University of Idaho Policy Analysis Group- Recent Publications

Derek’s comment on a previous post reminded me that I thought the topic of state/federal differences in management had been studied a while back. I thought perhaps by the University of Idaho Policy Analysis Group, and perhaps by folks in Oregon and Washington. While looking around on their site, I found a list of recent studies they had done:
Policy Analysis Group (PAG) Reports
1. Idaho’s endowment lands: A matter of sacred trust (March 1990, second edition July 2011)
2. BLM riparian policy in Idaho: Analysis of public comment on a proposed policy statement (June 1990).
3. Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s land acquisition and land management program (October 1990).
4. Wolf recovery in central Idaho: Alternative strategies and impacts (February 1991).
5. State agency roles in Idaho water quality policy (February 1991, with separate Executive Summary).
6. Silver Valley resource analysis for pulp and paper mill feasibility (October 1991).
7. A national park in Idaho? Proposals and possibilities (June 1992).
8. Design of forest riparian buffer strips for protection of water quality: Analysis of scientific literature (June 1992).
9. Analysis of methods for determining minimum instream flows for recreation (March 1993).
10. Idaho roadless areas and wilderness proposals (July 1993).
11. Forest health conditions in Idaho (December 1993, with separate Executive Summary).
12. Grizzly bear recovery in Idaho (November 1994).
13. Endangered Species Act at the crossroads: New directions from Idaho case studies (October 1995, with
separate Executive Summary).
14. Idaho water quality policy for nonpoint source pollution: A manual for decision-makers (December 1996, with
separate Executive Summary).
15. Guidelines for managing cattle grazing in riparian areas to protect water quality: Review of research and best
management practices policy (December 1997).
16. History and analysis of federally administered land in Idaho (June 1998).
17. Public opinion of water pollution control funding sources in Idaho (December 1998).
18. Toward sustainable forest management: Part I – certification programs (December 1999).
19. Toward sustainable forest management: Part II – the role and effects of timber harvesting in Idaho
(December 2000).
20. Taxing forest property: Analysis of alternative methods and impacts in Idaho (November 2001).
21. Endowment fund reform and Idaho’s state lands: Evaluating financial performance of forest and rangeland
assets (December 2001).
22. Forest resource-based economic development in Idaho: Analysis of concepts, resource management policies,
and community effects (May 2003).
23. Comparison of two forest certification systems and Idaho legal requirements (December 2003).
24. Forest fire smoke management policy: Can prescribed fire reduce subsequent wildland fire emissions?
(November 2004).
25. Delisting endangered species: Process analysis and Idaho case studies (October 2005).
26. Idaho’s forest products business sector: Contributions, challenges, and opportunities (August 2006).
27. Off-highway vehicle and snowmobile management in Idaho (October 2008).
28. Analysis of procedures for residential real estate (cottage site) leases on Idaho’s endowment lands (Oct. 2008).
29. Public land exchanges: Benefits, challenges, and potential for Idaho (December 2009).
30. Bighorn sheep and domestic sheep: Current situation in Idaho (January 2010).
31. Accounting for greenhouse gas emissions from wood bioenergy (September 2010).

I know I’ve mentioned the work of this group before on this blog, but there are numerous reports that relate to topics of current interest to us.

The Whole Op-Ed on Bitterroot Sales

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.

Bosworth on Payments to Counties


Douglas fir trees await processing at the Pacific Lumber Co. plant in Scotia, Calif. (Ben Margot / AP Photo / June 15, 2005) (Note from Sharon-the Times used this photo; I will replace with more recent California mill photo is anyone has one).

From the LA Times here.

By Dale Bosworth

December 18, 2011

During my long career with the U.S. Forest Service, people frequently expressed their concerns about the management of public lands to me when I’d run into them at the grocery store or on a hiking trail. One of the main issues they brought up had to do with the relationship between timber harvests and county budgets.

Here’s the dilemma. Counties traditionally rely on property taxes to fund basic services and education. But local governments cannot tax national forest land, and many Western states have a high percentage of their land in federal ownership. In Idaho, for example, about 63% of the land is owned by the federal government (as compared with, say, New York, where less than 1% of land is in federal hands).

To help compensate local governments for that loss of tax revenue, the Forest Service for decades returned 25% of the money it made from harvesting timber to the county government where the logging occurred. But that was problematic too because revenues were prone to wide swings depending on how much timber was harvested and what price it brought.

