Forest Products

Overview of 4FRI Accomplishments

by

I saw this earlier this year and hadn’t gotten around to posting, but recent discussions brought up the topic.

Description:
This document was developed by members of the 4FRI Stakeholder Group and provides a to-date overview of 4FRI’s accomplishments for interested parties. It summarizes information from 4FRI stakeholders and the Forest Service including implementation progress and investments. Specifically, treatment accomplishment data reflects total acres treated within 4FRI 2010-2024 and includes both mechanical thinning and beneficial fire acres, which may overlap geographically. Information about investments in 4FRI comes from partner leverage and match information 2022-2024 as contributed by stakeholders, industries, and the Forest Service. This document is not a Forest Service publication. For more information about 4FRI please see 4fri.org.

If you click on each of these, they will be larger.

Let’s Review Some Forest Service NEPA Stats

by

If you all have been following the California wildfires, you’ll discover that everyone tends to attach their favorite hobby horse to the disaster.

Politicians, climate change, patterns of housing, and even… vegetation treatments and permitting.   My pet peeve about coverage is how easily folks get into a forest discussion about what, in this case, was coastal scrub and grasslands.  Having said that, I think we need to engage with the permitting folks for many reasons,  not least because permitting reform of various kinds will be on the table in Congress again.  However we might disagree about what should be done, it seems to me that we should work together to get both facts and disagreements on the table.

I try to be hospitable to new people entering the space. Interestingly, permitting reform folks, who work on permitting infrastructure, renewables and so on, tend to use the Forest Service as an example. So we can help them out by adding value and/or questioning their observations.

I’m going to reprint Tom Hochman’s Substack post below.  Remember, we want to share our knowledge with a welcoming spirit. Also it doesn’t seem (as usual) that partisan-ness helps our policy discussions in any way. I’ve spent some time talking to DC folks in the last few weeks, and I think both sides needs to take a deep breath and try to move on past the acrimonious past (do politicians forgive?) so we all can move forward together.

So, from what you know, do these observations make sense and track with your experience? Here’s Hochman’s piece.

***********************

By now, everyone has heard about the wildfires sweeping through the Los Angeles area. The sheer scale of destruction is hard to make sense of. My cousin, aunt, and uncle in Pasadena spent days anxiously packed, ready to evacuate at any moment. Their friends lost their homes; the local elementary school is rubble.

It’s tough to pinpoint a single cause for any given wildfire—and wildfires sometimes happen regardless of human activity or government policy. But there’s no doubt that forest management and wildfire-prevention policies can reduce both the probability and severity of wildfires. In California and at the federal level, those policies have often fallen disastrously short.

With that, here’s a wildfire-focused edition of NEPAstats. I’ve compiled data (all cited at the bottom) on how NEPA and similar review processes intersect with wildfire prevention, and I’ve pulled together a number of specific case studies.

Case Studies

Jimtown Project (Helena National Forest)
  • Proposed thinning/underburning across 900 acres + underburning 220 more
  • EIS and Decision Notice released in May 2001
  • Project appealed despite support from 12 of 22 local landowners, county disaster services, and a tri-county fire group
  • By July 2003: ~45% of the proposed project area had already burned in a wildfire (Kimbell, 2005)

Six Rivers National Forest

  • December 1995: A storm topples trees across 35,000 acres
    • Fuel loads reach 300–400 tons per acre—10x normal
  • 1996–1999: Only 1,600 acres treated while “wrestling through analytical and procedural requirements”
  • September 1999: The Megram and Fawn Fires consume the remaining blowdown area plus 90,000 additional acres
  • Seven years later: The project remains in limbo after a court injunction (USFS, 2002)

Berry Creek (California)

  • Critical thinning projects were delayed by CEQA reviews
  • The North Complex Fire hit in 2020 before completion, resulting in 16 fatalities (Regan, 2025)

Grizzly Flats (California)

  • A forest-restoration project was held up for nearly a decade by NEPA and other environmental reviews
  • In 2021, two-thirds of the community burned before the project was completed (Regan, 2025)

Timing and Delays

Average time before treatments under NEPA
  • 3.6 years to start a mechanical treatment once the Forest Service initiates review
  • 4.7 years to start a prescribed burn under the same conditions
  • For projects requiring an EIS:
    • 5.3 years on average for mechanical treatments
    • 7.2 years for prescribed burns (Edwards & Sutherland, 2022)

