Flying Finns
How much industry is needed?
Of all the questions confronting restoration forestry’s proponents this one is the most difficult to answer. Dozens of manufacturing scenarios are possible but no one seems to know for sure which ones might win public favor.
 Rick and Deb Smith log in northwest Montana. Most of the West’s logging companies are generations-old familyowned businesses. |
Will taxpayers be willing to permanently subsidize undercapitalized businesses that have little or no hope of ever making it on their own or would some combination of larger more commercially viable ventures be preferred in the long run?
And how about logging? How much of it will the public endure in the name of forest restoration? Will we just nibble around the edges of the problem, not really doing much for forests but making a good political show of it? Or might we reduce tree density more dramatically, allowing forests to gradually complete their own recovery?
And once the thinning work is completed—perhaps 50 years hence—will the public continue to support the industry’s presence or will it side with those who say forest density can then be controlled by controlled burning?
Like unaligned squares in a Rubic’s cube, the amount of industry needed cannot be determined until the public’s perceived support for restoration forestry is well defined.
Several respected forest ecologists, among them Dr. Wallace Covington of Northern Arizona University, favor recreating the full range of natural disturbance patterns that were prominent in the Southwest before European settlement began. Some scientists say such an ambitious and costly undertaking would require removal of perhaps half the trees currently growing in some southwestern forests. But other restoration proponents say they doubt people who have grown comfortable with the look of forests will support the appearance-altering removal of so many trees on such a large scale. Still others frankly doubt that our increasingly health-conscious society would tolerate the great volume of smoke that would be generated by the post-thinning prescribed fire-only program some ecologists favor as a way of sustaining forests that would by then approximate pre-settlement conditions.
Although the finer points of the thinning and prescribed fire discussion will be debated for some time to come, one thing is clear. Most people living in the Southwest expect the federal government to do whatever is necessary to prevent the fiery loss of what remains of their rich forest legacy.
Equally clear is the fact that the time-honored relationship between the federal government and the timber industry will undergo profound change as restoration forestry comes into its own. Fee for service contractors— including former loggers who now specialize in thinning dense forests to concise Forest Service standards —are replacing sawmilling companies that for decades could be counted on to pay sky-high prices for federal timber even when lumber markets were at rock bottom. As with all professionals, their fees will vary as a function of operating costs and the difficulty of the job. The loser in this transition is the federal treasury, which will never again see the huge sums of money it took in year after year auctioning national forest timber to the highest bidder. But restoration forestry can pay for itself without subsidy if a stable political climate can be established and maintained. Private capital will then flow toward harvesting and milling businesses that have the best chance of success in brutally competitive global wood fiber markets.
Perspective on the possible size and shape of the region’s new forest products industry is contained in a meticulously researched report written in late 2001 by Dr. Debra Larson, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northern Arizona University. [“The Suitability of Various Markets for Using Small Diameter Ponderosa Pine to Sustain Forest Health and Fire-Risk Reduction Programs In Northern Arizona”] She estimates that thinning Flagstaff’s 94,000-acre urban interface would yield between 24,816 to 99,828 truckloads of small diameter logs, depending on the number of trees removed.
But across all of northern Arizona nearly ten times as many acres are said to need treatment. Assuming public acceptance, Dr. Larson estimates that the ongoing fiber supply would support a pulp mill, a roundwood merchandizing operation designed to service smaller niche markets, and a nonstructural panel operation—perhaps a particleboard, medium density fiberboard or oriented strand board plant.
The unanswered question is whether the public will support the presence of such an imposing woodprocessing complex. “I hope so,” says EECO’s Dr. Moore. “Minus a diverse combination of facilities capable of processing and marketing large amounts of fiber of varying quality forest restoration on a meaningful scale will be virtually impossible with government subsidies.”
Although House and Senate leaders from Arizona and New Mexico have done remarkably well in their bipartisan effort to channel federal funding into collaborative forestry projects in the Southwest, there is concern they won’t be able to do much more, especially now that billions in taxpayer dollars are being redirected to homeland security.
“Uncle Sam is not going to pick up the tab for this grand experiment forever,” declares Ron Christiansen, Chairman of the Gila County Board of Supervisors and an EECO board member. “We have a three or four-year window of opportunity in which to turn forest restoration into a paying proposition. Fortunately, we’re not far apart from environmentalists who see the same problems, risks and opportunities we see.”
Even under the best of circumstances, solving forestry’s Rubic’s Cube will not be easy or inexpensive.
human need to use natural resources is fundamental to our continued presence on earth."