The Black Hills:They’ve Got it Figured Out II

Black Hills FACA Committee: key to success?
Black Hills FACA Committee: key to success?

Here is some information that was given to me by Blaine Cook, Forest Silviculturist on the Black Hills National Forest.

1) Per 1997 Forest Plan (Preface-9) “The Black Hills are unique in that there are few other uplifted geologic formations completely surrounded by prairies. Furthermore, the Black Hills and its surrounding plains probably were never glaciated. The nearest glaciation occurred in the Big Horn Mountains to the west as a result of the Wisconsin ice advances to the east. The closest glaciation to the east would have run approximately parallel with the Missouri River, about 150 miles from the Black Hills, and occurred about 13,000 years ago during the late Pleistocene.” So, the question remains how the Black Hills (Island in the Plains) got very small portions of trees and plants. The Forest blends north to south to east to west.

2) Attached are forest health report on rcsc_02_13-Harney_Limber_2012 and rcsc_02_12_blackhillslodgepole.

3) White spruce is approximately 5% of the Forest.

4) As for statements on forest volume, the number stated of 6.5 billion bd.ft. is an exaggeration. In year 1999, the FIA report stated 6.1 billion bd.ft (Int.1/4 rule). Since year 2000 there has been large wildfires, tree mortality from insects and timber harvests contributing to removals of the Forest. My opinion of forest volume is around 5.1 billion bd.ft. The Forest is realizing more aspen through wildfires, pine tree mortality and hardwood enhancements by removing pine.

If you’re curious about the black backed woodpecker and other bird monitoring you might want to check out this link. Bird monitoring is done in partnership with the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory.

The Forest Monitoring Report has a section on black backed woodpecker as well as other MIS (management indicator species). The link is here.

Information on the FACA committee can be found here, as well as their recommendations since 2003, when they were established. Here’s their recommendation on the MPB project from 2012:

Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project
The Board reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project and recommended the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor make the following determination:
1) The proposed activities and alternatives address the issues, respond to national policy, guidance and law and Forest Plan direction, and meet the purpose of and need of action in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
2) The information in the analysis is sufficient to implement proposed activities.
3) Alternative C of the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project be adopted as the Preferred Alternative in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project.
4) There is a need for a one-time, site specific amendment to existing Forest Plan direction to address the public’s concerns about Spearfish Canyon.

Using Wood for Buildings= Bad; Using Wood for Gas=Good

Gov. John Hickenlooper looks on as Cool Planet CEO Howard Janzen explains his company’s environmentally-supportive biomass production process. Cool Planet is moving its international headquarters to the Plaza Tower One Building in Greenwood Village. Photo by Jan Wondra
Gov. John Hickenlooper looks on as Cool Planet CEO Howard Janzen explains his company’s environmentally-supportive biomass production process. Cool Planet is moving its international headquarters to the Plaza Tower One Building in Greenwood Village. Photo by Jan Wondra

I think it’s interesting to observe how the existing industry who effectively provide jobs and make things that people use (“timber industry”) is often referred to pejoratively..”corporate logging interests.” Or people using firewood for energy; it’s really fairly invisible to the national discussions. However, new uses of wood for energy apparently have a different filter applied, for example this story.
Also this is in the business section; it’s interesting the reporting includes no environmental groups saying “removing dead lodgepole trees for corporate energy interests comes with serious risks to the environment.”

Cool Planet Energy Systems confirmed Wednesday that it will relocate its headquarters to Colorado and build a manufacturing plant that could help convert the state’s numerous dead trees into gasoline.

“We are homing in on a headquarters location in Greenwood Village,” Cool Planet CEO Howard Janzen said.

The company is also looking in the Aurora area for a manufacturing plant that will build microrefineries able to produce about 10 million gallons a year out of organic waste.

Janzen said hundreds of jobs could be created, but he didn’t give a specific number. But in April, the company applied for $3.1 million in state tax credits in return for bringing 393 jobs to the metro area in five years.

The California startup, located in Ventura County, claims to have developed a way to cost-effectively generate gasoline out of plant waste or biomass using energy-efficient chemical and mechanical processes.

Cool Planet has financial backing from Google Ventures, BP, ConocoPhillips, General Electric and others.

“Cool Planet is on the cutting edge of advancements in alternative fuels, and this expansion into Colorado brings them one step closer to making their clean fuel available to anyone who drives a car,” said Wesley Chan, a general partner at Google Ventures.

Chan, who attended the news conference at the Colorado State Capitol on Wednesday, said Google employees have been testing the fuel in the company’s fleet.

Cool Planet doesn’t use food-based items such as sugar beets or corn, eliminating the food-or-fuel trade-off that is an issue with some other biofuel processes.

