The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views
Community Sourced, Shared and Supported
Thanks to Bob for these links.
Here is the website version, first published on USFS Wildfire Lessons Learned website in Fall, 2009.
Here is the longer (“more academic”) version, linked to the 2009 publication and also presented to — and discussed with — the Oregon Board of Forestry during their September 7, 2011 Board Meeting in Lakeview, Oregon.
Here is the temporarily halted (again) website, based on these articles.
Thanks to Matthew Koehler for finding this…
Here’s the link. This is the project of the “Council of Elders” of the Resource Renewal Institute here.
Here is the description of the idea:
Council of Elders
The Council of Elders, a project of the Resource Renewal Institute, is comprised of retired and active resource managers, scientists, and environmentalists. The purpose of the Council is to improve today’s resource and environmental management through the lineage of Aldo Leopold, David Brower, John Muir, and other environmental elders of the past. We believe that to address today’s global climate challenges, environmental and resource management must adhere to strict professional standards that have been eroded since their peak in the environmental gains of the 1970’s. By assembling a new council for each chosen area of study, the Council of Elders concept benefits from professional expertise gained over decades on a single environmental challenge. Utilizing retirees greatly reduces costs while protecting and stewarding America’s natural resources with the wisdom of elders.The Council of Elders aims to:
Document and improve the practices of resource and environmental management agencies
Serve as a non-partisan watchdog of American resource management
Advocate for and create increased transparency and universality of information used in political and resource management decision making
Work to unite state and federal agencies, non-profits, educational institutions, industry, and the public in responsible management of America’s natural resources
Bridge existing organizations with a membership composed of elder experts from a variety of professional fields including academia, government, and the private sector
Mentor active resource managers through regional support network of elder experts
Provide assistance to whistle-blowers
As an elder myself, interested in some of the same topics, I wonder who exactly these folks are.
Yet the document does not mention whom these people are who helped write it. The name on it is Lynn Alexander who is
Lynn M. Alexander, AICP
Lynn is an environmental planner and principal of LMA Consulting. She has worked with a wide range of federal, state and local agencies, special districts, consulting firms and non-profits. Lynn is a long-time member of the American Planning Association (APA) and a certified planner since 1992. She has served on the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) board of directors and conference committees and has coordinated several conferences and workshops. Recent projects have involved analyses of renewable and natural gas energy projects for state licensing. Lynn holds a B.A. in Environmental Studies from California State University and an M.S. in Environmental Management from the University of San Francisco. She is currently working on a second Council of Elders’ project for RRI that focuses on U.S. government subsidy reform.
RECOVERING $600 BILLION BY COLLECTING THE RENT ON OUR PUBLIC LANDS
By Lynn Alexander, for Resource Renewal InstituteIntroduction
This paper initiates Resource Renewal Institute‟s second “Council of Elders” project: Recovering $600 Billion by Collecting the Rent. The Council of Elders aims to improve today‟s resource and environmental management through the combined expertise of retired resource management professionals. The paper is organized into five sections: oil and gas, mining, grazing, water subsidies and the Public Trust.Resource Renewal Institute (RRI) believes the Council of Elders can help bring antiquated land management laws into the 21st century. The Council will examine federal land management policies and identify how governmental support of resource extraction on public land affects the Nation‟s public land resources and U.S. economic well-being.
As a group of experienced former resource management professionals, the Council of Elders has a window of opportunity to contribute our knowledge towards the goal of reforming outdated public land use laws. The articles collected here show that the historic and current practice of subsidizing the development of public resources and land is not only unbalanced, but extremely damaging to our environment and economy – and requires scrutiny.
The Issue: $600 Billion Uncollected Income from Public Land and Resources
The current U.S. fiscal policy governing the lease of public lands for resource exploitation is unsustainable, immoral and a drain on taxpayers. RRI has compiled this reader to show examples of how U.S. economic policies regarding resource management are skewed and need reform. Included is information from a variety of independent sources to illustrate how U.S. energy subsidies benefit wealthy companies and private entities rather than assisting those who need it most.
Despite a record national deficit of $1.47 trillion, our Congress continues to hand out generous subsidies and tax breaks to a wide range of favored interests. We estimate that these federal resource subsidies could amount to approximately $600 billion in federal giveaways.
Note from Sharon.. I am an elder, albeit not yet retired. What’s not a “subsidy”? What would be the basics for federal lands, above which everything else is subsidizing people’s interests? I would submit lands and law enforcement as essential.. all else is subsidizing one interest or another. Other ideas?
The subsidized would then include grazing, campgrounds, hospital water pipelines, trails, microwave towers, fuel treatments, etc. But of course, if they are from Mill Valley, there are “subsidies” for earthquake rebuilding, highways, etc. Where do we start? Where does it end? And most important of all, who gets to judge whose subsidies are simply undesirable and which are “immoral?”
The above photo is from an article sent in by Bob Berwyn here.
Note: I reposted this from Sunday, as it seems like the question “”what does it take to have reached the “restoration economy” and have we reached it?” is fundamental. Because if it happened that there was agreement on a vision of sustainable levels of harvesting to local mills (as in the Jake Kreilick piece below), there may be some places that have “too many/too large (??)” (still not clear on Montana) but we would have other areas (the Southwest, Colorado) that don’t have “enough” capacity to be at that level.