To address the uncertainty, Congress in 2000 passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, which guaranteed revenues to counties based on past timber receipts. The act also introduced new goals of funding restoration and stewardship projects on public lands to help communities improve forest health and diversify their economies. In 2008, funding was extended through 2011 and some revisions were made to the law.

Next year, unless the program is renewed, the payment system will revert to the old method, in which counties receive 25% of timber revenues. This formula would return uncertainty and drastically reduce payments to counties at a time when rural America is already struggling.

A working paper put out last month by the Oregon State University Rural Studies program estimated that Oregon (with about half of its land owned by the federal government) stands to lose about 4,000 jobs and would have to make deep cuts in school funding unless the bill is reauthorized. And Oregon is just one of many states affected.

Instead of allowing the program to end, the act should be renewed, and Congress should take the opportunity to better align payment incentives with current economic realities and forest health goals.

Unfortunately, current proposals from the Obama administration, the House and the Senate all fall short. The president’s 2012 budget, for example, proposes to phase out the payments over two to five years, with no clarity for how the federal government will assist counties with large amounts of public land going forward.

In addition, the administration proposal would, for the first time, fund the payments directly from the Forest Service budget, a budget already stressed by deep cuts. Subjecting the county reimbursements to the annual appropriations process rather than setting up a multiyear reauthorization would make it difficult for many counties to provide basic services.

In the House, a draft bill proposes a timber-only approach in which logging would pay for all future federal payments to counties. This would be accomplished largely by rolling back environmental laws and abandoning collaborative efforts. Even if this bill could pass, it would require unsustainable logging levels to maintain payment levels, and it would require more federal spending than current appropriations.

In the Senate, a draft bill proposes continuing the current payment system at a reduced level for five years, but that only kicks long-term reform down the road.

There is still time before the payments end in mid-2012 to pass legislation that ties future county payments to achievable forest management goals and provides real economic options for counties.

One promising idea would be to deliver payments to counties based on economic need, so that payments are targeted to ensure the best use of taxpayer dollars. Another would be to link funding to efforts by counties to improve ecosystems and recreation opportunities on federal lands.

Although logging alone cannot lift rural economies, logging combined with forest and watershed restoration work — a timber-plus jobs bill — could be the basis for both funding and job growth in counties.

Dale Bosworth worked for the U.S. Forest Service for 41 years, and served as its chief from 2001 to 2007.

More on Timber Harvests, the Economy and Montana

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.

Bugs, fire, politics threaten western Montana forests: from the Missoulian

Here’s the link.