The char left after fuel is created can be used as a fertilizer, and the entire process removes more carbon from the atmosphere than it generates, the company said.

Janzen said Cool Planet is working with local university and federal researchers on ways to use the state’s beetle-kill trees as a fuel source and then apply the char to strengthen the forest soil and prevent erosion.

Gov. John Hickenlooper said all the deadwood is contributing to wildfires that burn so hot that they prevent forests from regenerating as they normally would after a fire.

Of Cool Planet’s plans, he said, “We couldn’t be happier.”

Maybe the 4FRI contractors need to approach Google Ventures, BP, ConocoPhillips, and General Electric.

And they did get approved for the tax incentives here:

“We are pleased to welcome Cool Planet to Colorado and the Denver South region. The innovation and technology that Cool Planet embodies are driving Colorado’s economy,” said Mike Fitzgerald, President and CEO of Denver South Economic development partnership. “We are very pleased that their leadership has recognized the many benefits that Colorado offers companies, including our location, highly-skilled workforce and collaborative business climate. We are delighted they are
coming and will do everything possible to help ensure their success” The company has been approved for $3,094,928 from Colorado’s Job Growth Incentive Tax Credit for the creation of up to 393 new jobs over three years.

Chuck Roady on Budget Cuts

Gil suggested posting this...

I don’t believe that people litigate for the money. I think they believe that they are doing good. However, it does seem that some people’s opinions count more than others and there are issues of justice involved in who has access to these decisions, as we’ve pointed out on this blog before.

My curiosity was aroused by his figure of $350 million for NEPA and where it comes from. As Fred Norbury used to say, how can we say NEPA takes too long and costs too much if we don’t track how long it takes or how much it costs? And I don’t think we actually know. Further, I have opinions (and I’m sure you do) about some NEPA investments being worth more than others. For example the latest Colt Summit redo required by the courts has 0 value. Whereas the GMUG and White River oil and gas leasing decision has substantial value. In my opinion. How about you?

I agree with Chuck, and so does the GAO report, that something is different in region 1 and in Montana, at least compared to Wyoming and Colorado. And if I had to give any impressions from the last couple of years of observations on projects in Montana, I would have to say it has to do with specific groups, such as Garrity’s, who do business there. I also agree with Chuck that it is not a partisan issue..

Supreme Court Affirms Programmatic EIS for Sierra Nevada Framework

Burney-Falls-poster-web

Jun 20: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 08-17565.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Appeals Court indicates that, “This court’s opinion filed on February 3, 2012, and reported at 668 F.3d 609 (9th Cir. 2012), is withdrawn, and is replaced by the attached Opinion and Dissent. . . The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote onwhether to rehear the matter en banc. . . The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc, filed on April 18, 2012, are denied.”

According to the Appeals Court, Plaintiff-Appellant Pacific Rivers Council (Pacific Rivers) brought suit in Federal district court challenging the 2004 Framework for the Sierra Nevada Mountains (the Sierras) as inconsistent with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Appeals Court said, “The gravamen of Pacific Rivers’ complaint is that the 2004 EIS does not sufficiently analyze the environmental consequences of the 2004 Framework for fish and amphibians.” On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to the Forest Service.

The Appeals Court rules, “Pacific Rivers timely appealed the grant of summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Forest Service’s analysis of fish in the 2004 EIS does not comply with NEPA. However, we conclude that the Forest Service’s analysis of amphibians does comply with NEPA. We therefore reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand to the district court.”
In a lengthy dissenting opinion, one Justice concludes, “. . .the majority makes two fundamental errors: First, it reinvents the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, transforming it from an appropriately deferential standard to one freely allowing courts to substitute their judgments for that of the agency. . . Second, the majority ignores the tiering framework created by NEPA. Because the majority ignores such framework, it fails to differentiate between a site-specific environmental impact statement (EIS) and a programmatic EIS that focuses on high-level policy decisions. . .”
It appears that an impossibly comprehensive study of the entire Sierra Nevada “watershed” will not be required for the amended Sierra Nevada Framework plan. If the Forest Service loses this case, it would have to limit the harvest of trees within thinning projects to 12″ dbh in some areas, and to 20″ dbh in the rest of the Sierra Nevada. This decision means that the Forest Service has followed NEPA law since the amendment has been in force. If the Pacific Rivers Council had prevailed, we would be seeing a complete failure of the Forest Service’s timber management program throughout the Sierra Nevada. Sierra Pacific Industries has plenty of their own lands, stocked with plenty of trees in the 12″-20″ dbh size. There would be no need for SPI to bid on the thinning projects that would be offered by the Forest Service under the old diameter limits. The small amount of harvested trees between 20″ and 29.9″ dbh are what pays for the biomass removal needed for true restoration. When thinning projects reduce wildfire threats, and actual wildfire impacts, water quality and fish habitats are improved.

