The above is from this OEC website. You can click on it to see the numbers better. I can’t attest to the accuracy of these numbers. They are relevant to the story at the end.
Interesting E&E News article, and I was curious about some things mentioned, perhaps readers can help out with more information?
First of all, there’s an AFRC letter that says in western Oregon:
The trouble is largely due to state-level policies that restrict access to timber on privately owned land, as well as to past damage from wildfires, the group said, citing the recent closure of three mills in western Oregon. But the federal government could help fill the gap by boosting timber harvests in national forests, the AFRC said, and make healthier forests in the process. “A logical outcome of historic Congressional investments to accelerate forest health treatments on millions of acres of at-risk Federal forests would be additional log supply to support the local infrastructure and workforces required to do the work,” said the AFRC, based in Portland, Oregon, citing the bump in federal spending through the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act that included funding for hazardous fuels reduction, fire breaks and similar forest work. “This has not occurred in the West,” the organization said. In some cases, according to the group, supplies available from federal lands have declined or flat-lined since the enactment of the two laws.
Although most logs headed to mills in the Pacific Northwest come from privately owned land, the group said, mills that closed recently in Oregon relied on timber from public lands and cited a supply shortage in their decisions to shut down.
Perhaps some Oregon readers could see if there are other reasons as well for the closures, perhaps like Pyramid Lumber?
And is that true, that supplies from federal land declined after the infusions of $ from BIL and IRA? Here’s what AFRC said in their letter.
In fact, log supply from Forest Service and BLM lands in the Pacific Northwest has remained flat or decreased since the passage of the BIL and IRA. In Western Oregon, for example, the BLM timber program for Fiscal Year 2024 has been arbitrarily reduced by more than 25% from the previous year. These cuts also represent a 25% shortfall from the timber levels directed in the BLM’s current Resource Management Plan.
I’m not inclined to study the Cut and Sold report (although I’d volunteer with the FS to give advice on, and test a more user-friendly version), so I wonder what the FS did or didn’t do? And why did the BLM reduce their timber program? I also wonder about variability and if some forests did reduce and others didn’t.
**********
Environmental groups, for instance, are pushing for a ban on most logging in old-growth forests, but the AFRC specifically cited those areas as needing a more active management approach that includes timber harvesting to make them less vulnerable to wildfire.
“No one is asking the Federal Government to ‘clearcut old growth’ to generate more timber supply,” the AFRC said, asking lawmakers to advocate for timber production with top officials at the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. “We are asking the Federal Government to responsibly manage and steward public lands.”
I didn’t actually see that (my) bolded section in the letter. Maybe others spotted that? It doesn’t make much sense to me as there is plenty of non-old-growth out there. Could be an editing faux pas.
***********************
The ongoing debate played out in Senate committee hearings last week, as Republican lawmakers pressed for increased timber production and streamlined environmental reviews that would allow Forest Service projects to move faster.
I wonder what the proposals were in detail, if there were any?
*************************
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) mentioned the opening of a new mill in Carson City, Nevada. That project, a collaboration between industry and the Forest Service, will greatly help the region find a market for wood salvaged from wildfire areas, among other uses, she said.
*************
In addition, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) and Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) reintroduced legislation — S. 3899 and H.R. 7609 — last week to let facilities generating electricity from forest biomass — such as forest thinnings — participate in the federal renewable fuel standard program. Their legislation, called the “Biomass for Transportation Fuel Act,” would also expand the program by allowing RFS credits for biomass taken off federal, as well as privately owned, lands. “Finding creative new incentives to keep this biomass off our forests’ floors is integral to the success of our state’s forest products industry and economy,” King said in a news release.
***************
I wouldn’t have thought that that would be as much of an issue in Maine. I checked on Garamendi’s district and it is in the SF bay area, so not a place as worried about excess biomass, as say, the Sierra. Anyone who knows more about this, please link more info in the comments.
***************
King and other lawmakers also warned last week about the potential effects of anti-deforestation policy by the European Union, telling U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai that the regulations as written could hurt U.S. wood product companies. The policy, due to be enforced beginning in 2025 and requiring traceability to plots of land where trees were cut, could limit market access for U.S. producers, they said.
***************
I was curious about where US exports wood products, so found the graphic above. It’s interesting to me that Enviva, who actually did have tracing to specific plots of land, just went bankrupt.
Any forest economists out there who could explain more about this?
With regard to the AFRC letter’s discussion of BLM’s O&C administration, some phrases bear closer examination. “Arbitrary reduction” suggests BLM illegally reduced… what? Sales? Awards? There is no legally binding floor on either, as far as I am aware.
And BLM’s asserted failure to reach the “timber targets” “directed” in the relevant LRMP may be lamentable, but it is unlikely to be illegal.
What caught my eye about the AFRC letter was its focus on lands other than O&C. My understanding (or perhaps misunderstanding) was that Oregon mills were disproportionately dependent (at least historically) on O&C timber.
Rich.. this might be one of those lawyer/non-lawyer communication things.. when AFRC said “arbitrary” I think perhaps they meant “without a clear explanation”, not anything illegal.
I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that there are areas of SW Oregon which are more affected by O&C than other mills. More on this today in another post.
R6 FY 21 sold volume 1,033,000 ccf
R6 FY 22 sold volume 880,000 ccf
R6 FY 23 sold volume 1,040,000 ccf
It would take a good bit more work to determine how individual Forests did.
“the federal government could help fill the gap by boosting timber harvests in national forests, the AFRC said, and make healthier forests in the process.”
I assume they are only interested in money-making log-sized trees, so we’re back to the question of whether removing log-sized trees makes a forest healthier. Which I hear there is some controversy about. (Is “healthy” the same thing as “resilient?”)
Most of the Westside Cascades forest in R6 are not frequent fire adapted forests. The vast majority of those involved support commercial harvest in plantations to move them to a more natural condition. The extent to which indigenous people used fire in these forests outside of the low elevation valley bottoms is unclear.
What ecological process does commercial harvest mimic in natural forest stands that will make them healthier that cannot be achieved through inactive management? Yes, logging for the sake of logging is something that is allowed on USFS lands in these ecosystems, but it must be balanced with the other multiple uses the forests are required to serve, including carbon storage and wildlife habitat.
Might I remind folks that the Labor Day fires were not outside of NRV. From the abstract of Reilly et al. 2022: “Although 5 of the 2020 fires were much larger than any others in the recent past and burned ~10 times the area in high-severity patches >10,000 ha, the 2020 fires were remarkably consistent with historical fires. Reports from the early 1900s, along with paleo- and dendro-ecological records, indicate similar and potentially even larger wildfires over the past millennium, many of which shared similar seasonality (late August/early September), weather conditions, and even geographic locations. Consistent with the largest historical fires, strong east winds and anomalously dry conditions drove the rapid spread of high-severity wildfire in 2020.”