Here is an op-ed from the Missoulian. So not being a Montanan, it would be helpful if Montanans could explain why these two views sound so similar in philosophy, yet there appears to be discord.
From where I sit: People agree that:
There are too many roads
There is a need to restore riparian
But where they diverge is the below concept:
Given that Congress gives Montana $x for federal forest restoration that provide y units of restoration.
You could have y + z restoration done, and have local jobs and the associated economic benefits if some trees went to mills.
If trees don’t go to mills people will still buy and use wood, but the economic benefits will accrue to our neighbors in Canada (for the most part).
Restoration economy has USFS at crossroads
guest column by JULIA ALTEMUS |
At the same time the timber industry was collapsing in the 1990s, natural resource managers, policy makers and communities were starting to realize the social, ecological and economic sustainability of the West was increasingly threatened by declining forest health and closure of the local sawmill.
Stand-replacing wildfires of the 1990s, 2000, and 2002 were the wake-up call, promulgating a series of policy initiatives focused on the restoration of forests and the reduction of hazardous fuels. Prior to 1998, hazardous fuels reduction was not even a line item in the federal budget. Funds had never been requested. From 1998 through 2000, Congress appropriated $93 million a year for hazardous fuels reduction, which escalated to $1 billion in 2001 and $3 billion by 2005. With a 100-million-acre crisis at hand and support from Congress, timber no longer needed to pay its way out of the forest. Federal agencies changed their management focus from merchantable, large-diameter sawlog removals, to small-diameter, sub-merchantable materials.
As a response, place-based initiatives emerged uniting conservationists, labor management, local stakeholder interests and policy makers. All centered on a restoration framework and an emerging local “green” restoration economy, operating within a “zone of agreement” around social, ecological and certain economic values.
By-products of community protection and forest restoration are primarily small diameter trees and woody biomass. Existing and new cottage industries were encouraged to develop and provide for utilization of these sub-merchantable materials. The West was particularly ripe for this conversion due to a growing commitment to restore federal forests.
However, one of the greatest challenges to building a forest restoration economy was finding ways to fund restoration activities when traditional sawlog values were no longer primarily relied upon to offset costs. As a response, congress passed the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act of 2009, authorizing up to $40 million per year to be spent out of the existing Forest Service’s budget to subsidize restoration work across the country.
The October/November 2011 Journal of Forestry published an article by U.S. Forest Service Chief, Tom Tidwell, who is quoted as saying, “The time is right for a restoration economy. The Forest Service is tailoring its programs and projects to a new management environment.” This was news to many in the forest products community. Up until then, restoration activities were a tool in the federal forest management toolbox. It appeared that restoration was no longer simply a tool, but was being used to create a “new management environment.” For those that rely upon sawlog volume to keep mills running, this is a problem.
The proposed “new” forest restoration economy focuses less on ecosystem components and outputs and more on ecosystem functions, ecological processes and outcomes. When economics plays a less important role – in any economy – political and economic regimes emerge within smaller social groups and social networks. Because these political economic regimes influence and are influenced by the organization of both social and political economic capital, it lacks a standard economic value.
With the current national deficit, pumping millions of dollars into federally subsidized forest restoration activities is unlikely unless there is political will to do so. A simple solution is to broaden the scope of projects, allowing the value of the sawlogs to pay for the restoration activities. Harvesting sawlogs within the context of restoration has been controversial and unpopular with most conservation groups.
With a recent move to reduce the federal budget, as much as one third of the Forest Service’s workforce could retire, not in five years or even within the next year, but in the next two months! With the loss of so many seasoned professionals, the Forest Service will likely rely upon social groups and social networks to accomplish their mission. The Forest Service is at a crossroads; whether the new forest restoration economy is the next evolutionary step in a 100-year-old agency or forces the devolution of management to social groups, states and/or counties is uncertain.
Management of our federal forests resources, in a combination that contributes to the three interrelated and interdependent elements of sustainability – social, ecological and economic – is important and keeps us from repeating mistakes of the past. However, economics in the larger context must be equal with other social values.
Julia Altemus is executive vice-president of the Montana Wood Products Association.
Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/restoration-economy-has-usfs-at-crossroads/article_093bca28-3dfd-11e1-b200-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=story#ixzz1jYzaEGDT
And Matthew Koehler’s comment:
The following piece was written in 2005, and helps to illustrate just how forward-thinking some in the forest activist community have been regarding restoration of our public lands.
Forest Service should embrace century of restoration
By Jake Kreilick
National Forest Protection AllianceEven since I started planting trees on the Kootenai National Forest, I’ve had a keen interest in forest restoration. From 1988-92, I planted thousands of trees across dozens of clearcuts. The days were long and the work was exhausting but I valued the experience gained, not to mention the money earned. In the end, these experiences would shape my career path and influence my view of restoration.
When I started planting trees, I believed I was aiding forest recovery. However, within a few seasons I felt like an unwilling accomplice to the wholesale liquidation of massive, ancient forests and colossal roadbuilding projects that were so en vogue under the forest policies of the Reagan and first Bush administrations.
Essentially, we were replacing the rich biological diversity of this mixed conifer, cool temperate forest with an even-aged tree farm composed of the most commercially valuable species. What’s worse, we were making the forest more vulnerable to natural disturbances like insect infestations and fires.