Mills reopen as home building lifts lumber business

Saratoga Mill ribbon cutting
Saratoga Mill ribbon cutting

Derek is a pretty skookum guy. A while back he said the Saratoga Mill had reopened. I hate to confess that I doubted him, because the entire time I worked in Region 2 it was on the horizon.. but always on the horizon, sort of a sawmill Holy Grail. I also thought I would have seen it in a news clip.
Derek, I apologize.

So, sure enough, I went to a field hearing today at the State Capitol (more later on that) and who did I run into also looking for the meeting room, but one of the folks who runs the now open Saratoga mill. How did I miss that?

So I looked on the trusty internet and found this… on USA Today of all places!
Here’s the link and below is an excerpt.

A HARD FALL

The housing downturn hit the wood products and timber industries hard.

At the height of the housing boom in 2005, consumption of U.S. lumber hit almost 65 billion board feet. It fell to about half that at the bottom of the market in 2010. Last year, it climbed back to 37.5 billion and will likely pass 40 billion this year, FEA estimates.

With rising demand, a few lumber mills are roaring back to life. Out of 146 North American lumber mills closed since 2008, 14 have reopened or announced plans to do so, says industry analyst Paul Jannke. Five are in the U.S., including the one in Evergreen, and others are in Alabama, Wyoming, Virginia and Colorado. The rest are in Canada.

Other mills are reopening, too, including those making plywood and oriented strand board, a plywood competitor.

This summer, Toronto’s Norbord expects to reopen an OSB mill in Jefferson, Texas, that has been closed since 2009, the company says.

Rising prices are a big motivator. OSB prices are up 134% since the end of 2011, Jannke says. Framing lumber prices are up 64%, according to the composite index kept by the Random Lengths industry newsletter. Plywood prices are up 43%.

“Prices are strong enough that we can make a profit,” says Gary Ervin, owner of Saratoga Forest Management. In January, it reopened a mill in Saratoga, Wyo., that makes studs used to frame houses. The mill had been closed for 10 years. It now employs 80.

None of the reopened mills are especially large, but neither are their communities. Saratoga, population 1,678, describes itself as a place “where the trout leap in Main Street.”

Timber Tables – All 50 States with Caveats

database screenshot
Note: you can click on this screenshot to make it larger.

Thanks to Chelsea for producing this table from the database here.

Chelsea and the folks at Forest Products Laboratory gave me some caveats, which I tried to understand. Not sure I am there but hopefully others can correct me.

These tables do not include “fuelwood”. Nor do they include biomass chips which have not been processed through mills here (I think). So I guess they don’t include export logs either?

The folks in the Northeast sent this..when I asked about the export of logs and chips.

We also try to capture the export market. But the export market is hard to get good information from. We ask the mills that we canvass if any of the logs are exported overseas. Trying to get information from the ports as to what is exported is problematic. There are issues with species identification and sources of the logs. For example, there is a large log exporter in Council Bluffs, IA to pulls logs from all over the country. But the source of the logs that are exported may be listed as only coming from IA.

For the pellet stuff, I was just saying that for the North, at least, we haven’t done a TPO survey in the New England States (I think Maine has a pellet mill, or more). I am getting information from ME, NH, and VT from their tax information that they collect, so I cannot get mill level information. Therefore, I do not know if, or which pellet mills are being captured. The pellet mills that I have in our database currently are in MI and WI. I do not know if these are exported or not.

From the RPA, fuelwood includes residential and industrial fuelwood. The industrial fuelwood comes from our TPO surveys and, for the most part, the residential fuelwood comes from the Dept. of Energy fuelwood surveys

But given all those caveats.. Industrial Roundwood Harvest by State is the table of all 50 states from the TPO database. Again, thanks to Chelsea!

I also ran across this link to some information about the wood pellet sector. Not sure that there is information you can add up to say “this is where US trees are going” across the different uses.

2012 Forest Products by State Table

timber table j_Page_2

Thanks to the folks at the Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory for this table! This shows that Georgia is the top timber-producing state in 2012 based on MCF of all products. But many things of interest are in here. Here is a link to the table. timber table

I was curious about the assertion that Oregon was the top timber-producing state.

Barry Wynsma: U.S. Forest Service Collaboration Process: Solution or Sham?