Three things will combine to radically transform Montana forests in the next 50 years: bugs, fire and politics.
Mountain pine beetles have killed millions of acres of lodgepole pine trees. Those dead stands, combined with a progressively drier climate, will likely burn in wilder, more intense fashion. The biological aftermath should bring a wider mix of tree species, open areas and wildlife habitat, according to new computer models.
How humans tinker with that progression remains a wildcard. During this month’s Society for Conservation Biology research symposium at the University of Montana, several scientists demonstrated a technique called landscape simulation modeling. They’ve built software that juggles invasive weeds, weather patterns, logging plans, road removal and a lot of other factors to see how a forest will change over time.
“We see more of a natural sequence of events that could result in a more normal habitat distribution,” Michael Hillis of Missoula’s Ecosystem Research Group said of his model for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. “But the forest will look much different.”
The “B-bar-D” forest covers 3.4 million acres of southwest Montana, bigger than Glacier and Yellowstone national parks combined. Hillis said most of its spruce and Douglas fir stands were logged a century ago for the state’s mining industry. The resulting lodgepole stands grew up and matured at the same time, producing what Hillis called the “forest demographics of a rest home” at the perfect age for a beetle epidemic.
Many of those dead trees will then fuel forest fires. While the research is mixed whether a beetle-killed stand burns more dangerously than a green canopy, Hillis said the certain result is more fire scars on the landscape. Those scars in turn will eventually hobble later fires with a matrix of burned and unburned patches. Burned areas may return as new lodgepole stands, which regenerate best after a fire. But the unburned zones could see a return of fir, spruce and other tree species that get a chance to grow without the lodgepoles’ choking shade.
Assuming that model is correct, what do humans do with the information? Hillis, a Forest Service researcher before he moved to private practice, said his analysis helped inspire the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership, a coalition of conservationists and loggers who proposed a new way of managing the national forest. Their plan eventually became a cornerstone of Sen. Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.
That legislation has also drawn critics who warn that tinkering with the forest’s natural process could produce bad results.
“I’ve read a lot of the stories and research on climate change coming out, and one constant is we’re constantly being surprised by the results,” said George Nikas, director of Wilderness Watch and an opponent of Tester’s bill. “Changes are occurring more rapidly than expected, and how they’re expressing themselves on the landscape is different than we expect. If you think you’ve struck on a model or scenario that looks likely today and start acting on it, I’m almost certain in a couple years it will look very different.”
***
Tester’s bill would designate about 1 million acres of new wilderness and recreation areas in Montana. It would also require the Forest Service to open at least 100,000 acres of timber over 15 years to logging, thinning or other mechanical treatment in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lolo and Kootenai national forests. Last month, the senator successfully got it inserted in the Interior Department’s spending bill, which is awaiting congressional action.
Nikas and other opponents have objected to the bill’s mixing of land protections and land management orders. The forest treatment requirements “devolve public lands into local fiefdoms, allowing individual senators to write management plans into law for national forests,” he said.
But Nikas further argued actions like thinning hazardous fuels around the edges of communities is a waste of taxpayer dollars at the forest’s expense.
“If the problem is a risk of fire on the wildland-urban interface, then we need to put zoning restrictions on building, or adopt policies that say if you want to do it, good luck,” Nikas said. “You can’t manipulate forests because of decisions people are making to build in the forest. It’s just like not encouraging people to build in the floodplain.”
John Gatchell of the Montana Wilderness Association is one of Nikas’ regular debating partners. His organization was one of the founding members of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership. He said the Forest Service’s inability to get either logging or habitat work done helped form the compromise.
“There were 106 watershed projects backlogged on the B-D that were not happening,” Gatchell said. “When you look at the landscapes and the condition they should be in, you start seeing all the work that needs to be done.”

Hillis’ research looked into some of the treatments, such as fuels thinning and prescribed burns. His conclusion was that where work took place, the result was better habitat connectivity, a more varied mix of trees and a 50 percent reduction in fire incidence and severity.

“Opponents who don’t like selling trees say this is wrong,” Hillis said. “But the objective research shows thinning provides long-term benefits for forest health.”

Reporter Rob Chaney can be reached at 523-5382 or at [email protected]

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

Note from Sharon: I thought this paragraph was particularly interesting..there are different ways of dealing with uncertainty. Some are arguing for managing based on down-scaled model results (the “best available science”?), and some admitting we just don’t know. Admitting we don’t know can also lead us down a number of different paths, though, at least partially depending on our previous predilictions.

“I’ve read a lot of the stories and research on climate change coming out, and one constant is we’re constantly being surprised by the results,” said George Nikas, director of Wilderness Watch and an opponent of Tester’s bill. “Changes are occurring more rapidly than expected, and how they’re expressing themselves on the landscape is different than we expect. If you think you’ve struck on a model or scenario that looks likely today and start acting on it, I’m almost certain in a couple years it will look very different.”

Guest Post from Derek Weidensee on the 2011 Cut and Sold Report

The FY 2011 USFS “cut and sold” report just came out. At the risk of sounding to “Rain Man” like, here’s a couple stats some may find interesting.

–In Colorado, in 2011, the total “commercial timber harvest” was TWICE that of 2005. 2011= 69-MMBB vs. 2005=33-MMBF. Who would have expected that in the great recession!(The USFS includes “personal use firewood permits” in total volume sold. I arrived at “commercial” by subtracting the firewood volume from total).For being bankrupt, Intermountain must be cutting a lot of timber. I do believe I read that Intermountain doubled their capacity in that time. Without that mill(and the two pellet mills) no fuels treatments would have occured on either public OR private lands.
–In 2003, which was the low point in the Colorado timber sale program, the USFS sold a “total” of 32MMBF. In 2007, when the MPB alarm bells went off, the USFS sold 100 MMBF. That level has held steady with a five year average of 98 MMBF sold/year. Firewood permits went from 10 MMBF in 2003 to 20 MMBF in 2011.

