (LIDAR)technology in their survey and mappingefforts. In conjunction with handheldlasers, these tools help foresters collectinventory and measurement data withremarkable precision. To effectivelyscan larger land areas, foresters employremote sensors, infrared satelliteimagery, laser altimetry and other radar-like equipment.

From densiometers that measurecanopy coverage to hand-held, laser-based hypsometers that measure treeheight, diameter, volume and otherforest attributes, modern forestry hasgone high-tech.

Making the cutHarvesting technology continues toevolve with greater precision andefficiency. Some harvesting machineryactually makes about the sameimpression on the forest floor asdoes a person on a hike.

Some of the newest systems feature cabsthat look like cockpits, with joysticks,computer screens and remote controlsaws. Even in dense forests, they canremove one tree without touching thetrees next to it. Unfortunately, thesemachines are very expensive – often morethan $1 million – and harvest restrictionstend to discourage people from investingin the best equipment available.

One common piece of harvestingtechnology is called the Feller-Buncher.A Feller-Buncher uses a robotic arm togrip a tree while a circular saw cuts it atits base. The robotic arm then neatlystacks the felled tree in a pile and moveson to the next tree to be harvested.

Cut-to-length (CTL) processors are alsopopular for mechanical harvesting.CTLs fell and trim trees in one motionwith a sophisticated processor head.With a cut-to-length processor, theoperator uses onboard computers tomeasure the tree to be harvested and

adjusts its blades. CTL systems cut thetree at its base, then remove the limbsand cut the tree into desired lengths injust a few seconds.

Masticators are tools with tremendouspotential. Masticators chew-upvegetation and leave it on the forestfloor. They can convert brush and treesup to 18 inches in diameter into mulchin seconds. Masticators are gentle onthe land and the mulch they produceadd nutrients to the soil. Masticatorscan offer a safe and effective way to clearunderstory trees and heavy brush in

Modern computer-driven harvesting technology is precise and remarkably light on the land.

47

places that are too dangerous forprescribed burning. Because they don’tproduce a merchantable product,however, they are too expensive forwidespread application.

Helicopters are sometimes used inlogging efforts in hard to get places orwhere slopes are steep. Helicoptersreduce the need to build roads but area very expensive way to remove logsfrom the land.

California advantageCalifornia is a hotbed of both computertechnology innovation and world-renown forest science. The combinationbodes well as California continues tostake its claim as a global leader insustainable forestry.

Masticators and other harvesting equipment use tree limbs to create a “slash mat” to walk on, which can protect the ground and enrich soils.

48

GettingInvolved

Getting Involved

Most Californians sit on the side offorest management debates. As long asthey can buy lumber and vacation inforested mountains, all must be rightwith the world.

But staying silent on the sidelines whileour forests decay may very well meanthat vacation opportunities disappearand we become even more dependenton imported resources.

Education, priority oneEducation must be the agent of changethat saves California’s forests. There isa practical solution to minimizing thethreat of catastrophic wildfire andmaking our forests safe again – the samesolution is also the key to protecting airquality, enhancing biodiversity, ensuringclean water, and saving taxpayersmillions of dollars every year onfirefighting costs. The solution isrestoration forestry, using history as aguide to restore natural forests.

Unfortunately, mis-information is commonwhen it comes to forestmanagement. You mustbe willing to ask questionsand learn how to act inthe best interests of yourcommunity. There areavenues through whichto get involved.

How California’s forests look 10, 50 or 100 years from nowdepends on the decisions we make today.

What You Can Do To Help

It is important to distinguish between fact and fiction regarding certainmyths that may advance agendas but block ecologically sound forestmanagement. Those myths include:

Myth #1: We have to live with catastrophic wildfire. No, we don’t. Managingour forests to reduce fuel loads can make them safe again. Catastrophicwildfire was not a frequent occurrence in California’s historic forests; itneed not be frequent today.