Forest Service resource allocation

  • The Forest Service manages 192 million acres—8.5% of U.S. land area—but spends ~40% of direct work hours (>$250 million/year) on planning/assessment rather than active project work (USFS, 2002)
    • An estimated $100 million annually could shift from “unnecessary planning” to on-the-ground treatments with improved procedures
  • Annually, the Forest Service completes:
    • ~5,000 EAs,
    • ~120 project-level EISs
    • 15,000 CEs per year (USFS, 2002)

Litigation Patterns and Impact

  • Sierra Club v. Bosworth (2007) invalidated the Forest Service’s attempt to create a CE for fuel-reduction projects, meaning prescribed burns require a full EA/EIS
  • For NEPA-Related Appellate Court Cases:
    • Fuel-treatment projects that face legal challenges see an additional 1+ year of delay on average
    • Agencies prevail in 93% of NEPA fuel-reduction appeals, with 96% of these challenges brought by NGOs
    • An average of 3 years elapses between permit issuance and final resolution in these cases (Chiappa et al., 2024)

The Human and Environmental Costs

  • Forest density: Parts of the Sierra Nevada are now 6–7x denser than a century ago, fueling more intense megafires
  • GHG impacts: California’s 2020 wildfire emissions wiped out nearly two decades of the state’s greenhouse gas reduction progress
  • Species: Giant sequoias are dying in megafires; conifer forests are sometimes replaced by shrubland in the aftermath (Regan, 2025)

State-Level Barriers: CEQA and CalVTP

  • In 2020, California pledged to treat 500,000 acres per year by 2025—but remains far off due to lengthy reviews, public comment periods, and litigation (Regan, 2025)
  • California Vegetation Program aka CalVTP:
    • Projected 45,000 acres of treatments in the first year, but zero completed after 2+ years
    • 28,000 acres approved but not implemented
    • Project managers cite “unfamiliar and burdensome” documentation, multiple CalFire unit boundaries, and a pending lawsuit from the California Chaparral Institute and Endangered Habitats League (Friedman, 2022)
The CalVTP “fast-track” workflow

Recent Reform Efforts

  • California SB1159 (2024)
    • Would have exempted roadside vegetation clearing within 30 feet from CEQA
    • Died in committee
  • Federal TORCH Act
    • Would expand NEPA Categorical Exclusions for forest thinning and post-fire recovery, limit repeated ESA re-consultations for new species listings, and create larger “CLEAR Zones” for power line vegetation management (Regan, 2025)
    • Didn’t make it to the Senate floor
  • Fix Our Forests Act (2024)
    • Would expand NEPA Categorical Exclusions for certain forest management projects
    • Passed the House, didn’t make it through the Senate

******************

What are your thoughts?

Yale Forest Forum (Western) Fuel Treatment Residues/Bioenergy Webinars of Interest

by

Here’s a link to all of Bioenergy series webinars organized by the Yale Forest Forum. They have links to the recordings and the slides.

I took the slides above from the presentation by Matt Donegan, the Chair of the  of Oregon Governor’s Wildfire Response Council.  This should be of particular interest to Oregonians. If you only have a bit of time/interest, just check out the slides.

Summary:

The Potential Role of Bioenergy in Mitigating Wildfire in the West

Record wildfire seasons continue across the US West, increasingly comprised of unnatural and catastrophic events owing to climate change, excessive fuel accumulation and development within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).  The comprehensive costs of these wildfires are staggering, when considering costs of suppression, property and ecosystem degradation, carbon emissions, human health impacts, infrastructure damage including water, and numerous other direct and indirect effects.  To contain these costs, excess fuels must be removed to restore wildfire-resilient landscapes and to protect vulnerable communities.  Fuel treatments, in turn, entail significant costs, potentially combined with carbon emissions if wood waste is left to burn or decompose.  An oft-proposed solution is the development of wood waste markets including biofuels, potentially combined with carbon capture technologies.  To develop biofuels markets at the scale needed to address the growing wildfire problem in the West, a complete system must be designed including economic incentives recognizing multiple public values, and policies to stabilize supply sources and ensure adequate workforce development.

I watched this one, it’s really good and goes into the nitty-gritty of the technologies of interest.

