Document text
Click Here 49 °F Forecast | Road Cams Tuesday, February 3, 2004 Today's News | Classifieds | Autos | Homes | Jobs | Tempo | Health | Community | Home Delivery SECTIONS Home Page Local News Sports Business Obituaries Life Opinion - Politics AP News Weather Classified Archives Site Map EXTRA Newspaper in Education Personals Movie Times TV Times E The People CLASSIFIEDS Find a Car Find a Home Find a Job Find a Rental Place an ad eSouthernOregon Automotive Communities Entertainment Publications Recreation Calendar CUSTOMER SERVICE Frequent Questions Advertising Information Home Delivery Employment Contact Us Media Kit Network Affiliate Email Story to a Friend October 15, 2003 Study: Timber-salvage returns don’t compute By PAUL FATTIG Mail Tribune A massive timber-salvage project on last year’s half-million-acre Biscuit fire likely would cost taxpayers more than would be gained economically, according to a study by ECONorthwest in Eugene. The economic study was in response to research released last summer by several Oregon State University professors suggesting up to 1.5 billion board feet of timber could be salvaged from the fire, which burned largely in the Siskiyou National Forest. The study, along with ecological findings contained in a report by the Corvallis-based Conservation Biology Institute, were presented to Siskiyou National Forest officials Tuesday afternoon. Both requested by the World Wildlife Fund, the studies warned of substantial risks in a large salvage project. Advertisement The reports don’t argue against all salvage, only that any salvage should be economically and ecologically sound, said economist Ernie Niemi, vice president of ECONorthwest. "Whenever there is a hurricane, forest fire or whatever, people think the laws of economics are suspended," Niemi said. "At the extreme, it’s almost as though there are diamonds out there and all you have to do is pick them up. "They seem to forget that logging is a very expensive, very risky, very dangerous enterprise — economically, physically and ecologically." The cost of the enterprise increases the farther the trees are from established roads, he said. "We know that, almost certainly, there is a patch of timber out there where the benefits of cutting it will outweigh the costs," Niemi said. "It’s easy to get to, didn’t get burned very much, has high value. "When you first go out there, it’s easy to get the logs near roads," he said. "Eventually you have to get a helicopter to reach farther out. The cost goes up as you go farther and farther out." In the last five years, timber sales in the Siskiyou sold basically at cost, Niemi said, noting that includes the cost of about $400 per thousand board feet. "They just covered their costs," he said. "But people need to understand this (fire-killed) timber will be less valuable now that it has been burned, and that value decreases over time." In the first year after a fire, the value usually drops about 25 percent, he said. "Now, instead of being $400 for $400, the cost will be $400 in costs for $300 in revenue," he said. The value will further drop to 40 percent in the second year, he said. "It looks like a big economic gap to me," he said. "I don’t know the exact numbers, or the exact places on the land where they would log, but the economic hurdle the Forest Service has to get over is very high for it to come to the taxpayers and say, ‘This is a good deal.’ ’’ The study by the Conservation Biology Institute also concluded that the Forest Service should step lightly in the burned area. "There is no scientific justification to say that salvage logging is a benefit ecologically," said ecologist Jim Strittholt, the institute’s president. He was referring to comments by some that salvaging a burned area is good for the environment. "How we can say the definitive answer that this would be an ecological benefit is counter to everything I could find," he said. Salvage logging is at best benign and usually damaging to the environment, he said. Strittholt also questions those who say there is scientific evidence that post-fire logging and widespread conifer plantings reduce the severity of fires. Yet the two researchers stress they are not concluding there should be no salvage logging in the Biscuit fire area. "There are degrees in which you could engage this landscape, get some economic returns, if it was deemed feasible, but it’s worth being very careful about," Strittholt said. But large-scale salvaging doesn’t make economic or ecological sense, they said. The two studies will be reviewed by the agency but they arrived too late to be incorporated in the draft environmental impact statement expected out next month, said Judy McHugh, spokeswoman for the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project. "We haven’t read the (economic) report but we do have an economic analysis as part of the DEIS," she said, noting that analysis also shows a lot of variables, depending on the amount and location of salvage operations. The draft environmental impact statement includes seven alternatives, from no salvage to the amount suggested by the OSU report. Following its release will be a 45-day public comment period, she said. Any salvage logging in the burned area, other than hazard-tree removal near roads, is not expected to begin before next year. Reach reporter Paul Fattig at 776-4496 or e-mail him at [email protected] Mail Tribune Home Local News | Sports | Business | Obituaries | Life Opinion - Politics | AP News | Archives | Site Map E Southern Oregon | Classified Copyright © 1997-2004 Mail Tribune. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions Website Feedback 3 WEEKS FREE! ADVERTISERS A D V E R T I S E R S RESOURCES Oregon Road Conditions & Cams SPECIAL SECTIONS Auto Finder Job Finder Home Finder Joy Magazine Homelife Magazine Tempo Readers' Choice Real Estate Showcase Since We Asked Food for Thought Wellness Connection Outdoor Journal Moving to Southern Oregon? Volunteer Opportunities Prime Times