Myth #2: Fire is natural and good. There is a world of difference betweenthe low-intensity fires that shaped California’s landscape for thousands ofyears and the mega-fires that now devastate thousands of acres at a time.Low-level fires cleared the forest floor of debris and regenerated forests.But we have suppressed natural fire for more than 100 years. Wildfires cannow feast on unnatural fuel loads, decimate wildlife, sterilize soils and eraseforests from the landscape for centuries.

Myth #3: Today’s forests are natural forests. Research and photographicevidence show that California’s modern forests are vastly different fromhistoric forests. Today’s forests are far thicker than their historic predecessors,densely packed with up to 10 times as many trees. Forests have becomedangerously overgrown, much to the detriment of wildlife and biodiversity.

Myth #4: Escalating firefighting costs are inevitable. It’s true that averagefirefighting costs have increased by more than $100 million peryear since the early 1990s, but the trend does not have to continue.Spending a fraction of what we spend on fighting fires to manageforests so there are fewer dangerous fires in the first place couldsave taxpayers millions.

Myth #5: Commercial logging denudes hillsides and killswildlife. Private forestland owners have proven that modernforest management can provide habitat for diverse wildlife andsustain forests for generations. The most productive forestlandin California is privately owned, and research confirms thatwildlife and fisheries from salmon and owls to deer and songbirdsflourish on managed lands.

The Forest Foundation supportseducation programs that bringstudents into forests andforests into classrooms.

50

The Forest Foundation makesstandards-based curriculum materialsfree to K-12 teachers and offers aninteractive forestry-simulation CD forhigh schools and colleges. Other sourcesfor information on sustainable forestryinclude the Temperate ForestFoundation (www.forestinfo.org),California Foundation for Agriculturein the Classroom (www.cfaitc.org) andthe Northern California Society ofAmerican Foresters (www.norcalsaf.org).

Be fire safeUntil our public forests have beenrestored to their natural condition, theyare likely to present certain dangers.Take responsibility for protectingyourself to the best of your ability, andget involved with community orgrassroots efforts.

Creating defensible space arounddwellings and other structures is ofparamount importance. It is neithera complete solution nor a guaranteeof safety, but clearing 100 feet ofdefensible space as required byCalifornia law gives you and yourhome the best chance of surviving acatastrophic fire. Follow all localordinances as they pertain to fire safety.

All citizens have the right to engage theirelected officials regarding forestry andland management policies. Write lettersand encourage sustainable forestry atall levels of government. You may alsocomment on private forest-managementplans as well as USDA Forest Serviceplans through public review processes.

Perhaps the easiest means for gettinginvolved in improving forest health andcommunity safety is through your localFire Safe Council. Fire Safe Councils areoften creative organizations that

promote wildfire protection andhave access to grant money tofund projects on the ground.More information about gettinginvolved with the Fire SafeCouncil program can be foundat www.firesafecouncil.org.

Ensuring future forestsThe legacy that we pass on tofuture generations will bedetermined by the actions wetake, or fail to take, to restore ourforests. California has never facedsuch a dire forest health andwildfire crisis. Millions of acresstand overcrowded, diseased andready to burn. If we embracerestoration forestry and activelycare for the resources with whichwe have been entrusted,California may never face sucha crisis again.

The choice is clear: We can abandon our forests, restrictforest management and become increasingly dependent onimported resources or we can restore forests, sustainbiologically diverse landscapes and spectacular recreationalopportunities, and manage California’s renewable resourcesto meet the demands of a growing population.

51

Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen is a distinguishedexpert on our nation’s forests. He has studiedCalifornia’s forests for more than 35 yearsand his work emphasizes the history andrestoration of North America’s native forests.He has addressed forest health, policy andfire-related issues before the United StatesCongress, on national television, withcommunity leaders throughout Californiaand with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.