–In Colorado, the average price for Lodgepole pine stumpage was $6.00/MBF. In Montana it was $50.00/MBF. In Montana somewhere aroud 50% of the “sold volume” was classified as “non-sawtimber”. That’s trees 7″-9″ diameter. “Sawtimber” is trees greater than 9″. In Colorado, around 85% of the sold volume was sawtimber. The above comparison tell me a couple things. First, Montana still has a timber industry that competes by “bidding up” timber sale prices. Second, the fact that Colorado offers so much “sawtimber” tells me the USFS is desperate to keep the last sawmill open and is desperate to reopen the mill at Saratoga. It’s intriguing to ponder what dire straights Colorado would be in now if Intermountain would have closed 6 years ago for lack of USFS timber like the mill in Saratoga.

Note from Sharon.. I think that many fuel treatments are done by service contract and not actually sold to mills, therefore not on this report. Anyone that knows more is encouraged to add their knowledge on this.

Wood Products, Bioenergy and Climate: Lippke et al. Study

Here’s a link to the new paper Sustainable Biofuel Contributions to Carbon Mitigation and Energy Independence

Here’s the UW news release.

Proposals to remove the carbon dioxide caused by burning fossil fuel from the atmosphere include letting commercially managed forests grow longer between harvests or not cutting them at all.

An article (http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/2/4/861/) published in the journal Forests says, however, that Pacific Northwest trees grown and harvested sustainably, such as every 45 years, can both remove existing carbon dioxide from the air and help keep the gas from entering the atmosphere in the first place. That’s provided wood is used primarily for such things as building materials instead of cement and steel – which require more fossil fuels in their manufacture – and secondarily that wood wastes are used for biofuels to displace the use of fossil fuels.

“When it comes to keeping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, it makes more sense to use trees to recycle as much carbon as we can and offset the burning of fossil fuel than it does to store carbon in standing forests and continuing burning fossil fuels,” said Bruce Lippke (http://www.cfr.washington.edu/SFRPublic/People/FacultyProfile.aspx?PID=11), University of Washington professor emeritus of forest resources. (http://www.cfr.washington.edu/)

Lippke is one of eight co-authors of the article in Forests. It is the first to comprehensively calculate using woody biomass for bioenergy in addition to using wood for long-lived products. The article focuses on the extra carbon savings that can be squeezed from harvesting trees if bioenergy is generated using wood not suitable for long-term building materials. Such wood can come from the branches and other debris left after harvesting, materials thinned from stands or from plantations of fast-growing trees like willow.

For the article, the co-authors looked at selected bioenergy scenarios using wood from the U.S. Pacific Northwest, Southeast and Northeast.

They considered two ways of producing ethanol from woody biomass – gasification and fermentation – and used what’s called life cycle analysis to tally all the environmental effects of gathering, processing and using the resulting fuels. Considering everything that goes into it and how it burns when used as fuel, the researchers found ethanol from woody biomass emits 70 percent to slightly more than 100 percent less greenhouse gases than producing and using the equivalent energy from gasoline.

Achieving slightly more than a 100 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is possible using fermentation during which ethanol is produced and enough electricity is generated to offset the fossil fuel used in the fermentation process.

In contrast, producing and using corn ethanol to displace gasoline reduces greenhouse gas emissions 22 percent on average, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s fact sheet (http://tinyurl.com/EPAFactSheetAltFuels) “Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Expanded Renewable and Alternative Fuels Use.”

While biofuels from woody biomass are carbon friendly, Lippke cautions that the U.S. should not use tax breaks or other incentives that inadvertently divert wood to bioenergy that is better used for long-lived building materials and furniture.

“Substituting wood for non-wood building materials can displace far more carbon emissions than using the wood for biofuel,” the article says. “This fact creates a hierarchy of wood uses that can provide the greatest carbon mitigation for each source of supply.”

Lippke said using wood for products and bioenergy can be considered carbon neutral because the carbon dioxide trees absorb while growing eventually goes back to the atmosphere when, for instance, wood rots after building demolition or cars burn ethanol made from woody debris. With sustainably managed forests, that carbon dioxide is then absorbed by the growing trees awaiting the next harvest.

The co-authors aren’t advocating that all forests be harvested, just the ones designated to help counter carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Older forests, for instance, provide ecological values even though they absorb less carbon dioxide as they age.

In the article the authors also urge policymakers and citizens to consider not just carbon mitigation but to also find ways to weigh the importance of energy independence from fossil fuels when considering how to use woody biomass for bioenergy.