This is pretty interesting because Mr. Wynsma was able to obtain a great deal of information, (should that information be available more generally?) and also his observations as employee and collaborator. I’m starting a page on ideas for solving “the Problem” and will put his ideas, as well as the ideas found (buried?) in comments here, on that page. Here’s the link, and below is an excerpt.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Truth about Collaboration

Even though I don’t believe the current process for collaboration will solve these problems, that doesn’t mean there aren’t good things about the collaborative process or that the process can’t be improved upon to help solve the problems.

Here’s what I and other current and retired Forest Service acquaintances I contacted think are good things about the collaborative process:

Involving a diverse group of people (I hate the term “stakeholders”) during the project planning process is a good thing. I believe it helps the Forest Service design projects that better meet the desires of the public, even though it’s impossible to meet everybody’s personal opinions on how to best manage the public forests.
With collaboration comes group ownership in projects and support from start to finish.
Joint solutions and commitment means no backing out.
The collaborative program provides assistance with funding to accomplish needed treatments.
Collaboration can help lay people better understand the complexity of forest management.
Collaboration may build community relationships that encourage continuing positive working relationships between Forest Service people and the community.
Collaborative groups police themselves and force extremists on both sides of the spectrum to consider what they are really saying philosophically vs. practically on any given issue.

On the other hand, there are things about collaboration that are not so good, if not bad. Here’s what I and other current and retired Forest Service acquaintances I contacted think are bad things about the collaborative process:

The collaborative process is time consuming and more costly than the traditional process of public scoping and comment gathering for projects. The more people involved in a project, the harder it is to schedule meeting dates and field trips that will maximize the largest group involvement. The results of my inquiry clearly show that projects aren’t moving through the NEPA and appeals process any faster than normal and possibly even taking longer.
The time consuming nature of collaboration can be a major deterrent to people that are not paid to attend meetings during working hours, people who have limited free time or travel. Forest Service people can become weary of after hour meetings, paid or not paid.
Meetings can go on for months, if not years. This consumption of time makes it difficult, if not impossible, for many people to take part.
Poorly managed meetings generate negative emotions and can ruin the entire process.
For individuals or groups with an agenda to limit or eliminate forest management, collaboration can provide an opportunity to wear others down by dragging meetings on and on, then appeal and/or litigate after an extended collaboration process. Collaboration can also usurp the agency’s authority.
The Forest Service may or may not be aware of hidden agendas or games being played by some members in a collaborative group.
Forest Service specialists may feel like they get “cut-out” of project development.
Also considering project specialists: the more days they have to spend in meetings, the less time they have to conduct field work and write reports, which extend the timeline for implementing projects.

The ugly truth is that collaboration won’t reduce analysis paralysis, appeals and litigation. Collaboration also won’t increase the rate at which the Forest Service can reduce fuels and restore unhealthy forests until the appeals process and our current myriad of conflicting environmental laws are reformed.

So what are some possible ways to improve the collaborative process?

Here’s a few:

After all the time and effort put into project development by collaborative groups and the Forest Service, it simply isn’t fair to the collaborative or to the taxpayers of this country to allow an inexpensive process for individuals and groups, whether they were members of the group or not, to stop or delay project implementation through appeals and litigation.

Congress should pass a new law that will exempt collaborative projects from the appeal or objection process. They should also include bonding requirements for any individual or group that file suits to stall or stop collaborative projects.

Congress should also reform or eliminate the Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows litigants to recuperate court costs from the tax paying public.

The Forest Service should develop a new Categorical Exclusion to replace the Healthy Forests Restoration Act version (CE #10) that allowed for fuels reduction timber harvests less than 1,000 acres in size. The CE #10 was rescinded following a lawsuit filed by environmental groups because in my opinion this CE allowed for expedited implementation of fuels reduction projects.

To get a broader spectrum of public involvement, make more use of the internet to gather input from people who want to participate in collaboration but don’t have the time or money to show up for meetings and field trips. The Forest Service could maintain email mailing lists for projects that people want to be engaged in and could be kept up to date on the progression of projects without having to show up for meetings. For example, with the smart phone technology I could imagine a logger sitting in the woods during a lunch break or a hiker up on a mountain top being able to participate in a collaborative project.

Note from Sharon: I was somewhat involved in the development of CE#10, not sure that would help at the end of the day. I really like his last point in terms of the criticism I hear from both sides.

Timber Industry Returns.. to Colorado?

Beetle-kill, or blue-stained, pine can be milled into dimension lumber. (Colorado State Forest Service)
Beetle-kill, or blue-stained, pine can be milled into dimension lumber. (Colorado State Forest Service)

One of the interesting things about this blog is that we get to compare conditions that aren’t usually compared across our areas, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, California, the SW, Wyoming and South Dakota and Colorado. We could probably use more contributors from the Midwest, East and South.

