September 20, 2005
Sustainable forestry, we're told, is the rising tide. On private industrial lands "certified" under the industry's standard, on public lands under "ecosystem management," we are assured that practices now in place will maintain the productivity and diversity of our forests for the future. Facing climate change in a realistic way requires us to rethink those claims.
| ||||
By virtue of soil, rainfall, and even economics, northwestern California is one of the places where sustainability ought to be easiest to achieve. The public lands that are such an important part of the region should, under current law, already be under some form of sustainable management. Vast areas, however, are only recovering from the catastrophic ecological changes--clearcuts, landslides, floods--of the last century. Some problems, such as roads, fire, and invasive species, are so great that the public agencies can only hold steady in the face of continuing decline.
Coastal NW California does seem likely to suffer the least severe impacts of climate change in California. With some exceptions, however, the national forests of NW California are drier and more fire-prone than the coastal redwood zone. Under the best current estimates, the coastal interior will see decreases in precipitation and increases in the number and severity of wildfires. We do know from the geological record that forests in the Klamath-Siskiyou can handle some divergence from past conditions--but those ice-age shifts were slower and cooled the climate.
Even in the face of significant changes, it is possible that the relatively protected wildlands of the Klamath-Siskiyou could still allow the recovery of extirpated species like the grey wolf. If we are lucky, smart, and stay focused, we may even be able to bring some of our salmon runs back. The loss of keystone species--especially salmon--could make the dream of sustainability vanish like the Ross Ice Shelf, not least because our forests' fertility is based on nutrients carried inland by salmon. Increased water temperatures and pollution, and diminished flows--all probable results of climate shift--are likely to harm salmon recovery.
In the big picture, we're on the wrong track, and getting more so. Two examples highlight the problems: the four national forests in our region face annual road maintenance costs upwards of $100 million, roughly ten times available funding. Fire-suppressed forests pose increasing risks of catastrophic fire to expanding human habitations. Climate shifts are likely to bring severe storms, droughts, and higher temperatures, exacerbating problems.
Habitat degradation and species loss are likely unavoidable. Because it is easier and cheaper to protect than to restore, every acre impaired or species extirpated will put true sustainability further out of practical reach. The bottom line, then: we can't go on like this. Achieving some measure of sustainability in the future for the values we cherish means we have to make significant changes now.
More Information About
Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)
More Articles...
TOC for Forest & River News, Summer 2005