Daniel L. Sanchez – Assistant Professor of Cooperative Extension, University of California-Berkeley
Daniel L. Sanchez studies engineered biomass & bioenergy systems that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Trained as an engineer and energy systems analyst, Sanchez’s work and engagement spans the academic, nongovernmental, and governmental sectors. As an Assistant Professor of Cooperative Extension, he runs the Carbon Removal Lab, which aims to commercialize sustainable carbon dioxide removal technologies, and supports outreach to policymakers and technologists in California and across the United States

Innovative Wood Products for Carbon-Beneficial Forest Management in California
Natural carbon sinks can help mitigate climate change, but climate risks—like increased wildfire—threaten forests’ capacity to store carbon. California has recently set ambitious forest management goals to reduce these risks. However, management can incur carbon losses because wood residues are often burnt or left to decay. This study applies a systems approach to assess climate change mitigation potential and wildfire outcomes across forest management scenarios and several wood products. We find that innovative use of wood residues supports extensive wildfire hazard reduction and maximizes carbon benefits. Long-lived products that displace carbon-intensive alternatives have the greatest benefits, including wood building products. Our results suggest a low-cost pathway to reduce carbon emissions and support climate adaptation in temperate forests.

I haven’t checked out the others but they are probably good as well.  My pet peeve (as discussed with the organizers) is that western fuel treatment residue bioenergy tends to get ignored in national/Coastal  discussions of bioenergy around the world or chips for European export in the SE, so that’s why I focused on these two.  As always, anyone is welcome to view and write a post or comment about what they think is interesting about them.

The two western webinars are not so much about bioenergy itself, but more about “what the heck are we going to do with all this material?”

Yale Forest Forum Bioenergy from Forests Webinar Series: Daniel Sanchez Next Tuesday on Carbon-beneficial Forest Management in California

by

The Yale Forest Forum has been running a speaker series on bioenergy from forests.  Most of the presenters (despite my input) seem to be eastern, southern, international or urban, although this one by Steve Hamburg sounds interesting:

Determining Forest-derived Bioenergy’s Impacts on the Climate Why is it so Contentious? (Steve is a classmate of mine who works for EDF, so I might be biased, though I haven’t listened to it). Here’s a link to a video of the presentation. Any TSW reader who wants to watch and write a post is welcome.

There are two that deal with western-wildfire- fuel treatment kinds of concerns, one person from Oregon (Matt Donegan) on April 5. Titled “The Potential Role of Bioenergy in Mitigating Wildfire in the West”

And next Tuesday at 9:30 MT (they’re all on Tuesdays at the same time), there’s one with Daniel Sanchez at U of California that looks interesting.

Innovative wood products for carbon-beneficial forest management in California

Tuesday, March 29, 2022 – 11:30am

Innovative Wood Products for Carbon-Beneficial Forest Management in California

Natural carbon sinks can help mitigate climate change, but climate risks—like increased wildfire—threaten forests’ capacity to store carbon. California has recently set ambitious forest management goals to reduce these risks. However, management can incur carbon losses because wood residues are often burnt or left to decay. This study applies a systems approach to assess climate change mitigation potential and wildfire outcomes across forest management scenarios and several wood products. We find that innovative use of wood residues supports extensive wildfire hazard reduction and maximizes carbon benefits. Long-lived products that displace carbon-intensive alternatives have the greatest benefits, including wood building products. Our results suggest a low-cost pathway to reduce carbon emissions and support climate adaptation in temperate forests.

Daniel L. Sanchez – Assistant Professor of Cooperative Extension, University of California-Berkeley

Daniel L. Sanchez studies engineered biomass & bioenergy systems that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Trained as an engineer and energy systems analyst, Sanchez’s work and engagement spans the academic, nongovernmental, and governmental sectors. As an Assistant Professor of Cooperative Extension, he runs the Carbon Removal Lab, which aims to commercialize sustainable carbon dioxide removal technologies, and supports outreach to policymakers and technologists in California and across the United States

Possible Salvage Strategy for Dixie and Caldor Fires

by

Since a battle for salvage projects is brewing, I think the Forest Service and the timber industry should consider my idea to get the work done, as soon as possible, under the rules, laws and policies, currently in force. It would be a good thing to ‘preempt’ the expected litigation before it goes to Appeals Court.

