SUPRESSING ACADEMIC FREEDOM?

An Inferno Rages Over Federal Wildfire Policy

By Jane Shaw, 5-10-06

By Alison Berry and Jane S. Shaw

The politics of academic research are said to be more vicious than normal citizen politics—and even citizen politics are bitter these days. The two recently intertwined against a backdrop of the nation’s policy on wildfire, and the result is a deeply tangled underbrush of confusion and self-interest that accentuates the continuing paralysis of the U.S. Forest Service.

The fundamental issue is how to keep our western forests in decent condition. Federal lands produce very little timber these days (about six percent of the nation’s timber). With hardly anyone cutting down trees (and with buildup due to past fire suppression), saplings and underbrush are creating thickets of fuel that turn into tinderboxes. The result, nearly every summer, is fires racing over hundreds of thousands of acres.

To stop future fires, the Bush Administration initiated the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, a law passed in 2003 that was supposed to reduce the buildup by short-circuiting the ability of environmentalists to litigate decisions to cut trees. It’s not clear that it really speeds much up (for reasons we don’t have room for here). But in addition, it doesn’t specifically address what happens after a fire.

Now we move to the Biscuit fire in southwestern Oregon, where, in 2002, wildfire swept across 500,000 acres. Once the flames went out, the Forest Service got to work on a plan for post-fire restoration, including salvage logging. Although only about five percent of the burned area was initially scheduled for logging, the final plan ended up being the largest timber sale in the area in recent history. Opponents have resisted at every step, through the appeals process, court cases, protests, sit-ins, and road blocks. Logging on the Biscuit “will cause devastating impacts to streams and the clear water that salmon and steelhead depend upon,” says the Sierra Club on its Web site.

Some opponents oppose just parts of the salvage plan, such as logging in roadless areas or old-growth reserves. Others oppose any post-fire logging on the grounds that the forest should regenerate naturally. Due to both opposition and agency planning requirements, two years passed before any salvage logging occurred on the Biscuit fire.

Then academic politics kicked in. Daniel Donato, a student seeking a master’s degree at Oregon State University, began studying the impact of logging on the regeneration of the forest after the Biscuit fire under the tutelage of Bev Law, associate professor of forest science. In early 2006, his group’s study was published in the prestigious journal Science.

Donato et al. compared seedling counts and fuel loads on the Biscuit fire before and after salvage logging. Their pre-logging data—collected two years after the fire—showed that natural regeneration had been abundant. But after salvage logging, the group found a 71 percent reduction in regeneration—that is, logging had destroyed 71 percent of the seedlings that had sprouted. In addition, fuel loads increased significantly due to logging slash left behind. The researchers concluded that salvage logging “can be counter-productive to goals of forest regeneration and fuel reduction.” The headline: “Post-Wildfire Logging Hinders Regeneration and Increases Fire Risk.”

The study was first published in the online edition, Science Express, and later in the printed magazine (January 20, 2006). For a second-year graduate student to publish a paper in the nation’s leading scientific journal is impressive—but when it contradicts previous research by a group of more senior Oregon State University faculty, it can have painful consequences. Nine faculty members of the Oregon State University College of Forestry, led by John Sessions, professor of forest engineering at OSU, claimed that Science had been slipshod with its peer review process, that Donato et al. were politically motivated, and that the team’s conclusions went far beyond the findings. Specifically (according to a followup article in Science), they said that the paper failed to discuss soil moisture.

These objections, in turn, raised issues of censorship and academic freedom at OSU. The dean of the college of forestry first sided with the professors but then, when cries of censorship were heard, backed off and emphasized academic freedom.

National politics weighed in. The charge of political motivation by Sessions had stemmed from the fact that Donato et al. cited a press release about a congressional bill (H.R. 4200) designed to facilitate post-fire logging—a bill whose rationale the study tended to undermine. (This reference was removed when the paper was actually printed and, according to an environmental newsletter, Donald Kennedy, the editor of Science, conceded that including it had been inappropriate.)

One of the sponsors of H.R. 4200 Brian Baird (D-Washington) was furious. His subcommittee put together a field hearing in which he criticized Donato, and Baird prepared a 10-page criticism of the Donato et al. study (available on his Web site). Baird is the former chairman of the psychology department at Pacific Lutheran University, so he has academic credentials, but it could be difficult to know what hat he is wearing at any one time. When he asked Donato’s group for the data supporting the study, initially the researchers refused, perhaps interpreting the request as government interference.

Such interference occurs against a background of highly vocal suspicion that the Bush administration is politicizing science—but Baird is a Democrat. In his Web-site comment, Baird says, “I have repeatedly spoken out and written against efforts of the Bush administration or any other for that matter, to limit scientific independence or interfere with the peer review process. . . .But scientific integrity is a two way street!” He contends that the Donato et al. data were not presented “fully and accurately” and the limitations of the study not clarified. Since the February hearing, Baird has felt the sting of hostility from environmental groups that formerly supported him.

Soon after the article appeared, the news surfaced that the Donato group had failed to inform the government about the paper. Since it was federally funded, this was a violation of procedure and the Bureau of Land Management briefly held up funds to complete the study.

What Now? So we have a university college in turmoil, a bill moving through the House, and professionals outraged and embarrassed. Does this dustup advance our knowledge about the core issue, whether there should be more or less logging after a fire?

Viewed dispassionately, the Donato et al. study does appear to have some flaws, as outlined by Baird. (The Sessions-led criticism has yet to be published.) For example, in measuring the difference between pre- and post-logging seedling counts, they did not account for a natural loss of seedlings that was observed in unlogged areas. Young seedlings compete for light, water, and nutrients, so even in the absence of logging, some die off in their early years. Yet the study is consistent with previous research that indicates ecological damage can result from salvage logging after a fire, especially in sensitive areas such as steep slopes or riparian areas.

A balanced interpretation of the studies is that if salvage logging is to be done, it should be done speedily. In two years, fire-killed trees can lose more than 40 percent of their value, and replanting costs escalate due to competition from other vegetation. Four years after a fire, the costs of logging and replanting probably outweigh the value of any remaining timber—according to a paper by OSU’s John Sessions and others.

Thus, whether there should be post-fire logging depends on the goals of the forest managers. If profit is a goal, salvaging timber—quickly—makes sense. On private timber lands, salvage logging typically occurs right after a fire, before seedlings have sprouted and before decay sets in. Logged areas are soon replanted to begin a new crop of trees.

But on public land, earning revenues arouses scant interest, and prompt action is virtually impossible. In fact, the Forest Service’s latest decision on Biscuit is puzzling. In February the agency announced that it will offer salvage sales from roadless areas burned in the fire. This requires expensive helicopter logging—and it is already four years after the fire. The announcement violates the few things we have learned from this brouhaha: Decisions about salvage logging should be site-specific, timely, and appropriate to the goals of the organization making the decision.

Are such decisions possible? Not on public lands and not in the near future. The bill being debated in the House Resources Committee may pass, but it will be another dubious victory for those who favor more logging. It might speed up Forest Service decision-making after fires, but it does not give genuine power to forest managers, who will face the familiar delays of extensive public comment and litigation.

To promote truly efficient forestry, U.S. land management policy needs an overhaul. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth has said as much by referring to his agency’s “analysis paralysis.” Another bill entangled with politicized science won’t solve that problem.

Alison Berry is a research fellow and Jane S. Shaw is a senior fellow with PERC, the Property and Environment Research Center in Bozeman.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.