Resource Science: ESA, forest management and climate change

There are many federal environmental laws and policies. Perhaps the best known is the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that allows listing of subspecies and populations (called distinct population segments-DPS) as endangered “species.” I’ve written extensively about how subspecies and DPS are not definite scientific categories and I think their use is inappropriate for the ESA (see the References at wlj.net).

Regardless, grizzly bears in the lower 48 states are listed under the ESA as an endangered DPS, but there are efforts in Congress to delist them. The bears are thought to be numerous enough with adequate habitat to now be considered not endangered. It is important to note that the designation of a species, subspecies or DPS as endangered or not endangered is also not scientifically definite.

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is planning to rescind the “Roadless Rule” that prevented building new roads on USFS land. Eight million acres of roadless areas have burned since 2001, which is more than double the acreage burning before the Roadless Rule was made. Lack of roads hinders efforts to fight forest fires, especially in the early stages of fires. Forest management with roads also provides access to timber, other resources and recreation.

There’s a conflict between these two issues as described by Dave Willms (see the References). Roadless areas have been considered important grizzly bear habitat because there is less human conflict without roads. But rescinding the Roadless Rule could decrease the amount of roadless habitat which could undermine efforts to delist the bear from the ESA. Environmental policies get complicated with different management objectives.

Also, consider the big issue of climate change. Evidence of climate change includes decreasing Arctic sea ice that is thought to be caused by a warming climate. Climate change is hypothesized to be caused by emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) like carbon dioxide (CO2). The extent and cause of climate change are not certain, but many scientists believe that GHG is the cause of climate change. There is significant government regulation of GHG emissions.

But there is a conflict between the Roadless Rule and efforts to reduce GHG and climate change. The Roadless Rule prevents efficient firefighting that would reduce GHG emissions, and also prevents timber harvest that reduces GHG emissions by locking up CO2 in wood products. 

Forest and range fires emit large amounts of GHG, so reducing the amounts of fires should be a primary management objective for dealing with climate change. I’ve written before about how timber harvest followed by regeneration of forest trees locks up large amounts of CO2 (see the References).

My calculations indicate that about 225 tons of CO2 per acre of forest can be locked up in harvested wood products. Another 123 tons of CO2 per acre can be locked up in new tree regeneration after about 60 years. Timber harvest followed by regenerating trees can lock up about 350 tons of CO2 per acre. The amount of CO2 per acre will vary among locations, tree species and age, and other factors, but it’s clear that lots of CO2 can be locked up in harvested wood products and tree regeneration.

New data from trees I recently harvested in Montana show that 34 8-foot-long logs from 10 trees (9 lodgepole pine and 1 Douglas fir) 5” to 6” diameter at breast height weigh 1,531 pounds, which is equivalent to 1,690 lbs. of CO2. The green tops of nine of the trees weigh 118 lbs. and the CO2 in such slash can be locked up in landfills. The logs and tops together weigh 1,649 lbs. which is equivalent to 1,820 lbs. (0.91 tons) of CO2 in 10 small trees. Increasing the growth of non-harvested trees with decreased tree density following this thinning of young forest stands will lock up more CO2.

The conflicting policies of forest management, the ESA and climate change could be simplified by using just the Multiple Use Act for all management objectives. The Multiple Use Act of 1960 is a law which directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop renewable resources on national forests for multiple use and sustained yield. The Multiple Use Act includes five major uses (timber, range/grazing, water, recreation and wildlife) of national forests in one law, without prioritizing one use over another.

This indicates that other laws like the ESA should not allow wildlife to take priority over other land uses, and the Roadless Rule should not prevent timber harvest and management that reduces climate change by preventing forest fires. The Multiple Use Act should be extended to other federal lands, including Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands.

Environmental management is complicated, as reflected by the many laws and court cases in this field. Maybe it’s time to reduce the number of conflicting laws and policies and simplify management objectives with a common-sense approach. The Multiple Use Act provides a sound starting point for this effort. — Matt Cronin, WLJ columnist

(Matt Cronin is a biologist with Northwest Biology and Forestry Company LLC in Bozeman, MT, and a teaching professor at Montana State University. He may be contacted at croninm@aol.com.)