 

The Forest Service should quickly get their plans together, making sure that the project will survive the lower court battles. It is likely that such plans that were upheld by lower courts, in the past, would survive the inevitable lower court battles. Once the lower court allows the project(s), the timber industry should get all the fallers they can find, and get every snag designated for harvest on the ground. Don’t worry too much about skidding until the felling gets done. That way, when the case is appealed, most of Chad Hanson’s issues would now be rendered ‘moot’. It sure seems like the Hanson folks’ entire case is dependent on having standing snags. If this idea is successful, I’m sure that Hanson will try to block the skidding and transport of logs to the mill. The Appeals Court would have to decide if skidding operations and log hauling are harmful to spotted owls and black-backed woodpeckers.

 

It seems worth a try, to thin out snags over HUGE areas, while minimizing the legal wranglings.

Chief Moore Announces New Funding and 4FRI Strategy

by

Here’s a link to the press release:

USDA Forest Service Chief Randy Moore today announced new funding and a redesigned strategy for the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) during a visit with elected officials in Arizona.

The agency will be committing $54 million dollars in fiscal year 2022 to accelerate the needs for implementing high-priority projects on 135,000 acres over the next 10 years. The funding will also address annual road and bridge maintenance.

“The Forest Service is increasing the scale of our investments into the 4FRI project, and we’re getting started sooner than previously planned,” said Chief Moore. “This strategy will focus our forest maintenance work to reduce wildfire danger in the 4FRI project area where wildfire is most likely to place homes, communities and infrastructure at risk. By placing our treatments in the right places and at the right scale, we will reduce wildfire risk, protect communities, and restore forests.”

The announcement today represents an important step toward the agency’s broader, national strategy to treat landscapes, protect communities and watersheds, and create fire resilient forests at the scale needed to address the nation’s growing wildfire crisis.

“We are committed to reducing the risk of destructive wildfire and protecting communities, and recognize the scale of the need for restoration,” added Chief Moore.  “Industry is vital to our success in this commitment, and we are fully committed to working with partners to achieve our restoration needs at scale.”

 

The key decisions from the 4FRI Restoration Strategy are:

  • Immediately prioritize and expand the highest-priority, partnership projects to significantly reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire to communities on approximately 135,000 acres (i.e. Bill Williams Mountain, Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project, CC Cragin, Sierra/Anchas).

  • Immediately implement current plans which provide approximately 300,000 acres over 20 years to maintain existing industry.

  • Treat 86,000 acres using prescribed fire and non-commercial thinning (over 20 years) on the Tonto and Kaibab National Forests.

  • Conduct a rapid assessment and optimization effort using the best available science to assess approximately 300,000-350,000 acres (over 20 years) on the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests, with treatments assessed to prioritize which acres to treat to reduce the risk of wildfire the quickest beginning in FY2023.

  • Focus on resolving and improving conditions for industry success by addressing factors like cost and risk reduction, incentives, market conditions, availability of raw material, transportation plans, and fire liability risks.

There is also a paper that has more detail.

Accomplishments and Expected Outcomes
The restoration strategy is quicker and more diverse with opportunities for existing and new industry. It uses a variety of scales, different contracts and agreements, over multiple time frames (5,10, 20 years) to expand industry and jobs (1,400 jobs and $56.6M income in FY2021).
Based on pending and completed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), there is a need to treat approximately 700,000 to 880,000 acres over the next 20 years to meet desired conditions and reduce wildfire risk using a variety to approaches include mechanical thinning and prescribed burning. These acres include the high priority partner projects, providing acres to maintain existing industry and both product and non-product removal areas with implementation tools to be determined. This is in addition to 258,000 acres already completed under 4FRI over the past 10 years.
Considering the total acres treated and planned under this strategy (up to 1.2 million acres) across the 2.4 million acres landscape, the outcome is approximately treating 47% of the 2.4 million acres.
Based on new information for restoring fire-adapted ecosystems in 4FRI for fire resiliency (RMRS GTR 424), blending financial and resiliency objectives are critical to defining the overall outcomes for success. On average only 40% to 50% of a planning area’s acres need to be strategically treated to reduce 80% of the exposure from wildfire. This collaborative effort will help to further understand and define tradeoffs between financial and fire resiliency objectives, while we continue to implement this 4FRI Restoration Strategy

It sounds as if they are breaking the work down into smaller contracts to give opportunities to a variety of industry, and focusing on prioritizing reducing wildfire exposure to communities of all the possible acres that could be treated. The latter seems like a general movement within the FS and part of the national 10 year plan.