This revelation forced me to conclude that tree planting on national forests was not being done for restoration purposes nor to improve forest health, but rather to perpetuate an ecologically destructive, money-losing federal logging program. Granted, this program allowed mills like Owens & Hurst in Eureka, who recently announced they are closing, to flourish for nearly 25 years before a combination of market forces, corporate greed and environmental concerns changed the timber industry landscape in our region.
My tree planting years fostered a deeper understanding about the many impacts logging has had on our national forests. Despite the fact that the overall cut on national forests has declined from a high of 12.6 billion board feet in 1989 to around 2 billion board feet, the logging legacy lives on in many forms.
Consider the following:
– There are 445,000 miles of roads on national forests – enough to circle the Earth 18 times – and the Forest Service faces a $10 billion road maintenance backlog.
– An estimated 50 percent of riparian areas on national forests require restoration due to impacts from logging, roadbuilding, grazing, mining and off-road vehicles.
– Less than 5 percent of America’s ancient, old-growth forests remain.
– 421 wildlife species that call national forests home are in need of protective measures provided by the Endangered Species Act.
Clearly, America’s national forests, rivers and wildlife deserve better and would benefit greatly from an ecologically-based restoration program, to say nothing of the tremendous social and economic benefits restoration activities would bring to our local workforce.
Since 2005 marks the Forest Service’s centennial, we believe there is a golden opportunity to make the focus of the next 100 years of Forest Service management the “Restoration Century.”
To this end, the National Forest Protection Alliance and our member groups have been involved with a three-year bridge-building effort between community forestry advocates and restoration workers. The goal has focused on developing agreement on an ecologically based framework for restoring our nation’s forests that’s not only good for the land, but also good for communities and workers. While it has not always been an easy process, it has resulted in us finding a surprising amount of common ground.
One of the results of this process has been the development of a set of Restoration Principles (www.asje.org/resprinc.pdf) as a national policy statement to guide sound ecological restoration. The Principles are an essential tool for stakeholders and decision-makers at all levels to develop, evaluate, critique, improve, support or reject proposed restoration projects.
Here in western Montana, NFPA, Native Forest Network, Wildlands CPR and other environmental groups have used the Restoration Principles to work in a more collaborative fashion with the Lolo National Forest. Following a series of field trips and meetings, we believe the Lolo staff is gaining a better understanding of our restoration approach and they are exploring some of our restoration ideas and proposals.
For example, we have taken numerous trips with the Forest Service, restoration workers and a Pyramid Mountain Lumber representative to the proposed Monture Creek Fuels Reduction project north of Ovando. While we remain concerned that this project removes too many trees and that mechanical harvesters will damage sensitive soils, the district ranger has agreed to let us put the Restoration Principles to work on a portion of this project.
This spring, together with Wildland Conservation Services – a local restoration company that has received a service contract from the Forest Service – we will demonstrate the viability of forest restoration approaches that will enhance ecological integrity, protect soils and reduce fuels while putting money in the pockets of some local workers.
Another exciting restoration opportunity looming on the horizon is a water quality restoration plan for Upper Lolo Creek. While the Forest Service’s assessment for Upper Lolo Creek is nearly complete they lack funding to complete the needed road and watershed restoration work to improve water quality and fish habitat. We feel this is a perfect opportunity to collaborate locally with the recently formed Lolo Watershed Group, community leaders and restoration workers to ask Montana’s congressional delegation to find money for this project.
We know that moving forward with a comprehensive restoration program for America’s national forests is going to take time and it isn’t always going to be easy. However, the National Forest Protection Alliance and our 130 member groups across the country are committed to making the “Restoration Century” a reality.
Here is a piece on the changes in income in rural communities, also some other economic statistics for rural communities from the Daily Yonder. May be relevant to the current interest in jobs in rural communities in Oregon and elsewhere.
Note 1: the text says “click on the map”; that only works on the maps on the original website.
Note 2: I don’t know if these are accurate; if you think they aren’t you can comment on the site and here, they previously corrected an error.
U.S. Census/Daily Yonder This map shows the change in median family income in rural counties between 2007 and 2010.
Nearly 7 out of 10 rural counties saw their median family incomes drop from 2007 to 2010, according to new figures from the U.S. Census.
Median income is point where half the families in the county make more than that amount and half make less. The national median family income in 2010 was $50,046. Only 120 rural counties (out of 2,036 total rural counties) had median family incomes higher than the national median.
The map above shows the change in median family (or household) income from ’07 to 2010. We picked 2007 as the starting point since that was before the recession began. (The official beginning of the recession was December 2007.)
Pink counties had median incomes that were falling. Brick red counties had the largest losses — more than $3,000. (We used constant 2010 dollars throughout this study.)
Green counties had the largest gains. Look at the large number of green counties through the Great Plains, which have benefited from oil and gas exploration and high prices for crops.
Click on the map to see a larger version. The fifty counties with the largest gains and losses in median income can be seen on the next page.
There are a number of regions where incomes have fallen by large amounts. Pockets in the West have had falling family incomes, as have New England, the Upper Midwest and the Southeast.Income change is different from income, of course. The map below shows the difference in median incomes across all 2,036 rural counties.
There are a number of regions where incomes have fallen by large amounts. Pockets in the West have had falling family incomes, as have New England, the Upper Midwest and the Southeast.