Dr. Bonnicksen earned his B.S. in forestry(with minors in wildlife and rangemanagement), an M.S. in forest ecology,and a Ph.D. in forest policy, all from theUniversity of California-Berkeley. He isprofessor emeritus of forest science and aformer department head at Texas A&MUniversity. Dr. Bonnicksen is also a researchscholar in residence, California PolytechnicState University, San Luis Obispo.

Dr. Bonnicksen is visiting scholar and boardmember of The Forest Foundation in

California, and scientific advisor to theTemperate Forest Foundation in Oregon.He is cofounder of the International Societyfor Ecological Restoration and a formermember of its board of directors. He alsohas held posts as president, chair, andvice-chair of several other organizations,including the Bay Area Chapter of the SierraClub. Dr. Bonnicksen also is a U.S. Navyveteran, former U. S. National Park Serviceranger, and in 2002 received the PresidentialAward for Excellence in Public Service.

Dr. Bonnicksen has testified before U. S.House of Representatives and U.S. Senatecommittees 13 times and has given sevencongressional and secretarial briefings. Hehas served on several congressional fact-finding missions, including the Yellowstonefires of 1988 and the Southern Californiawildfires of 2003. He has served on manycongressional and state advisory committees,most recently as a member of the U.S.Senate’s California Forest EIS Review

Committee and the U.S. House ofRepresentatives’ Forest Health Science Panel,and briefed several California stategovernment committees. Dr. Bonnicksenalso drafted legislation to create a system ofnational historic forests. Congressman MikeSimpson (2nd District of Idaho) introducedthe Act (H.R. 2119) and held congressionalhearings in June 2001.

Dr. Bonnicksen has published more than100 scientific and technical papers, articles,textbook chapters, and other publications,six computer programs and four multimediaCDs. He also authored the book America’s- Ancient Forests: from the Ice Age to the Ageof Discovery (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Copyright 2000). The book documents the18,000 year history of North America’s nativeforests. It includes the role of NativeAmericans in the development of theseforests, and descriptions by explorerswho saw them first.

About the Author

Restoration forestry is a specialization withinthe forestry profession. Its roots go back tofour scientists who had the foresight to seethat people can play a constructive role inrestoring and sustaining historic forests.

It began with Aldo Leopold who advocatedconstructing samples of Wisconsin’s historicforests in the University of WisconsinArboretum to show people what they hadbefore farming, urbanization, and otherresource uses took their toll. In hisdedication speech for the Arboretum onJune 17, 1934, Aldo Leopold said, “The timehas come for science to busy itself with theearth itself. The first step is to reconstructa sample of what we had to start with.”

Aldo Leopold’s son, the late Dr. A. StarkerLeopold, a University of California-Berkeleyprofessor, expanded the concept of restorationby recognizing that Native Americans playedan important role in creating and maintaininghistoric forests.

As chair of the Committee on WildlifeManagement in the National Parks (theLeopold Committee), Dr. Leopold also usedrestoration to clarify the goal of nationalparks. In 1963, the committee recommendedthat, “the goal of managing the national parksand monuments should be to preserve, orwhere necessary to recreate, the ecologic [sic]scene as viewed by the first European visitors.”A National Academy of Sciences AdvisoryCommittee supported this goal.

In 1965, the late Dr. Edward C. Stone, alsoa University of California-Berkeley professor,published a paper in Science that advocatedtraining restoration professionals to carryout the recommendations of the LeopoldCommittee. About that time, the late Dr.Harold H. Biswell, a close colleague of Dr.Leopold and Dr. Stone at Berkeley, led themovement to restore fire to its historic rolein native forests.

Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen studied underDrs. Leopold, Stone and Biswell, and laterworked with them conducting research andteaching about the history and restorationof historic native forests. Dr. Bonnicksennamed the field “restoration forestry.”

Acknowledgements

52

www.calforestfoundation.org

1-866-241-TREE (8733)

S h a r i n g K n o w l e d g e

a b o u t F o r e s t s

© The Forest Foundation 2008.

The ForestFoundation

Printing made possible with agenerous donation from the

Allstate Foundation.