Happy New Year Everyone! And May All Your Supply Chains Be Like Well-Orchestrated Ballets

by

Let’s face it, most of the topics we discuss here are..well.. not of interest to most people, including friends and family. But last week, Steve Wilent shared this in his E-Forester weekly, which could easily become chatworthy at any New Year’s Eve shindig. The title is “What Everyone’s Getting Wrong About the Toilet Paper Shortage.”

Faced with this mystifying phenomenon, media outlets have turned to psychologists to explain why people are cramming their shelves with a household good that has nothing to do with the pandemic. Read the coverage and you’ll encounter all sorts of fascinating concepts, from “zero risk bias” to “anticipatory anxiety.” It’s “driven by fear” and a “herd mentality,” the BBC scolded. The libertarian Mises Institute took the opportunity to blame anti-gouging laws. The Atlantic published a short documentary harking back to the great toilet paper scare of 1973, which was driven by misinformation.

Most outlets agreed that the spike in demand would be short-lived, subsiding as soon as the hoarders were satiated.

No doubt there’s been some panic-buying, particularly once photos of empty store shelves began circulating on social media. There have also been a handful of documented cases of true hoarding. But you don’t need to assume that most consumers are greedy or irrational to understand how coronavirus would spur a surge in demand. And you can stop wondering where in the world people are storing all that Quilted Northern.

There’s another, entirely logical explanation for why stores have run out of toilet paper — one that has gone oddly overlooked in the vast majority of media coverage. It has nothing to do with psychology and everything to do with supply chains. It helps to explain why stores are still having trouble keeping it in stock, weeks after they started limiting how many a customer could purchase.

In short, the toilet paper industry is split into two, largely separate markets: commercial and consumer. The pandemic has shifted the lion’s share of demand to the latter. People actually do need to buy significantly more toilet paper during the pandemic — not because they’re making more trips to the bathroom, but because they’re making more of them at home. With some 75% of the U.S. population under stay-at-home orders, Americans are no longer using the restrooms at their workplace, in schools, at restaurants, at hotels, or in airports.

Georgia-Pacific, a leading toilet paper manufacturer based in Atlanta, estimates that the average household will use 40% more toilet paper than usual if all of its members are staying home around the clock. That’s a huge leap in demand for a product whose supply chain is predicated on the assumption that demand is essentially constant. It’s one that won’t fully subside even when people stop hoarding or panic-buying.

….

In theory, some of the mills that make commercial toilet paper could try to redirect some of that supply to the consumer market. People desperate for toilet paper probably wouldn’t turn up their noses at it. But the industry can’t just flip a switch. Shifting to retail channels would require new relationships and contracts between suppliers, distributors, and stores; different formats for packaging and shipping; new trucking routes — all for a bulky product with lean profit margins.

Because toilet paper is high volume but low value, the industry runs on extreme efficiency, with mills built to work at full capacity around the clock even in normal times. That works only because demand is typically so steady. If toilet paper manufacturers spend a bunch of money now to refocus on the retail channel, they’ll face the same problem in reverse once people head back to work again.

“The normal distribution system is like a well-orchestrated ballet,” said Willy Shih, a professor at Harvard Business School. “If you make a delivery to a Walmart distribution center, they give you a half-hour window, and your truck has to show up then.” The changes wrought by the coronavirus, he said, “have thrown the whole thing out of balance, and everything has to readjust.”

Substituting for Fossil Fuels: The Bio-Chemical Side of Wood Products

by
From the Forest2Market Article

As far as I have been able to ascertain, N-95 masks are made from propylene, which is a currently a byproduct of oil or gas. I’m not a psychologist, but it must be difficult to feel as angry at the “fossil fuel industry” as many are (or claim to be), and yet be dependent on so many of their products. It’s interesting that people can blame workers involved in production (often with blue-collar jobs) for the bad parts (environmental negatives), and enjoy the good parts (the products) seemingly without moral qualms.

