Forest Regeneration- Is it our responsibility?
Submitted by Bobbi Eby on Thu, 2017-06-22 00:00
Cheryl Tijerina posted a great question that I replied to on her blog, however, I wasn't sure if I should just reply to her, or write my own blog, so I am doing both! It will be redundant, so no need to read both.
I wanted to address her question, “Should we allow nature to take its course to repair any damage without human interference, or is it our duty to repair any damage using any means possible?” I took this question to my husband, who is a silviculturist. (Silviculturists are the people who manage the trees in our forests. They attempt to control forest regeneration, composition, growth, and quality. Specially trained in identifying disease and pests, they help keep the trees on our planet healthy and growing.) This is what his answer was: Yes, it is our duty to restore forested landscapes due to our forest policy, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and our National Forest Plan (all forested lands must be regenerated in 5 yrs post disturbance). Forest restoration is required in disturbance areas that are assessable, not only because of policy, but because of pressure from the public and environmental groups. (This is the political reasons.) In the last 100 years, fire suppression has created an imbalance that makes it difficult for the forests to regenerate in a natural fire regime. Present fire activity levels are much higher from fuel build up because of years of fire suppression. To create a balance in the ecosystem, the Forest Service and other agencies are working towards repairing forests to their natural state, even if it requires mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. These efforts have shown to be successful in the last decade.
Comments
Money
There are so many stakeholders from government agencies, local communities, etc., that want to see the forests thrive. I think most of these fires have financial considerations from the people it's going to affect, as well. No one is going to want to come to your recently burned forest to camp. If we can help speed up the restoration process, then maybe the money will continue to flow into those areas. Anyway, just my two cents.
What is the real goal?
The goal is to restore forested conditions to provide ecosystem services such as fish and wildlife habitat, watershed protection, carbon sequestration, and recreational experience.
When costs are compared, stake holders are not making a profit when they are restoring forested land. Average cost for planting on FS lands in the west is averaged about $100 an acre at 12x12 up to $200 an acre at 8x8.
Then the FS has to certify it is adequately stocked by 5 years after planted (with natural regeneration too if they don’t even plant). This requires a 1 yr, 3yr, and 5yr survey post planting, which cost quite a lot of money because you have to hire crews to check the units.
Campgrounds cost Federal Agencies thousands in a managed area due to general maintenance, hazard tree removal, employee cost, toilet cleaning, etc. Cost is much higher than the income coming into these campsites.
Many places where the forests are replanted do not even have developed campsites. Dispersed camping is free. To camp in a developed campground is on average 5 dollars a night. These campgrounds are only open and accepting fees for an average of 4-6 months a year. The money generated from recreation does not even cover the cost to maintain recreation areas, let alone generate enough funds to repair a damaged forest.
With that in mind, what is the true goal of reforestation?
Agree
I think we do have a responsibility to restore forests to their natural habit to some extent, especially if our management caused them get screwed up. Some of our earlier mining and logging policies have damaged habitats in such a way that native species have moved or almost died off. The Lake Erie post in this blog is a good example and closer to us is Butte Montana. If can fix them, we should spend the miney
Not an easy answer
If our forests are in natural enough condtion, they should be able to restore themselves after a fire, and this would be the ideal way. I remember talking to a plant ecologist many years ago, who told me about one of his experiments. After a fire in the juniper-sagebrush area near Pocatello, he convinced the BLM to let him just fence off an area with no "restoration," while they were going to reseed the other areas. A year later, his plot had much more growth on it, with more native plants, than the areas they spent lots of time and money trying to restore!
If we haven't messed things up too much, nature can do a great job of restoration, and in a better way. However, because of fire suppression, human uses of land, grazing, and much more, we have impaired the ability of many areas to naturally grow back.
I think we have to find that balance. Instead of thinking that we know better than nature, we have to work with nature. The more "disturbed" an area is, the more we will have to invest in restoring it. The more natural it is, the more we should let nature do.
What To Do With It?
This question came up when we were touring in Burke Canyon, Nine Mile Creek, and Sunshine Mine on Big Creek. The question was built around the remediation and restoration of landscapes or doing nothing to maintain the historical value of the land. Restoring forests after a disturbance is a must, but restoring landscapes around mines are a little more challenging. Private landowners have to allow the EPA to remediate their lands, otherwise nothing can be done. Some land owners in the area value the history over the remediation of the land. These hurtles make it challenging. An interesting fact I learned while on the tour was that mine tailings could not be removed from the toxic site they were placed on. They can only be transported to a repository for containment and monitoring. The repository near Sunshine Mine is right next to Big Creek. It was concerning to see the mine tailings placed near the water shed. The repository on Nine Mile was placed in the 'high and dry' at the top of a mountain. The remediation and resorption practices were different here due to increased development of science and technology.The attached pictures show the work before and after remediation on Nine Mile Creek.