A crew member uses a tree processor to strip bark and branches from logs before being transported to a mill near Camptonville, CA. AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez
Yale School of the Environment experts discuss the potential impacts of increased logging on national forest lands, including on wildfire risks and efforts to combat climate change.
In March, the United States Agricultural Department (USDA) directed federal agencies to examine ways to increase timber production across 280 million acres of national forests and other public lands. An emergency order rolling back environmental protections on more than 112 million acres — or nearly 60% — of national forests, followed in April. At the same time, the U.S. Forest Service was ordered to increase by 25% the volume of timber being offered for logging. YSE experts Mark Ashton, senior associate dean of The Forest School and the Morris K. Jesup Professor of Silviculture and Forest Ecology, Sara Kuebbing, lecturer and research director of the Yale Applied Science Synthesis Program, and Joseph Orefice, lecturer and director of forest and agricultural operations at Yale Forests, discuss the potential impacts of these orders on ecosystem resilience, wildfire risks, and climate change mitigation.
Ashton: On federal land, loggers don’t just go and log forests. Professional foresters employed by the forest service create prescriptions and mark the trees to be cut to meet the goals laid out in National Forest Management plans — so recreation, wildlife, water, and timber are considered in combination. If done correctly, habitat diversity, water, and soil will all benefit from a timber harvest.
Given that cutting timber has been dramatically reduced and locked up in the courts by some environmental organizations that do not want to see any timber cut, it is no surprise that most forests are relatively homogeneous in age, composition, and structure. Increasing the timber cut under careful supervision will, in general terms, reduce the stocking, allowing for greater allocation of growing space to the remaining trees. It will also encourage new regenerating age classes with a more diverse tree species composition. This makes the forest less susceptible to the vagaries of the unpredictable — fire, drought, insects, and pathogens — all of which seek weakened trees that are overstocked with high fuel loads.
However, the more important question is whether the U.S. can dramatically increase logging on federal lands. The answer is not really. Twenty percent of National Forests are designated wilderness by law, and an additional 20% has been allocated to other restricted uses such as recreation and endangered species. Since the 1990s the U.S. timber industry has declined fairly dramatically from reliance on public timberlands. Most timber in the U.S. now comes from private forest lands. The infrastructure and the markets to facilitate the timber industry on public lands, particularly in the U.S. West, has been lost.
Kuebbing: At a basic level, logging reduces tree cover and leaves behind woody debris, opening the forest canopy and allowing light to reach the forest floor. This promotes the growth of new vegetation that can create habitat for species that thrive in recently disturbed or edge environments. However, species dependent on interior, mature forests may be displaced. Thus, biodiversity impacts depend on the size and timing of logging, and what ecosystems surround the area.
Soil health and water quality also hinge on logging intensity and site conditions. Large-scale logging, especially if followed by drought or heavy rainfall, can increase erosion, mudslides, and nutrient loss. Topsoil erosion can reduce forest productivity and lead to sedimentation in waterways, degrading water quality. As Mark said, sustainable practices — such as limited harvest sizes, careful timing, and erosion control — can greatly reduce these risks.
Orefice: Logging is not inherently bad or inherently good. That is something that often gets lost in the conversation. Like any other natural resource use, it can be managed very well or done very poorly. Planning is incredibly important. We have many Yale School of the Environment alumni who work for the U.S. Forest Service, and they are thoughtful and excellent land managers. Loggers, too, there are good ones and bad ones, but the majority of loggers I know, and work with, care about the land, and they want to be doing good things.
Ashton: The term logging is, as I mentioned, somewhat false in the context of the national forests — foresters, not loggers, prescribe the timber harvests. If you remove trees, you will lower the amount of carbon sequestered. This would suggest lower carbon stored and a higher emission of CO2 therefore lowering a forest’s ability to mitigate climate. However, such logic fails to acknowledge the loss of all the trees by not removing some of them from the impact of climate change, itself, that cause primary stress to the forest through increased drought and subsequent secondary stressors of the weakened trees by mortality from insects, disease, and, of course, fire. This is very much the scenario faced in the West. However, even the eastern hardwood and pine forests are overstocked and succumbing to invasive insects and diseases.
The more important question is whether the U.S. can dramatically increase logging on federal lands. The answer is not really.”
How can we create resilient forests that can withstand changes in climate and all their interacting stressors? Reducing the stocking and, therefore, the carbon stored in trees should theoretically be a lower but much more stable reservoir of stored carbon than one in which the carbon and stocking are maximized but very unstable. The secret is to have strong wood markets for the carbon in the timber that is harvested. Storing timber offsite in the form of houses, and as substitutes for more energy-intensive materials, such as steel and concrete, makes this strategy potentially more attractive.
Kuebbing: If logging increases dramatically on federal lands — especially due to weakened environmental regulations or reduced federal oversight — it will create a short-term pulse of carbon emissions. Whether that pulse is offset over time depends on whether the land returns to forest and how quickly it regenerates. Sustainable logging practices that support quick and healthy forest recovery are key in determining long-term carbon outcomes.
With informed land use planning, forest managers can toggle the total forest harvest rates to generate wood supplies that are sustainable while still protecting the overall capacity of the forested landscape to store carbon. Given the nation’s need for wood products — for rebuilding after disasters, constructing affordable housing, and more — it’s essential that forest harvesting be guided by science-based planning. With careful attention (paid) to when, where, and how we log, we can provide wood products, sustain forest carbon storage, and even enhance climate-resilient forests, ensuring our forests remain a long-term climate asset.
Kuebbing: It’s important to recognize that forest fires are not inherently “bad,” nor should they always be prevented. Indigenous peoples have stewarded forestlands since time immemorial, and cultural burning practices are a vital part of many Indigenous management systems. In contrast, mid-20th-century Western science promoted fire suppression, epitomized by Smokey Bear, which entrenched the idea that all wildfires should be prevented.
While logging may seem like it reduces fire risk by removing trees and reducing fuel loads, logging practices that focus on removing only the most valuable trees (sometimes called ‘high-grading’ or ‘creaming’) will also remove the largest, most fire-resilient trees with the tallest canopies and the thickest bark, leaving behind the shorter, thinner-barked, fire-prone trees.
To truly reduce wildfire risk, logging operations must invest in pre- and post-harvest treatments to manage fuel. That means thinning selectively, reducing slash, and actively monitoring and managing regrowth.
Orefice: There’s no way to know without talking about the specific forest and site where it will occur, the type of logging, the timing, and what’s removed. Some logging can increase the growth of the forest. Some of it can increase the general health of the trees. Logging that may reduce forest fire risk in five years could increase it in one year or vice versa.
Ashton: Creating a more open forest with large trees interspersed is a proven technique in reducing fire risk — especially when the material cut is removed offsite and the area is subsequently maintained, either by ground-story burning or thinning. This requires good access for machinery, and markets for the material removed. Such a strategy is particularly appropriate where people have built homes adjacent to forests. Areas with more remote access need to be managed more purposefully with prescribed wildfires. By doing this carefully, under favorable, more moderate climate conditions — and within areas that have natural fire boundaries — you are avoiding the inevitable uncontrolled conflagration that will occur during very dry periods after overstocked forests have succumbed to high mortality from drought, insects, and disease.
