Introduction
The 13 million acres of state park lands nationwide are
an invaluable public trust that was used by a total of 730
million people in 2001.(1) With
such a high volume of visitation, state park managers sometimes
have their hands full when it comes to maintaining healthy
ecosystems within their park borders. Forests on state park
lands can present especially daunting challenges. Large,
destructive forest fires in the West during recent years
have focused concern on fire suppression practices on government-owned
lands. President Bush’s “Healthy Forests” initiative addresses
this issue by increasing allowable forest thinning. Some
accuse the President of putting forest industry profit over
ecosystem health, but the long-term impact of this policy
has yet to be seen.
Based on the responses of state park and state forestry
officials, most states do not directly address tree removal
in state parks legislatively. Instead, the policy is set
by the state forestry service, or equivalent, and actions
are often taken at the discretion of individual state park
managers. Many state park or state forestry service policies
explicitly prohibit logging for commercial profit within
state parks. However, many states outsource tree removal
to private industry, citing lack of state resources. California
has a law that prevents commercial exploitation of natural
resources on state park lands, with certain exceptions.
New York has introduced a bill that would ban all commercial
exploitation of state park lands. Some states have legislation
that sets the tone and priorities for state park management
and some forestry policies require a management plan for
each tree removal project.
Generally, states allow tree removal from state parks if:
- The tree is a safety hazard (to park visitors, buildings,
etc.);
- The tree is infested with an insect species that threatens
forest health;
- Removal is necessary for fire suppression purposes;
or
- Removal is part of a salvage operation.
Less noted reasons for tree removal cited by state service
personnel include invasive species removal, or removals
made upon recommendation by the state forest service.
The following summary is not a comprehensive list of all
state actions addressing logging in state parks. It highlights
various approaches to the issue by a few states. For further
information, contact the State
Environmental Resource Center.
State Actions
California
California Public Resources Code #5001.65 prohibits commercial
exploitation of state park lands. Under the code, tree removal
for profit is prohibited; however, slant, or directional
drilling for oil or gas underneath certain park lands is
allowed. The forestry department’s policy on tree removal
is that each project must be justified on an individual
basis. The parks department may remove trees in the most
cost-efficient, least-damaging manner possible, so long
as the reasons for removal are non-economic.
Minnesota
Minnesota General Law Section 86A declares that state parks
must be managed in order to “preserve, perpetuate, and interpret
natural features that existed in the area of the park prior
to settlement and other significant natural, scenic, scientific,
or historic features that are present. Management shall
seek to maintain a balance among the plant and animal life
of the park and to reestablish desirable plants and animals
that were formerly indigenous to the park area but are now
missing.” The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation reflects this mandate in
its State
Park Forest Management policy. The policy is realistic
because it recognizes that restoring certain parkland to
presettlement status is implausible. The policy requires
site-specific management goals based on the site’s history,
current use, and relative ecological importance, promotes
ecosystem-based management, and recommends forest management
techniques, including the removal of invasive tree species.
New York
AB
820 (2004) would prevent commercial exploitation of
natural resources, including trees, in state parks. The
stated justification for the bill is that, while best forestry
management practices are debatable, commercial exploitation
within these parks would be a violation of the public trust.(2)
Oregon
In 1996, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD)
had approximately 40,000 acres of undeveloped forest land
inventoried. The main purpose of the study was to assess
forest health and current stand conditions. Based on this
inventory, the properties were placed into three risk categories:
- Risk 1 – Active insect or disease infestation,
or previously infested, and now a fire risk due to heavy
fuel accumulations
- Risk 2 – Forested stand is in general area of
insect or disease infestation and at a high risk for infestation
- Risk 3 – No recent evidence of insect or disease
infestation, but treatments such as thinning would improve
the resistance of the stand to insects, disease, and fire
OPRD developed annual goals for treating a percentage of
each risk category, with Risk 1 trees or stands garnering
the highest priority. All projects involve writing a management
plan that discusses numerous topics including all of the
property’s resources, threatened and endangered species
issues, cultural resources, current stand conditions and
desired future stand conditions, project objectives, and
monitoring requirements.(4)
South Carolina
South Carolina has no law regulating logging within state
parks. However, State Park Service policy prohibits tree
removal from state parks for purely economic reasons. The
park service’s forestry management goal is to “restore and
maintain the forest environment as near as possible to traits,
which would have been experienced by the early settlers
and explorers in this state (c. 1670).” This goal is similar
to Minnesota’s, which is legislatively mandated. Much of
the timber removal within state parks is associated with
the conversion of monoculture to more natural mixed forests
appropriate to specific site conditions, such as topography
and soil type.(5) |