The national median family income is $50,046 a year. There are only 161 rural counties with medians at or above that number. They are in dark blue in the map above. Note that some areas with large drops in income (New England in particular) are also counties with high median incomes.
And Appalachian Kentucky has low income, but not much drop in income from ’07 to ’10.
To see a larger version of the map, click on it.
Most high-income counties were in metropolitan areas. The Census reports that metro areas contained 68 percent of those counties in the top quarter in terms of family income. Nearly 96 percent of the people living in counties in the top quarter in terms of family income lived in cities.
Buffalo County, South Dakota, had the lowest median family income in rural America, at $20,577 a year. It was followed by counties in Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama and some counties on the Texas/Mexico border.
On the op-ed… this is definitely a mea culpa on my part. I didn’t cross check Matthew’s emailed version with the original and didn’t pay close attention to the fact that Matthew had snipped. So I did find this version just now here on the forest website.
Guest Opinion by Forest Supervisor Julie King
Release Date: Dec 15, 2011
Hamilton, Montana – A fair and adequate amount of accurate information is central to a healthy discussion and reasonable decision-making process. In the Forest Service we practice this as a matter of direction under the National Environmental Policy Act when it comes to public involvement and interaction on our land management decisions. I believe it is imperative that communication lines remain open and we work together to find solutions and ways to survive the current economy and poor market conditions of our timber industry.
So it is unfortunate for us all that incomplete information in a recent article in local newspapers claimed that the Bitterroot National Forest, unlike other national forests, was not selling timber. The article went on to suggest that if national forests would sell more timber, local jobs would return, shuttered mills would re-open, and the boom days of the Bitterroot Valley would be back. While I certainly wish all our challenges were this easy to solve, I feel compelled to share some facts and information with you regarding timber sales on the Bitterroot National Forest.
First and foremost, the Forest is continuing to sell timber. In 2011, 9.6 million board feet were harvested on the Forest. Trees were cut on more than 2,000 acres sending an estimated 1,933 truckloads of logs to Montana sawmills. The Bitterroot’s largest timber project, Trapper Bunkhouse (2,700 acres) continues on the Darby Ranger District. There were eight timber projects under contract on our Forest this year.
The Bitterroot currently ranks number three among the nine national forests in Montana in total saw log volume. This despite the fact that we have less acreage available for timber as half of our Forest is dedicated to the largest expanse of continuous wilderness in the lower 48 states. Perhaps most importantly, all of our current timber projects accomplish needed reductions in hazardous fuels, address wildlife habitat needs and forest health issues. While the timber industry is a valued partner in land stewardship, our timber sales are not offered simply because a buyer desires a certain product like house logs. All timber projects must meet multiple land management objectives outlined in the Forest Plan.
Some of you may be wondering why timber is not being sold as it was in previous decades when the Bitterroot routinely produced 20 million board feet or more. One of the main reasons is that no one is buying the wood. For example, the Bitterroot National Forest recently offered two different timber sales on land that is easy to access near paved roads, and neither sale received any offers. That’s right, not one buyer or company was interested in 250 acres of timber near Lake Como or in 40 acres of already cut and stacked logs in the Sapphire Mountains. These were not isolated incidents. In 2011, the Forest brought four timber sales to the public that did not receive one bid from an interested buyer. Why is this happening? Much like the housing crisis, the answers can be found in the market.
Many of the problems occurring in the timber market today are not due to a lack of supply, but rather a lack of demand. Logs that were selling for $80 a ton during the housing boom, are worth less than $45 a ton today. This loss of demand has had a significant local impact on acres harvested. Dramatically lower timber prices have also changed the way we do business including how we prepare our contracts. In today’s market of fewer and smaller logging operations, we have tailored our contracts to be much smaller in response to feedback from potential purchasers. Poor market conditions have also forced us to use scarce taxpayer dollars to pay to remove timber to meet our Forest fuel reduction goals in areas adjacent to private property.
Here in the Bitterroot, the problem is compounded even more with the recent closure of many sawmills, including Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. in Frenchtown. Saw logs must now be hauled to the closest operational mills in Seeley Lake or St. Regis, more than doubling hauling distances and costs. Rising fuel prices have added yet another obstacle when you consider that some timber projects on our Forest are now located more than 150 miles from the nearest mill. It all adds up to the “perfect storm” and it is going to take all of us working together to find answers and solutions moving forward.
Despite all these challenges, I am still optimistic about the future of forest products and there are some promising signs that the market may be improving. The opening of a new chip processing facility in Bonner provides hope that demand for small diameter materials may be improving. Until then, we need to continue building partnerships and collaborating on projects that can keep people working in our woods. That is exactly what the Bitterroot National Forest is focusing on. This year, we completed a 250 acre, first-of-its-kind ponderosa pine plantation thinning project on the Sula Ranger District on terraced landscapes. The Swift Creek project was a partnership with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Using research, the Forest was able to develop new equipment to reduce compaction on the terraces and thin overstocked trees enhancing soil conditions. In addition to improving habitat for elk and deer forage, the project also employed local contractor Dirk Krueger and provided local jobs. The University of Montana has established research plots to monitor soil health on the terraced lands.
