Seconding this.
When a beetle ingestion occurs, wiping out large enough areas to influence hydrological behaviour, we generally have 2 options:
If we go with option 1, the dead trees will still retain 50% of their ability to interact with the water until advanced decomposition takes place. In other words: the ability for the tree to hold water is already at less capacity and will deteriorate slowly over a significantly long period of time. Then, with some overlap between these phases, natural regeneration will begin and usually achieve what an artificially planted area will at a much slower rate.
With option 2, during the first 12 years the newly regenerated stands will have the same hydrological influence as a newly burned site - pretty much none. This is where the risk is and where you see the potential for floods, slope failures, stream sedimentation, etc.. Except by 35 years, the forest stand will have comparable hydrological influences as that of a mature stand. In a smaller period of time, we can rehab these sites back to being hydrologically productive than if we were to leave it be.
Among these reasons and others, it’s almost always better to clearcut these areas and rehabilitate them so that they are productive as fast as possible. Option 1 is usually not the best choice UNLESS forestry professionals have decided there is too much risk to the ecology of the landscape.
Previous forest (mis)management had a big influence on the amount of pine beetle destruction that occurred last decade, and now the surrounding communities are having to deal with the consequences, unfortunately. Much less of the blame is on our current harvesting of these areas, and more on what was happening in the past.