Oil and gas folks are probably just as befuddled by this as forest industry folks were during the Timber Wars by folks against logging. Of course, I’m not saying that people don’t have a right to question practices and regulations of any industry, but, at least the rhetoric, sometimes goes beyond that to something that may feel like “industry hate.”

Anyway, if we want to keep fossil fuels in the ground, as some do, we would have to come up with substitutes for uses in addition to electricity and liquid or gas fuels. These folks in British Columbia are apparently doing that with western red cedar, and folks in Nova Scotia are doing research on spruce-fir pulp.

In early December, reporter Doris de Guzman of Forest Industry News did a nice roundup of EU efforts in using lignin products.

Lignin is expected to play a significant role as a new chemical feedstock particularly in the formation of supramolecular materials and aromatic chemicals. Lignin is a complex plant-derived macromolecule found in the cell walls of almost all dry plants. It makes up 20-30% of the composition of wood.

According to a European Commission (EC) report “Top emerging bio-based Products, their properties and industrial applications” published by Germany-based Ecologic Institute on June 2018, lignin – among the most relevant large-volume biomass components – was found to generate the highest number of innovative products together with terpenes and urban wastes. Its natural abundance and global availability represent the main drivers for the persistent attempts at its exploitation beyond its actual relevant role as a bioenergy source, although its chemical versatility and uniqueness as a source of aromatic building blocks also play a role.

Innovative products derived from lignin range from fundamental chemical building blocks such as BTX aromatics to material for advanced applications in technical fields like construction engineering, where for instance both carbon fibres and thermoset resins play a major role but are currently not available from renewable sources.

As with our chart yesterday, we would need to consider all the environmental impacts of substitutions, such as these..

Environmental impacts depend on the energy demand for cracking the lignin as well as on the catalysts and solvents needed in the production process. Bio-derived methoxylated alkylphenols are promising alternatives to traditional alkylphenols as their toxicity is significantly lower. Furthermore, methoxylated alkylphenols from lignin can possess unsaturated alkyl chain (i.e. eugenol). The unsaturation is also proposed to benefit the biodegradability of the alkylphenol, as unsaturated compounds often degrade faster in various environments than their saturated counterparts.

There’s a great deal of chemistry in the article that for me required frequent side-trips to look up words. I’d guess we don’t hear much about these new uses as they tend to be using products from pulp and paper plants, and we don’t have many of those in the Western US.

Collaborating on national forest exploitation – an oxymoron?

by
“Attendees engaged in fruitful conversations during the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests hosted Environmental Analysis and Decision Making collaboration summit. USDA Forest Service photo.”

“Before retiring, James Burchfield worked as a field forester for the Forest Service and served as dean of the W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation at the University of Montana.”  Where our careers overlapped, he was known for his support of and expertise in collaboration in national forest management.  We have argued on this blog about the proper role of collaboration (it flared up again in the Rim Fire recent example), but in this Missoulian column he points out what I think most would agree is an improper role (on his way to making another point about adequately funding the Forest Service).

In 2002, former Chief Dale Bosworth, who now resides in Missoula, reminded the agency of the concept of stewardship, where the focus is not what we take from the land but what we leave on the land. I fear we may be forgetting these vital lessons.

The June 12 visit to Missoula by Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to announce his Secretarial Memorandum on new agency priorities reminds us how easily we may be lured in the wrong direction. His mandate to “increase America’s energy dominance” and “reduce regulatory burdens” comes on the heels of a June 4 Presidential Executive Order that orders federal agencies to set aside environmental impact requirements because of the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Certainly, the nation must take assertive measures to restore the economy, but a command to exploit complex ecological systems without appropriate environmental reviews, guaranteed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), abandons the sound principle of “look before you leap.” Further, forcing the Forest Service to meet production targets on a narrow range of resource benefits — those that can be commodified in the marketplace — discounts other critical resource values such as clean water, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities that are well-recognized as central to Montana’s economic vitality.

Moreover, the Forest Service has learned its best outcomes emerge only after ongoing deliberations among partners and local residents to apply their nuanced knowledge and experience. This process actually happens in Montana via the decades of efforts by the 20-plus voluntary groups known as forest collaboratives that regularly engage with agency staff to improve project design, build understanding, and help get work done. These collaborative groups do not enter their deliberations with presupposed notions of resource exploitation. They want the best for the land.  