The Forest also applied for and received more than $2 million in Recovery Act funds to complete the Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project in 2011. Among 43 different projects supported by Recovery Act funds, the Middle East Fork project treated more than 10,000 acres in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) protecting homeowners while also providing more than 30 local jobs. The project, which began in 2005, supported four local logging companies and salvaged approximately 16.3 million board feet of timber for use in Montana sawmills and log home manufacturing. The $2.1 million contract was awarded to a Bitterroot company – R & R Conner Aviation Logging.
Recently, we announced two additional timber projects that will treat approximately 500 acres at the Lost Trail Powder Mountain Ski Area while also providing for skier safety, protecting ski area infrastructure, and improving the health and resiliency of the Forest. The thinning project near chair #4 alone is an investment of $100,000 in taxpayer dollars to protect this high value recreation area. It’s part of a $3 million project the Forest will undertake in 2012-13 to remove and salvage trees killed by the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic. These projects will employ more local people and will lead to more opportunities and jobs for companies here in the Valley. The Grasser Family, which has operated the ski area since 1967 under a special Forest Service permit, has been a partner in this project.
In 2012, the Bitterroot National Forest is planning additional timber sales in the Larry Creek and Ambrose Saddle Areas on the Stevensville Ranger District and the Lower West Fork, among others. These three sales alone, which all meet land management and stewardship objectives, are estimated at 14.6 million board feet. The big question is – will anyone be interested in buying the wood?
We live in very challenging times, and if we spend energy opposing and not communicating on these issues it will only contribute to our demise. I am open to hearing ideas or being part of meetings or forums where timber industry and supply are discussed. I am also available to meet with groups or individuals to discuss this or any other issues concerning the National Forest. Please contact me at (406) 363-7100.
Forest Supervisor Julie King has worked on the Bitterroot National Forest since 2008.
Thanks to Matthew Koehler for this submission:
The following guest column was written by the USFS Supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest. While the Tester mandated logging bill collaborators falsely give the public the impression that politicians stepping in to mandate more industrial logging of national forests is the key to economic development, the supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest offers her perspective based on economic reality.
SNIPS:
“Some of you may be wondering why timber is not being sold as it was in previous decades when the Bitterroot routinely produced 20 million board feet or more. One of the main reasons is that no one is buying the wood. For example, the Bitterroot National Forest recently offered two different timber sales on land that is easy to access near paved roads, and neither sale received any offers. These were not isolated incidents. In 2011, the forest brought four timber sales to the public that did not receive one bid from an interested buyer. Why is this happening? Much like the housing crisis, the answers can be found in the market. Many of the problems occurring in the timber market today are not due to a lack of supply, but rather a lack of demand. Logs that were selling for $80 a ton during the housing boom, are worth less than $45 a ton today. This loss of demand has had a significant local impact on acres harvested. Poor market conditions have also forced us to use scarce taxpayer dollars to pay to remove timber to meet our forest fuel reduction goals in areas adjacent to private property.”
Timber harvests just one piece of forest management
Guest column by JULIE KING | Posted: Friday, December 16, 2011
http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/timber-harvests-just-one-piece-of-forest-management/article_04e78d00-27f9-11e1-8fb2-001871e3ce6c.html
HAMILTON – A fair and adequate amount of accurate information is central to a healthy discussion and reasonable decision-making process. In the U.S. Forest Service, we practice this as a matter of direction under the National Environmental Policy Act when it comes to public involvement and interaction on our land management decisions. I believe it is imperative that communication lines remain open and we work together to find solutions and ways to survive the current economy and poor market conditions of our timber industry.
So it is unfortunate for us all that incomplete information in a recent article in local newspapers claimed that the Bitterroot National Forest, unlike other national forests, was not selling timber. The article went on to suggest that if national forests would sell more timber, local jobs would return, shuttered mills would re-open, and the boom days of the Bitterroot Valley would be back. While I certainly wish all our challenges were this easy to solve, I feel compelled to share some facts and information with you regarding timber sales on the Bitterroot National Forest.
First and foremost, the Bitterroot National Forest is continuing to sell timber. In 2011, 9.6 million board feet were harvested on the Bitterroot National Forest. Trees were cut on more than 2,000 acres, sending an estimated 1,933 truckloads of logs to Montana sawmills. The Bitterroot’s largest timber project, Trapper Bunkhouse (2,700 acres) continues on the Darby Ranger District and is our largest stewardship project in 10 years. There were eight timber projects under contract on our forest this year.
The Bitterroot currently ranks number three among the nine national forests in Montana in total saw log volume. This despite the fact that we have less acreage available for timber as half of our forest is dedicated to the largest expanse of continuous wilderness in the lower 48 states. Perhaps most importantly, all of our current timber projects accomplish needed reductions in hazardous fuels, address wildlife habitat needs and forest health issues. While the timber industry is a valued partner in land stewardship, our timber sales are not offered simply because a buyer desires a certain product like house logs. All timber projects must meet multiple land management objectives outlined in the forest plan.
Some of you may be wondering why timber is not being sold as it was in previous decades when the Bitterroot routinely produced 20 million board feet or more. One of the main reasons is that no one is buying the wood. For example, the Bitterroot National Forest recently offered two different timber sales on land that is easy to access near paved roads, and neither sale received any offers. These were not isolated incidents. In 2011, the forest brought four timber sales to the public that did not receive one bid from an interested buyer. Why is this happening? Much like the housing crisis, the answers can be found in the market.
