{
  "id": "98-917",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "98-917",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 105274,
      "date": "1998-11-06",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:49:03.008941",
      "title": "Clearcutting in the National Forests: Background and Overview",
      "summary": "Clearcutting is a method of harvesting and regenerating trees in which all trees are cleared from\na\nsite and a new, even-aged stand of trees is grown. Clearcutting is the primary method of timber\nproduction and management in the national forests. However, this method of harvesting trees has\nbeen controversial since at least the 1960s. Many environmental and citizen groups object to\nclearcutting in the national forests, citing soil and water degradation, unsightly landscapes, and other\ndamages. The wood products industry argues that clearcutting is an efficient and successful\nsilvicultural system.\n  Between 1984 and 1997, clearcutting accounted for 59% of the area harvested for regeneration\nin the national forests. (This excludes salvage, thinning, and other harvesting not intended to\nestablish new stands.) Other \"even-aged\" cutting systems (which result in areas that appear similar\nto clearcut areas) accounted for another 28% of the area harvested. Because of the continuing public\noutcry over clearcutting, the Chief of the Forest Service announced on June 4, 1992, that the Forest\nService would reduce clearcutting by 70% from 1988 levels, and that this would reduce short-term\nharvest volumes by about 10%. Data show that half of the proposed reduction in acres clearcut had\nalready been accomplished by 1991, but the total harvest volume declined proportionally (because\nof the economic recession, litigation to protect spotted owls, and a variety of other factors). Acres\nclearcut annually over the past 5 years (FY1993-FY1997) were 71% less than the FY1988 level,\nfulfilling the promised reduction. However, average annual harvests were 66% below the FY1988\nlevel, much more than the projected 10% decline.\n  The choice of clearcutting or other silvicultural systems depends on a number of factors. \nClearcutting is efficient, with lower costs for timber harvesting than other silvicultural systems, and\nhas proven successful for regenerating stands of certain tree species. On the other hand, clearcutting\nand other even-aged systems often have greater impacts on soil, water, and aesthetics, and result in\ndifferent plant and animal communities than do selection harvesting systems. Foresters argue that\nclearcutting is a legitimate forest silvicultural system under certain circumstances, and should be\nused when and where appropriate for particular species and specific site conditions, and on public\nlands when it also conforms with the public's values and goals for those lands.\n  Interest in clearcutting has increased in the past few Congresses. Several bills have been\nintroduced in the 105th and preceding Congresses to ban clearcutting (or all even-aged management\nsystems) in the national forests. If Congress were to enact specific management restrictions, such\nas a ban on clearcutting in federal forests, the professional flexibility and discretion of federal\nemployees managing the lands entrusted to their stewardship would be reduced substantially. If,\nhowever, public tolerance continues to be eroded by the use of clearcutting or other even-aged silvi-\ncultural systems where they are unacceptable to the public and by recurring environ-mental damage\nfrom clearcutting, pressure for congressional intervention will likely increase. This report will not\nbe updated.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/98-917",
          "sha1": "71bf6cbc8b763b0f4c6248479bdf2375e3e0af20",
          "filename": "files/19981106_98-917_71bf6cbc8b763b0f4c6248479bdf2375e3e0af20.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19981106_98-917_71bf6cbc8b763b0f4c6248479bdf2375e3e0af20.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Energy Policy"
  ]
}