(My emphasis.)  I was always skeptical that including those with strictly monetary interests in collaborative efforts comported with this principle.  I assumed that there would have to be collaborative agreement with the desired outcome as step 1.  (This is also where forest plans should make an important contribution by defining the desired condition of the land.)  After Perdue’s announcement, it’s hard to see how any truly collaborative effort today could get past that step.

 

 

Forest Service: Forest Products Modernization Effort and Followup to Appraisal Question

by

Steve Wilent recently asked a question here

The Forest Service is developing a “market based” approach to timber sale appraisals that will aim to improve alignment between local market conditions and appraisal metrics.

I assumed that they’d been doing this all along. Anyone have insights?

I contacted the Forest Products Modernization team, and they responded promptly with much good info. Thank you! Here’s a link to their information. Also, they have newsletters, and you can get them by signing up with them at “[email protected]”. I attached newsletters from July and November FPM_At_A_Glance_November2019

FPM_AtAGlance_July2019_final  here. Note to Larry: there is a great deal about the workforce.

Where We Are Going?
• People: We are partnering with Human Resources Management to improve recruitment and retention of employees, developing and expanding training resources including academies and task books for career advancement, addressing qualification disparities in the forester and forestry technician series, and increasing the capacity of existing staff through consolidation and streamlining of certifications.

• Technology: We are modernizing the Timber Information Manager application; deploying new technologies (handheld data recorders, tablets, and lasers); expanding the use of geospatial and remote sensing (e.g., Light Detection and Ranging and unmanned aerial systems) for inventory, monitoring, boundary designation, and volume estimation; and partnering with the Chief Information
Office to expand Wi-Fi and broadband access to forest and district offices to support digital and networking capabilities.

• Business Change: We are simplifying contracts and appraisals to mitigate challenges associated with low-value material and increase timber sale outputs; leveraging employee, partner, and private industry expertise to improve program and project management skills across the agency; establishing a cross-deputy working group focused on forest products markets and utilization to help us better evaluate timber sale viability and mitigate issues with low-value material; and scaling up lessons learned and best practices for use of GNA, stewardship agreements, and designation by prescription.

• Policy: We are updating our timber management directives to reflect new authorities and provide clear direction and technical guidance on new procedures; coordinating with the Environmental Analysis and Decision Making (EADM) team to streamline the integrated resource analysis, proposed action development, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis steps of timber sale planning; and working with the Office of Regulatory Management Services to maintain a searchable, web-based agency policy library.

Now onto the detailed technical appraisal answer:

Answer:
The Forest Service has been researching a market-based approach as an alternative to using the results of past sales for establishing the Base Period Price (BPP) for the Transaction Evidence Appraisal (TEA) System. The TEA system is used in all Regions of the Forest Service except Region 10 (Alaska).  TEA uses a BPP as a starting point for the appraisal that is based on high bids from sales in the recent past. [More precisely, the BPP is the volume weighted average high bid for sales in the base period.]  When there are insufficient sales to develop a reliable BPP or when there is a lack of competition for sales, it is reasonable to doubt whether “fair market value” is being established by the normal transaction evidence procedures.

An appraisal is an estimate of fair market value (36 CFR 223.60) and is used to establish the minimum stumpage value for the sale of National Forest timber (36 CFR 223.61). The research led to pursuing alternative methods for establishing that base period price, such as using a market based approach.  The approach that was taken was not to develop an entirely new appraisal system, or build a single, national appraisal system.  Instead, a process was developed to establish BPP based on the relationship between lumber market indices and stumpage prices.  The resulting market-based BPP represents the fair market stumpage value that would otherwise have been established by the high bids the Forest Service received from actual sale transactions.  The BPP, however it is established, is further adjusted by sale specific and local market conditions to approximate a fair market value, and establish a rate for advertisement.

The new approach has shown value in test cases where the current TEA approach resulted in no bid sales due to price, and where competition or the number of previous sales was lacking for a  reliable appraisal of fair market value.

Now, I am going on the proverbial limb here as to my understanding, so please correct or add if this context is incorrect.

1) There is some requirement to try to sell trees that might be cut for say, fuel treatments or hazard trees. To do that the FS has to jump through required “timber sale” hoops.
2) However, there may be no current history to use and there might only be one potential purchaser.
So they had to figure out some other way to derive fair market value.