Many of the problems occurring in the timber market today are not due to a lack of supply, but rather a lack of demand. Logs that were selling for $80 a ton during the housing boom, are worth less than $45 a ton today. This loss of demand has had a significant local impact on acres harvested. Poor market conditions have also forced us to use scarce taxpayer dollars to pay to remove timber to meet our forest fuel reduction goals in areas adjacent to private property.
Here in the Bitterroot, the problem is compounded even more with the recent closure of many sawmills. Logs must now be hauled to the closest operational mills in Seeley Lake or St. Regis, more than doubling hauling distances and costs. Rising fuel prices have added yet another obstacle when you consider that some timber projects on our forest are now located more than 150 miles from the nearest mill. It all adds up to the “perfect storm” and it is going to take all of us working together to find answers and solutions moving forward.
We live in very challenging times, and if we spend energy opposing and not communicating on these issues it will only contribute to our demise. I am open to hearing your ideas or any other issues concerning the national forest. Please contact me at (406) 363-7100.
Julie King is Forest Supervisor for the Bitterroot National Forest.
From the Douglas County News-Review
China’s effect on the U.S. timber industry is a classic story of supply and demand, with winners and losers.
U.S. home building continues to lag far below pre-recession levels. Meanwhile, millions of new homes are being built in rapidly growing China, the largest foreign customer for Oregon timber.
Demand by China has driven up timber harvests and log prices, even though the domestic market for wood products is weak.
Since most of the timber bound for overseas leaves Oregon in the form of raw logs, rather than finished wood products, China has kept loggers working and benefited timberland owners. But it’s put the squeeze on mills.
“It’s a mixed blessing. It’s had a negative effect on our milling infrastructure, but it’s a positive for our loggers and landowners,” said Bob Ragon, executive director of Roseburg-based Douglas Timber Operators, a timber advocacy group.
Until a few weeks ago, ports almost couldn’t load ships fast enough to sate China’s appetite for logs. In the first half of this year, the West Coast exported nearly 1 billion board feet of logs, mostly to China. That was a 79 percent increase over the same period in 2010, U.S. Forest Service economists found.
Oregon supplied more than half the logs, a total of 518.5 million board feet. Industry veterans say the developing Chinese market brought on record log prices, sometimes almost double normal prices.
Today, exports to China are in a lull. But industry insiders expect the hiatus to be only temporary and for demand to rise again in the spring.
“I guess that’s what happens when you do business with China. In the past, China has been known to do this, jump in and jump out,” Ragon said.
The hot-and-cold Chinese market adds a new element of uncertainty to the ailing wood products industry, which can’t afford to compete with China for logs when plywood and two-by-fours aren’t selling at home.
The volatile Chinese market has left people questioning whether China will become a dependable customer as lawmakers court the Chinese to buy American.
State Rep. Tim Freeman, R-Roseburg, went to China with a delegation of Oregon lawmakers in September and said China’s “emerging economy and boom has created a situation where they’re consuming more than they can produce.”
He said Oregon’s annual exports to China total $4 billion, quadruple exports eight years ago, and are mostly made up of commodities from Intel and other high-tech companies.
Freeman said Oregon’s proximity to the Pacific Rim should make China a growing market. Freeman said the delegation didn’t discuss log exports with their hosts.
Ragon and others say the best-case scenario would be for the Chinese to buy finished wood products from Oregon mills.
Ragon said exporting manufactured wood products, instead of logs, would triple or quadruple employment throughout the industry.
For now though, far more of Oregon’s cut trees are exported as logs rather than finished products, by a ratio of 10 to 1.
Oregon Employment Department Regional Economist Brian Rooney reports that mill jobs outnumber logging jobs by three to one in Douglas County. The number mill jobs, however, is declining. Rooney said the booming export market drove a slight increase in logging jobs, but not enough to offset the loss of mill jobs.
Oregon State University Extension Service forestry agent Steve Bowers said high log prices particularly benefited landowners with stands of Sitka spruce, hemlock and white fir — trees not as coveted by mills as Douglas fir.
Bowers said China, which has different building needs, was indiscriminate in the wood it bought. China’s demand for all types of logs, however, naturally drove up the price for Douglas fir, too.
“Export was dictating the values for domestic buyers, and they did not like that,” he said.
The president and CEO of Lone Rock Timber Co., Toby Luther, said the Roseburg logging company sends less than 10 percent of its logs to exporters. But the statewide increase in logging was driven by China.
“The amount of harvest is up, and that’s not because of mills. It’s because of China,” Luther said. “My concern is that, China continues to buy up logs and makes mills less competitive in terms of accessing logs at a price they can afford.”
Luther said log prices are comparable to what they were during the building boom in 2004-05, but mills can’t justify paying those high prices because of low domestic sales.
When Glendale-based Swanson Group this month announced temporary shutdowns, beginning Monday, that will affect all four of its mills and 700 employees, company President Steve Swanson blamed the foreign competition for logs.
Jim Dudley, log procurement and marketing manager for Roseburg Forest Products, said RFP has experienced similar price pressure. Most West Coast manufacturers are suffering losses, he said.
Nevertheless, there is an upside for manufacturers. Dudley said the export market has sustained logging companies that wood products manufacturers will need when home building bounces back in the U.S.
