The Forest Service jumps into creating a restoration economy

I was surprised to see an op-ed in the Missoulian on Friday, January 13, "Restoratin Economy has USFS at crossroads," challenging the concept of a restoration economy from one of the very interest groups that can and is deriving its benefits. Julia Altemus of the Montana Wood Products Association begins her op-ed by talking about how things have changed in the past two decades  related both to fire and fuels management, and to the increased role of collaboration between disparate interest groups.

But she then argues against the emerging restoration economy. She is particularly concerned that restoration is becoming the overarching management framework for the Forest Service instead of simply one of many management tools. She argues that this will be bad for timber mills, especially because of an article that FS Chief Tom Tidwell recently wrote. Here's an excerpt from her op-ed:

“The October/November 2011 Journal of Forestry published an article by U.S. Forest Service Chief, Tom Tidwell, who is quoted as saying, "The time is right for a restoration economy. The Forest Service is tailoring its programs and projects to a new management environment." This was news to many in the forest products community. Up until then, restoration activities were a tool in the federal forest management toolbox. It appeared that restoration was no longer simply a tool, but was being used to create a "new management environment." For those that rely upon sawlog volume to keep mills running, this is a problem.”

To prove her point, Altemus raises a confusing set of economic issues. She argues that it makes no sense to subsidize restoration work, conveniently forgetting the history of below-cost timber sales from the national forests. She further argues that restoration doesn’t produce merchantable products, so it would make the most sense to use timber as a way to pay for restoration. Wildlands CPR has significant concerns about paying for restoration through timber receipts.

Using commercial resource extraction as the funding mechanism for restoration doesn’t make sense. Most importantly, it creates a perverse incentive that will, in all probability, result in further degradation of forest health in order to generate funds to restore forest health. In other words, such an approach is likely to continue some of the very activities that caused the degradation in the first place. It can also prevent communities from diversifying their economic opportunities – restoration can and does create new job opportunities in communities adjacent to public lands. Road reclamation, for example, provides high-wage, high-skill jobs to heavy equipment operators. While these jobs may not be located in the nearby mill, they are still incredibly valuable in small communities.

In addition, Altemus’ economic arguments completely ignore the ecosystem services benefits provided by national forests. With 66 million Americans dependent on national forests for their drinking water supplies, the agency is finally starting to rethink the commercial benefits of projects. The jury is still out on whether or not the agency will be able to secure payments for those ecosystem services, but they are working on it.

Developing a restoration framework as the overarching principle for how the Forest Service does business makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, it seems Altemus isn’t willing to look forward to understand how the wood products association can work within this framework and is, instead, trying to promote a return to sawlogs as the primary driver of Forest Service policy. It makes more sense to design restoration projects from an ecological standpoint (though what truly constitutes ecological restoration is a never-ending subject of debate), regardless of whether they are commercially profitable. When restoration projects are profitable, however, the receipts can be used to fund additional work.

I’m happy to hear that helping build a restoration sector of the economy is a priority for the Forest Service, though I, too, have concerns. However, they are more focused on what, exactly, the Forest Service considers to be restoration and how to ensure that it is truly ecologically based. The agency cannot continue to conduct forest management as usual. There just aren’t enough sawlogs left for ecologically sustainable logging, and there haven’t been for a long time. The Forest Service needs all the support they can get as they navigate difficult financial times and challenging ecological realities. Kudos to Chief Tidwell for promoting the restoration economy and for beginning to lead the agency down a new path. Let's work to create the needed political will for Congress to provide both adequate funding, and a regulatory framework that will  ensure the Forest Service can be successful.