Letter: More logging isn’t the answer for our national forests

Graphic by Lori Deaton

[Regarding “Taking the Long View: Increased Logging Will Benefit Our National Forests,” June 8, Xpress:] In Susan Fletcher’s opinion article, she tries to make the case to support the additional logging of mature and old-growth forests as recommended in the U.S. Forest Service’s updated management plans for the Pisgah and Nantahala national forests. While I understand her reason for writing the article — her family owns logging and forest-service product businesses, and their financial well-being is tied to future logging opportunities on our federally owned national forest service lands — her economic and ecological rationales for allowing additional logging are fundamentally flawed. Let me provide some data that clearly contradicts her logic.

First, the economic benefits of logging in North Carolina are relatively minor compared to the economic benefits of maintaining our forested lands — especially in the mountains of Western North Carolina. A recent academic study supported by the French Broad River Partnership [avl.mx/bph] documented that the French Broad River and its tributaries (which include major portions of the Pisgah National Forest) contribute $3.8 billion annually to the regional economy. Most of these benefits come from visitors to the region who are coming to go hiking (27.5%), whitewater rafting (23.1%), kayaking (20%) and fishing (15.9%).

Alternatively, the logging industry across the entire state of North Carolina only contributes $800 million annually [avl.mx/bpi], or only 21% of the economic value of maintaining the French Broad River watershed. Even if you consider the N.C. Forest Service’s data, which focuses on forest product development, the total annual economic benefit to the state is $3.2 billion — still significantly less than the $3.5 billion associated with just maintaining the landscape in the French Broad River watershed. The amount of tax revenue (to support local schools and roads) generated by recreational activities that rely on maintaining our forest habitats clearly dwarfs that generated by logging activities.

Ecologically, the case is even more striking. A combination of the Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition and other conservation groups have been documenting the remaining old-growth forests in the southern Blue Ridge mountains and have found that there are only 114,000 acres of old-growth forest remaining in the national forests along the southern Blue Ridge mountains. This amounts to only 4.5% of the local national forests and 1.5% of the Blue Ridge overall [avl.mx/bpj]. Increasing the area of old-growth forests available for harvesting will only further reduce the limited remaining area of these rare mountain habitats.

Furthermore, clear-cutting (to create new-growth forests), in addition to the loss of rare canopy trees and the associated habitat for a diversity of migrating and resident bird species, has been documented to cause significant erosion [avl.mx/bpk]. This is especially an issue in the mountains, where we have steep slopes and frequent intense rainfall events.

The mass loss of soils in the clear-cut areas ends up in the mountain streams and ultimately the rivers — impacting all the recreational uses that support the economic benefits discussed above. Trout habitats are especially impacted by increased sedimentation and the loss of tree canopy, which results in higher water temperatures not suitable for trout.

The loss of trees also changes the local hydrology, which can exacerbate stream erosion, alter aquatic habitats and increase downstream flooding. Rather than mature oaks consuming hundreds of gallons of water per year that is then “not available to municipalities,” the tree canopy intercepts rainfall, helping to infiltrate the water into the soils, which is released slowly to streams rather than rapidly running off and causing erosion and flooding issues. This natural process helps to reduce sedimentation and pollutant runoff and is one of the key reasons why the city of Asheville doesn’t allow any tree-cutting in its water supply watershed.

The bottom line is that Ms. Fletcher missed the mark on both the economic and ecological rationale for allowing expanded logging in the Pisgah and Nantahala national forests. We need to recognize that the U.S. Forest Service was originally set up in 1905 and its mission was to “sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of the present and future generations.” Considering the economic and environmental benefits of minimizing logging in mature and old-growth habitats in our national forests, the U.S. Forest Service should reconsider its mission and focus less on “productivity” for tree-harvesting and more on sustaining the health and diversity of our national forest lands, streams and rivers.

— Doug Baughman

Editor’s note: Baughman reports being a retired environmental scientist with over 35 years of experience in consulting.


Thanks for reading through to the end…

We share your inclination to get the whole story. For the past 25 years, Xpress has been committed to in-depth, balanced reporting about the greater Asheville area. We want everyone to have access to our stories. That’s a big part of why we've never charged for the paper or put up a paywall.

We’re pretty sure that you know journalism faces big challenges these days. Advertising no longer pays the whole cost. Media outlets around the country are asking their readers to chip in. Xpress needs help, too. We hope you’ll consider signing up to be a member of Xpress. For as little as $5 a month — the cost of a craft beer or kombucha — you can help keep local journalism strong. It only takes a moment.

About Letters
We want to hear from you! Send your letters and commentary to letters@mountainx.com

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

3 thoughts on “Letter: More logging isn’t the answer for our national forests

  1. Shultz!

    Dude, the forest service doesn’t get a say in what its mission is, it’s defined by law. If you want it’s mission adjusted, contact your congressman and tell them to get on it. They make the rules, the executive branch just carries them out.

  2. Michael Hopping

    Well said, Mr. Baughman. For those interested to see for themselves what the aftermath of local commercial clearcutting looks like on the ground, just drive out to the Shope Creek Gamelands in eastern Buncombe County. The damning evidence is visible right at the edge of the parking lot. Behold the nearly impenetrable thicket of tulip poplar saplings, invasive species, and erosion. Search in vain for the bounty of deer and grouse supposedly benefiting from the mess. Unconvinced? Take the short trail east from the lot across the creek to another young clearcut, or explore Shope Creek’s main trails and encounter older examples. You’ll recognize them by the stands of tulip poplar strangely lacking much in the way of oak, hickory, cherry, pine or other normal biodiversity.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.