“While (foreign competition) has been difficult to compete with on the manufacturing side, it has helped us protect our logging infrastructure. If we get any increase in domestic demand, it’s important to have that infrastructure,” he said.
Dudley and others in the logging industry say more federal logs, which can’t be exported, would ease the large price swings the Chinese market has caused.
Dudley said if logging on federal lands were increased to even one-fourth of what it was 20 years ago, before the spotted owl was listed as a threatened species, mills would have a steady supply of timber.
The ailing industry is almost entirely dependent on logging from private lands, he said.
According to the Oregon Department of Forestry, 75 percent of the state’s timber harvest occurs on private land, which makes up 38 percent of the state’s forests. Federal forests make up 59 percent of the resource and contribute 12 percent of the state’s timber production.
In Douglas County, private lands account for 44 percent of forestland and supplied 86 percent of the harvest in 2010. A majority of the county’s timberland, 54 percent, are on federal lands and produced 12 percent of the harvest.
“Now the onus has been put on private property to provide all the jobs for the Oregon forest industry,” Dudley said.
Environmentalists counter that the onus for providing wildlife habitat falls on federal lands.
“It seems to me that if the industry wants public logs, they have some responsibility to provide some habitat on their lands,” said Ken Carloni, president of Umpqua Watersheds, a Roseburg-based conservation group.
Carloni said only a lack of “cheap federal logs” was cramping domestic supply and suggested an export tax on raw logs could encourage China to purchase processed lumber instead.
“If it weren’t so attractive to ship the logs, then the domestic supply of logs would increase. Just as much fiber should be hitting those freighters and going overseas, it just should be square instead of round,” he said.
Industry leaders say unless there was a global agreement such a tax would drive the Chinese to buy logs from other countries, like Canada and Argentina.
“You put protectionist taxes on timber and you could tax your way right out of the market,” said Dave Stroble, Southwest Washington and Oregon region manager for Merrill & Ring, a Seattle-based log exporter.
Stroble said U.S. log exporters are in a wait-and-see period as the competitive Chinese market develops.
“The longer it lasts, the more it will mature. It could take years or decades to reach a level of stabilization that we’re used to over here, and it’s hard to speculate how this market is going to mature,” he said.
It’s interesting, but not surprising, how our current serious economic situation has changed some of the tenor of discussions of resource use in the U.S. When I was a young sprout, forest policy was clearly in the hands of economists. Then, perhaps in the owl battles of the Pacific Northwest, wildlife biologists and others seemed to be in the lead (remember the Gang of Four?). As our last couple of posts show, knowing something of economics is, perhaps, undergoing a resurgence of importance as we discuss resources and jobs. There seem to be four different conceptual possibilities. First, exporting our resources without manufacturing here (the “colony” idea as stated by Governor Kitzhaber below); second, making sure we get as many jobs as possible from our resources before we export; third, using our resources for our own energy (see Denver Post story below); and fourth not using them at all but leaving them alone (can we afford this?).
In the last couple of days I have seen two pieces from different perspectives. First,
this piece, ostensibly about the FS using a a PR affiliated with Rosemont to work on scheduling public meetings to discuss the proposed Rosemont Mine. The comments are very interesting and go into topics like the copper going to Korea as a raw material, the fact that the mine would be owned by Canadians, and impacts on the trade deficit.
Check out the comments from this..here’s one from CK H.
Without geology and mining you have nothing. Nothing. Not your home, computer, car, electricity of ANY kind (solar, coal, hydro, nuclear, petroleum, gas), clothes you are wearing, the food you are eating (has to be grown with fertilizers, pumped water, transported etc.), bicycles, medical equipment, tile flooring, cosmetics, firearms, backpacks, Kindle/Nook, iPod/Ipad, camera, smartphone, and every other thing you ever possessed or ever will possess.
The ore deposits of various sorts are sitting in host-rock geology in every geologic terrane imaginable. The contained metals or industrial materials are only liberated for your use owing to the dedicated efforts of geologists, mining engineers, metallurgists, technicians galore, haul truck drivers, shovel and LHD operators, surveyors, vendor service supporters, financial whizzes, reclamation and environmental specialists, general managers/foreman…right down to the guys at the end of the chute. Your comfortable life style is thanks to the labor of hundreds of thousands of individuals in small village to large cities around the world.
It sounds almost like dialogue from the “timber wars” days- if we use it (timber, minerals), someone’s going to produce it- why not us? Hypothetically our environmental and worker protections are better than some other places in the world- why not do it if it produces jobs for us and reduces our trade deficit?
Similarly, with regard to private timber, this story.
Kitzhaber: Oregon can’t be China’s timber colony
Cuts on state land could help boost local mill jobs
By Tyler Graf
The Forest Grove News-Times, Nov 9, 2011
(news photo)Chase Allgood / News-Times
Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber addressed the State Forestry Board last week, arguing that a balance between industry and environmentalists can be achieved.
In July, Stimson Lumber Co. announced a new round of layoffs at its Hagg Lake and Tillamook Mills.
The reason? Boundless demand for logs from China (where buyers want whole, unmilled logs) was draining the demand for local milling.
And as logs from private lands are heading east, jobs here in Oregon’s forested wilds are disappearing.
That doesn’t sit well with Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, who tackled the issue during a speech he gave in Forest Grove last week.
