The Forest Restoration Act of 2008

This seemingly innocuous title is attached to House Bill 5263 and its companion, Senate Bill 2593, both introduced in February, 2008. While the bills (hereafter called “the Restoration Act” or “the Act”) have not attracted much media attention, those of us who work on forest and restoration issues have taken notice. The Restoration Act may be a step in the right direction, as it enables the Forest Service and BLM to prioritize collaborative, science-based restoration projects at a landscape level (50,000 acre or greater).

However, it does not present a comprehensive approach to forest restoration, instead focusing almost exclusively on thinning to “fireproof” our forests. Perhaps the greatest flaw of the Restoration Act is its narrow consideration of the threats facing national forests, that is, the challenges that might necessitate “restoration.” This bill reduces those challenges to what has become an annual, sensationalist cry to defend against “catastrophic wildfire.” One would think that, given the increasing frequency and severity of storms and extreme runoff events, and the massive road-triggered landslides they cause, Congress would take note. These events and the damage they cause now run up price tags in the tens of millions per year for federal, state and local governments, while truly fixing the problems will cost billions. Reducing these impacts and costs would require us to look at the forest road system, and consider ways to “storm-proof” the system, while removing those roads that are chronic sources of trouble. The bill falls far short of such a comprehensive effort.

That said, the Restoration Act does acknowledge road problems and allows for road removal as part of restoration projects. But road removal is not a primary purpose of the bill, which will likely leave it relegated to second-class status within the agencies. The purpose of the Restoration Act is to:

“encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes through a process that--
(1) encourages ecological, economic, and social sustainability;
(2) leverages local resources with national and private resources;
(3) facilitates the reduction of wildfire management costs, including through reestablishing natural fire regimes and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire; and
(4) demonstrates the degree to which--
(A) various ecological restoration techniques--
(i) achieve ecological health objectives; and
(ii) affect wildfire activity and management costs; and
(B) the use of forest restoration byproducts can offset treatment costs while benefitting rural economies and improving forest health” (section 2; HR 5263).

Let’s take a look at how this bill is fashioned by reviewing each specific purpose.

Purpose 1: Encourage ecological, economic and social sustainability
The nomination criteria for projects that could be funded through the bill speak to ecological, economic and social sustainability.

From an ecological perspective, the plans must incorporate est available science, and they can use fire as one of several tools for restoring ecosystems — activities are not limited to logging. In addition, projects must improve or maintain water quality, fisheries and wildlife habitat and reduce the presence and introduction of noxious weeds. Road decommissioning is mentioned as a tool that can be used, however, thinning projects are emphasized as a primary objective ver all others.

Ecologically, there are two other problems: the Act disallows he use of permanent roads (which means the Forest Service is likely to use only temporary roads), and it does not adequately protect old growth or roadless areas. Temporary roads tend to have no design standards, they are not mapped, and in many instances, they are never revegetated as required by law, leaving lasting impacts on the land.

The Act calls for the creation of a scientific advisory committee, which could be beneficial, but the scope of the committee should be expanded to include other areas of ecological expertise.

On the economic side, the criteria call for 10-year projects at a landscape analysis level (not less than 50,000 acres). The Act would provide 50% of the funding, while the other 50% would come from regional FS funds or private matching funds, creating opportunities to bring new money to the agency (this is a double edged sword, as described below). The Act also calls for capturing by-products of treatments and selling them to offset costs. On the down side, it does not include adequate sideboards for biomass projects to prevent against perverse incentives.

Socially, the Act states that the plan should be developed in an open,on-exclusive manner that includes diverse stakeholders, and it focuses on creating jobs in rural communities.

Purpose 2: Leverages local resources with national and private resources
As stated above, the Restoration Act aims to stimulate financial inputs from communities. This is both commendable and problematic. It’s commendable because we cannot build a restoration economy without involving both the private and public sectors. The bill talks about incubating small businesses and investing in projects that create jobs in rural communities; these are critical investments that make sense as matches to public funding. It is problematic, however, to promote partnerships, because ultimately, national forest management should be funded by the federal government. While public-private partnerships can be beneficial, they can also change agency priorities and create opportunities for private interests to have undue influence.

Additionally, they can create perverse incentives to manage for economic instead of ecological goals. There have been both good and bad partnerships. If restoration is to be a priority for the national forests, then it should be treated as a priority in the funding arena.

Purpose 3: Facilitates the reduction of wildfire management costs, including through reestablishing natural fire regimes and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire
The Restoration Act states that an analysis of reducing wildfire costs is one criteria that will be considered when selecting projects. It is critical that the agency does not use this bill as one more justification to log, or otherwise reduce fire risk, in areas that are dependent on high-intensity, low-frequency fire. While the science committee should be screening to ensure valid ecological justifications for projects, it is not unreasonable to assume that projects with questionable ecological value will be approved over time.

In addition, and as noted, the bill does not include criteria for reducing costs from storm damage. Federal, state and private interests are losing many millions of dollars from increasingly severe and frequent pacific storms and the road failures that they cause. While landslides don’t receive the same media attention as fires, their impact to water quality, fisheries, wildlife habitat and taxpayer dollars is equally significant.

The agency can dramatically reduce such costs by investing aggressively in road removal and culvert upgrades. This bill should be changed to reflect this work as an equal priority.

Purpose 4: Demonstrates the degree to which--
(A) various ecological restoration techniques--
(i) achieve ecological health objectives; and
(ii) affect wildfire activity and management costs; and
(B) the use of forest restoration byproducts can offset treatment costs while benefitting rural economies and improving forest health.

As previously stated, this sets up a hierarchy with wildfire suppression at the top, which could reduce the agency’s capacity to engage in comprehensive watershed restoration.

One simple way to fix this would be to require that projects demonstrate the degree to which various ecological techniques affect storm damage activity and clean-up costs, similar to part 4(A)(ii).

A comprehensive watershed restoration program could provide high-wage, green-collar jobs to local communities in resource dependent areas. It could save millions, if not billions, in taxpayer dollars by preventing chronic and episodic erosion events from intense pacific storms. This is just as important as addressing growing wildfire costs and concerns.

Conclusion
It would not be very difficult to rectify the primary shortcomings in this bill, by giving equal attention and consideration to storm damage issues as they relate to roads. It is imperative that the federal government protect and restore not just the forest structure, but the entire forest ecosystem.

While this bill offers a better, and arguably broader, approach to forest health issues than those we’ve seen over the past few years, it still fails to fully address comprehensive watershed restoration. With a small number of changes, the Restoration Act could become an important tool for redirecting Forest Service management towards true restoration. Without those changes, this Act will become one more in a long line of bills that increases logging on the national forests under the guise of forest restoration. We sincerely hope it doesn’t turn out that way.