“Simply burning woody biomass to generate heat or electricity makes sense for carbon mitigation, he says, but there’s no energy independence gained,” Lippke said.

Carbon efficiency is however only one part of the equation, the authors wrote. Transportation fuels depend heavily on imported oil and therefore biofuels that replace them make additional contributions to the domestic economy, including energy independence and rural economic development, the authors said.

Other co-authors are Richard Gustafson and Elaine Oneil with the UW, Richard Venditti with North Carolina State University, Timothy Volk with the State University of New York, Leonard Johnson with the University of Idaho, Maureen Puettmann of WoodLife Environmental Consultants and Phillip Steele with Mississippi State University.

The publication integrates findings across many previous reports generated by a consortium of 17 research institutions that have been involved in life cycle analysis of wood products for more than 15 years through the Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (http://www.corrim.org/), based at the UW. The recent biofuel life cycle research was funded with a grant from the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Products Laboratory.

Chinese market adds wrinkle to ailing Northwest logging industry


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.

Our Public Land/ Private Forest Resources: How Not to Be a Colony

Large loaders negotiate waves of logs as they load visiting log ship Global Wisdom at the Port of Olympia in late September

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 ground

The 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.

Managing Forests Because Carbon Matters: Journal of Forestry Supplement

Thanks to Terry Seyden for finding this; I’ve been carrying this special section around trying to find time to read it.

New Analysis of Carbon Accounting, Biomass Use, and Climate Benefits
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111109093852.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 9, 2011) — A recent report provides new ideas surrounding carbon and energy benefits forests and forest products provide. The report, Managing Forests Because Carbon Matters: Integrating Energy, Products, and Land Management Policy, summarizes and analyzes the most recent science regarding forests and carbon accounting, biomass use, and forest carbon offsets.
A team of researchers from the U.S. Forest Service, several universities, and natural resource and environmental organizations coauthored the report, which appears as a supplement to the October/November 2011 issue of the Society of American Forester’s Journal of Forestry.
” This work should help policymakers reconsider the critical impact forests have on our daily lives and the potential they have to solve problems that confront our Nation,” says Bob Malmsheimer, lead author of the report and a professor at State University of New York (Syracuse) College of Environmental Science and Forestry. “We believe our science-based findings should lead toward positive reforms that encourage investment in this vital renewable resource.”

The report suggests that U.S. environment and energy policies should be based on the following science findings:

Sustainably managed forests can provide carbon storage and substitution advantages while delivering a wide range of environmental and social benefits including timber and biomass resources, jobs, economic opportunities, clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation.
Energy produced from forest biomass returns to the atmosphere carbon that plants absorbed in the relatively recent past; it essentially results in no net release of carbon as long as overall forest inventories are stable or increasing (as with U.S. forests).
Forest products used in place of energy-intensive materials such as metals, concrete, and plastics reduce carbon emissions (because forest products require less fossil fuel-based energy to produce and they also store carbon for a length of time based on their use and disposal), and they provide biomass residuals (i.e., waste wood) that can be substituted for fossil fuels to produce energy.
Fossil fuel-produced energy releases carbon into the atmosphere that has resided in the Earth for millions of years; forest biomass-based energy uses far less of the carbon stored in the Earth, thereby reducing the flow of fossil fuel-based carbon emissions to the atmosphere.

“Perhaps this report will inspire fresh efforts to find management strategies that folks can agree on,” says coauthor and Forest Service scientist Jeremy Fried. “The forest inventory and analysis data collected by the Forest Service on all forested lands in the U.S. provided the data necessary to explore how forests can be managed to provide climate benefits. Full life-cycle analyses of U.S. forests show that the best opportunity for these forests to provide even more climate benefits requires a combination of factors. Those factors are: sustainably managed forests, a healthy market for long-lived forest products, and renewable energy generated from forest and mill residues.”

The report emerged from the Society of American Foresters Task Force on Forest Climate Change Offsets and Use of Forest Biomass for Energy. Authors include Robert Malmsheimer, State University of New York (Syracuse) College of Environmental Science and Forestry; James Bowyer, Professor Emeritus of University of Minnesota; Jeremy Fried, U.S. Forest Service; Edmund Gee, U.S. Forest Service; Robert Izlar, University of Georgia; Reid Miner, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement; Ian Munn, Mississippi State University; Elaine Oneil, University of Washington; and William Stewart, University of California-Berkeley.

Read the paper online here.