Private land owners account for the vast majority of timber harvests and, unlike state-owned forests, are not legally required to mill their logs in the United States. Private-land harvests are often sent whole to China for milling.
“This amounts to nothing more than exporting our natural capital and jobs,” Kitzhaber said.
It’s necessary to increase harvests in state forests, Kitzhaber said, in part to protect struggling mills, but it’s also important for the state to find other revenue streams, such as selling the forest’s carbon credits on the open market.
State forests can take the lead in drafting a more durable future for forest health, the governor said during the regular meeting of the State Forestry Board in Forest Grove Thursday, calling for a new approach to forest management.
Finding middle groundThe governor’s speech centered on finding middle ground between the competing interests of state, federal and private forests and creating “long-term, sustainable practices” that both create jobs and protect natural resources.
“We have the opportunity to break the mold of conflict,” Kitzhaber said.
The federal government owns about 60 percent of the state’s forestland, accounting for 17 million acres. But that land generates only 12 percent of the state’s timber harvests.
Since 1989, timber harvests in the state’s national forests have dropped by 90 percent, sped along by a 1991 federal ruling that closed much of the Northwest’s old-growth forests to logging to protect Northern spotted owl habitat.
On the other hand, the state owns about 3 percent of forestland, including the Clatsop State Forest, and generates about 10 percent of the harvests.
Kitzhaber pushed the board to set aside state forestland for conservation areas, which would be free of timber harvests, as a way of demonstrating that the state is serious about protecting its forest from over-harvesting./blockquote>
But also note that log exports have been good for the Port of Olympia here.
Finally, a piece in the Denver Post this morning on rural jobs and clean energy about Michael Bowman here.
Last week, he found himself the only person to represent rural interests in America at a White House Champions of Change award forum, the Obama administration’s weekly initiative that touts people across the country making change in their communities.
His group of 15 individuals focused on green energy and job creation.
“Everyone knows we make food, but often people don’t think of these rural communities as places where the fuel and energy is going to come from to meet these new demands,” Bowman said.
He praised the wind farms of Colorado’s Eastern Plains and solar development in the San Luis Valley. “The most exciting things are happening where there are renewable-energy projects being built, and putting a tax base into a region where there was none before.”
He also met with officials at the departments of Defense and Agriculture, and pitched a plan for energy independence that would create an alternative to the strategic petroleum reserves — a “working reserve of bio fuel that every farm, ranch, and forest in America can participate in helping create,” he said during a phone interview.
He talked about the fuel-agnostic engine developed by Sturman Industries of Woodland Park. He serves as a consultant to the company, co-founded by Eddie Sturman, who invented digital valve technology for the Apollo space program in the 1960s, and then advanced that technology to create smart engines that run on all types of fuel.
I thought some of our readers might be interested in a recent paper by 
Headwaters Economics examining ideas for reforming the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (SRS) and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).
Here is the PDF Reform_County_Payments_WhitePaper_LowRes
and the link http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/reforming-federal-land-payments-to-counties/
This outfit does some really neat work and this paper is no exception. Both programs are about to expire and the paper explores eight options in how to possibly move forward. Some of the most interesting ideas are to change the distribution formula to give proportionately higher payments to counties based on various things, such as:
A) giving preferential assistance to counties with the greatest need
B) Linking payments to a County’s willingness to control federal costs by reducing development in wildfire-prone areas
C) Linking payments to the value of ecosystem services provided by federal public lands
D) Distibute higher payments to counties with protected public lands
Also included in the paper is an interactive mapping tool with which you can mess around and see how the various options would impact a particular county, and in some cases a Congressional District.
Here’s a link to the story.
Some quotes:
Still, Charnley and her fellow researchers concluded that in terms of jobs, effects were meaningful but short-term. Longer term community benefits, like a new trail or an improved road, rarely get calculated into the equation. A 30-mile Rails-to-Trails project in western Montana, for instance, didn’t necessarily press the “jobs, jobs” button, but local communities highly dependent upon recreation tourism are excited about the new people the “Route of the Olympian” will bring to town.
Rural Voices participants had mixed reactions to Charnley’s presentation.
Tracy McIntyre is the executive director of the Eureka Rural Development Partners. Eureka, Montana is near the border with Canada, and McIntyre worked hard to help secure ARRA funding for Forest Service projects in her area. “I think it’s neat to see the Forest Service realize that seeking out partners helps them get their work done,” she said.
But concentrating only on the agency’s Recovery Act success stories might be a mistake, in McIntyre’s opinion. “I would have liked to see eight examples that worked, and eight that didn’t,” she offered.
Moseley knows that Congress and taxpayers want to talk about creating jobs, but she wondered aloud if the review of how the Forest Service responded to the urgent directives of the Recovery Act might reveal more than employment numbers. “I would say they rose to the challenge,” she said, noting that the Forest Service was able to get all of its allotted money on the ground, while plenty of federal agencies floundered at the task.
And that fast-paced, high-stakes exercise may have resulted in a shift in the agency that Moseley and her Rural Voices counterparts have spent a decade working for. “With ARRA, the Forest Service finally got it – this is not about acres treated, it’s about jobs, and that’s not something this agency has always understood.”
Contributor to New West Gina Knudson is filing daily updates from this week’s Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition annual policy gathering.