This interesting piece is from the Aspen Business Journal, of Aspen, Colorado. (I was thinking the same information might be written differently if it were written, in say, Boulder…;))

Here’s the link and below are excerpts.

While Colorado’s forests continue to suffer from beetle epidemics at high altitude and the hangover from a century’s fire suppression at lower altitude, there’s some good news out there for those who believe in active forest management.

Timber prices, which were bottomed out during much of Colorado beetle kill epidemic, are set to skyrocket, and the state’s timber industry may be rising in time to take advantage, industry experts said. And while there are millions of acres of standing dead timber that may never be harvested, there’s also some good news out there for at salvaging at least some of the beetle-kill pine, as well.

“In general, we’re still suffering the impacts of a century of fire suppression, so at this point active management makes a lot of sense,” said Mike Eckhoff, a PhD Candidate in forest science at Colorado State University.

“We’ve lost 80 percent of our (timber) productivity since the 1980s,” Eckhoff said. “This could be a boon for Colorado’s timber industry provided that timber is actually made available for the industry to use.”

Timber prices hit an eight-year high in March, largely due to the rising U.S. housing market. Research by the International Wood Markets indicates the U.S. and Canada probably will not be able to fulfill that timber demand in two to three years, creating even higher prices and perhaps prompting imports from Europe.

Canadian timber production was hurt by the pine beetle epidemic, the report said, but also by permanent mill closings during the recession and the loss of two large mills due to fire.

The past failure of the Colorado timber industry is usually blamed on the U.S. Forest Service making fewer trees available in light of environmental resistance to logging. While the beetle-kill epidemic and catastrophic wildfires may have taken some of the edge off the latter concern, forest industry experts are now more worried that cuts to the Forest Service’s budget may hinder making wood available through forest management.

and

In addition, things have also been looking up for Colorado’s two large pellet mills, and rising timber prices will also help them, Fishering said.

“Our industry is pretty diverse, and we’re a lot more competitive than we were in the ’70s,” she said. “We are extremely optimistic.”

Colorado may also be able to salvage much more of the standing dead lodgepole pine, than previously thought, Eckoff said. While most industry experts thought that after three or four years the beetle-kill trees were not sturdy enough to create dimension timber, he said, new studies indicate that doesn’t appear to be the case for trees that have not fallen.

The upland spruce trees that are now being killed by the spruce bark beetle are highly prized in the industry, though not all the acreage will be available to loggers. In fact, about two-thirds of the state’s 4.5 million acres of spruce-fir forests are off limits to management because of wilderness or roadless designation, according to a study by the Colorado State Forest Service.

Still, Eckhoff thought there are plenty of acres in need of management that could be producing forest products.

“Colorado produces an annual net forest growth of 1.5 billion board feet, but we only harvest 6 percent of that, or 87 million board feet,” he said. “In other words the removals do not significantly reduce the interest nor do they touch the principal.”

Lumber finally rises from the forest floor

Will trees like this someday find a home other than a burn pile? Along a road in Wyoming.
Will trees like this someday find a home other than a burn pile? Along a road in Wyoming.

This article on lumber markets seemed timely for a variety of reasons. It seems to me that we are looking at a window where, if we can find a solution, we will be helping rural communities, sustaining forests and in some cases offsetting costs of fuel reduction and hazard abatement (dead trees along roads, see photo). And for those which would have been otherwise burned in piles, helping to sequester carbon. Seems like a win win, if we all can agree on sustainable practices.

Here’s the link and below is an excerpt:

Lumber prices hit an eight-year high last week, thanks in large part to the U.S. housing market thawing out after a long deep freeze and rising overseas demand.

“The last few years have been a slow recovery from the recession for wood products,” Phil Tedder, a forestry consultant at Resource Economics, told the Los Angeles Times. “The main consumer was new housing, and that obviously wasn’t very good. But now things are picking up.”

California’s long-established timber industry is also hauling itself off the forest floor. According to the Times, sawmills shut down by the recession have reopened, and trucking companies that deliver cut wood out of state are seeing business improve. The newspaper also notes lumber prices have jumped 40% just in the past year’s time.

Also, China’s seemingly endless hunger for raw materials has extended to American timber. The U.S. Forest Service says log exports from Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Northern California increased about 9% in the third quarter of 2012 — with 62% of those West Coast log exports going to China.

In a report from ABC News, timber industry newsletter Random Lengths said the composite price for the framing lumber used in home construction was up last month to $415 per 1,000 board feet, compared to $284 a year ago. Plywood and paneling prices are up sharply as well.