Thin the Forests, Swell the Rural Economy
Photo: EsagorCloquet Forestry Center, Cloquet, Minnesota: Trees left of the road have been thinned four times; those on the right have never been thinned
How can the economic stimulus package improve economic conditions for rural America? A network of conservation and community development organizations in the Western United States has one idea: invest in the restoration of the nation's public forests.
Members of the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition have recommended a $5 billion investment in work that would improve the health and productivity of public forests, provide employment for forest workers who have been displaced by the decline of timbering, and reduce the cost of fighting forest fires in the future. (The current House economic stimulus legislation contains a fraction of the amount proposed by the coalition.)
These are green jobs, says Wendy Gerlitz of Sustainable Northwest, a member of Rural Voices, a coalition of 70 Western groups that works on conservation policy.
"We see a real opportunity for rural communities to rebuild a strong sector of their economy around natural resources," Gerlitz said. "And we think it's the perfect place to invest economic stimulus money."
The forest restoration initiative is a distinctly rural take on economic recovery. Large scale forests are, by definition, rural, and the rural communities that are part of these forested lands have traditionally built their wealth on trees.
Mike Stoddard re-seeds in an area of pinyon-juniper, part of revitalizing this Arizona ecosystem
Photo: Ecological Restoration Institute
The initiative would include:
"¢ Job training to teach workers forest restoration techniques.
"¢ Funding to help jump start private businesses in the forest restoration industry.
"¢ Money for federal land management agencies, primarily the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, to hire workers and businesses to restore public forests.
Beyond putting people to work right away, there are long-term economic and social benefits from investing in forest restoration, its proponents say.
First is a savings of public money that's now spent fighting forest fires. Over the past 20 years, the portion of the Forest Service's discretionary budget spent on firefighting has nearly tripled, increasing from 15 percent to 42 percent. In the 2008 budget, that cost came to $2.2 billion.
Drought and longer growing seasons have resulted in dramatic increases in the number and size of catastrophic forest fires. These aren't the healthy kinds of wildfires that renew our forests. These are the fires that destroy timber and incinerate the soil. Increasingly, these fires also threaten not just forests but buildings and homes.
The key to fighting catastrophic fires before they break out is to reduce the amount of hazardous fuels in the forest.

Smokejumper John McColgan of Fairbanks Alaska, captured this picture in Montana's Bitterroot Valley, August 6, 2000
Photo: via Imagery and Our World /thanks to John Donovan, Eugene, Oregon
"Hazardous fuels are stands of timber growing in unhealthy conditions," Gerlitz said. "They are small trees close together with lots of flammable material."
The solution is to thin these stands so they won't supercharge fires, but thinning takes a skilled workforce "“ just the kind of workers who are losing jobs in hard-strapped timber communities across the West.
Instead of fueling forest fires, the material removed through this process can heat up a new forest economy, as a resource for manufacturing wood products or as fuel to generate electricity.
"The question we need to be asking is: What do we need to do to keep the forest healthy and resilient? And then, whatever comes off the forest as a result of that work is what you use to build businesses," Gerlitz said.
There's plenty of work to be done removing hazardous fuels. The Forest Service estimates that from 50 to 90 million acres need thinning. In 2007 the service had only enough money to treat 3 million acres.
Other jobs that are part of building healthier, more productive public forests are restoring watersheds and streams, removing noxious weeds and other invasive species, maintaining roads and trails, taking inventories of timber, and upgrading public forest facilities to be more energy efficient.
Gerlitz and others are concerned that current Congressional discussions have overemphasized road repair and other infrastructure improvements rather than removal of hazardous fuels. "Working on those roads is great," Gerlitz said. "But in the long run the natural resource economy has to be broader than road construction or repair. You have to look at the whole picture, which is creating healthier forests."
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version


Comments
rural jobs and forest stewardship as the elegant solution
Well said, and I would add that these issues are so much more than rural. Healthy ecosystems, wildfire smoke's contribution to health problems, the economic and national security impacts of importing our wood products and energy, supporting wellfare economies in rural communities. These are some of our most pressing challenges as a nation and civilization. They are the underlying challenges to the sustainability of our economic and social systems. City folks and coutry folks alike need to recognize these truths and be willing to make investments that really do dividends like investing in SUSTAINABLE rural livelihoods, LOCAL and regional renewable energy development, and restoring the ecosystems upon which are the ultimate foundation of our wealth and health as a nation. Seems an elegant solution to me, and at a fraction of the cost of bank bailouts, road construction and repair, tax refunds....
Climate change benefits, too
Investing in restoring forest health, as RVCC is advocating for, also has climate change and energy benefits. Using materials that come from restoration projects for heating--known as woody biomass--reduces the need for energy generated from fossil fuels, thus reducing our carbon footprint.
Of course, biomass heating facilities need to be appropriately-scaled (i.e., facilities should be built at a scale so that they can operate on a biomass supply that can be removed sustainably from the forest over the long-term without impairing other forest values). Also, other higher-value uses of the small trees coming from fuels reduction projects should be accomodated as well.
But the above concerns can be accomodated while also creating rural jobs and businesses, improving the health of our forests, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and imported oil, and reducing our carbon footprint.
Its a win-win-win-win all around and worth investing economic stimulus funding in.
Howard Gross, Forest Guild, Santa Fe, NM