February » 2010 » One Voice for Working Forests

Archive for February, 2010

Trees are getting fat

February 26th, 2010

The Washington Post had an interesting story recently about a group of researchers who spent 22 years documenting the thickness of trees on the East Coast by literally hugging 250,000 of them. It raised two important points as we continue to monitor the well-being of working forests.

The first thing to take away from the article is that the researchers discovered trees are getting much thicker over time, many of them two to four times faster than expected.

Why? From the Post story:

Parker said the best explanations for (the growth) seemed to relate to climate change. Temperatures in the area have risen by three-tenths of a degree; the growing season has lengthened by 7.8 days; and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen. All of those might speed up photosynthesis, the engine of tree growth.

Which sounds, at first, like a good thing. It would appear that trees were helping more than expected to reduce the world’s greenhouse gases, sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and using it to make leaves and branches.

“The danger of that, of course, is that this can’t go on forever,” said Kenneth Feeley, a professor at Florida International University. He meant that, even if there was enough carbon dioxide to support more fast growth, the trees would eventually run out of water or plant food. Their growth would slow down, and they would stop absorbing so much carbon.

Climate change is having all kinds of effects on our natural environment, and even when it seems like a good thing (tree growth), the true impact is much more complicated.

The other compelling thing about the Post story is that researchers, rather than becoming bored by measuring the trees, took solace in walking the forests.

The volunteers said they were sustained on their weekly outings by the dramas that showed themselves everywhere, once they learned to read the woods. This tree here, with tiny sticks poking out of its trunk, is desperate and dying, reaching crazily for the light. The two trees over there are a bully and its victim, a tall, straight tree and one that has corkscrewed around, looking for a way out of its neighbor’s shadow.

“There’s never a boring moment around here,” Morrow said. “Even though it sounds like it.”

The article is a testament to the treasures — both scientific and personal — that can be found by spending part of our lives in forests.

Lastly, we wanted to spread the word about an exciting conference in Eugene this weekend. Loggers from as far away as Australia are coming to the Willamette Valley for the 72nd Oregon Logging Conference and the topic, not surprisingly, is “Biomass: Fuel of the Future?”

Staying green with SFI

February 24th, 2010

The Seattle Times published a story over the weekend about Weyerhaeuser’s use of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) standard for its wood and paper products. An advocacy group called the Washington Forest Law Center, led by millionaire Peter Goldman, filed a complaint way back in the fall seeking to revoke Weyerhaeuser’s SFI certification. The complaint is part of an all-out assault on SFI by Goldman, who has also asked the IRS and Federal Trade Commission to take a look at the environmental standard.

Goldman is one of the most powerful people in Washington politics, by virtue of his vast inherited wealth and his innumerable campaign contributions to politicians across the state. What he is up in the arms about is that there are two standards for sustainable forestry — SFI and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) — and Goldman doesn’t think that SFI is strict enough.

Truth is, SFI is consistent across the board, and FSC has different standards depending on the state. SFI is also completely independent and has 16 years of history ensuring that forest practices are sustainable and responsible.

The most interesting part of the Seattle Times story may not be the story itself, but the reader comments, where a passionate debate ensued.

Here’s what reader “janeofearth” had to say:

What this articles fails to address is WHY there are NO timber companies in Washington State that are FSC certified. It barely touched on the idea that FSC certification standard vary from place to place. It makes it so that the something FSC certified in one state could not be FSC certified in our state. When standards are not universally standard, they lose their meaning.

The standards for FSC certification vary from state to state and country to country. The standards in Washington State are anywhere from 2 to 5 times HIGHER than other states in the US. That means companies in WA have to do 2-5 times more to get the same recognition. The standards (which relate to how much you can clear cut, how many trees per acre you have to leave on the ground, etc) are so high that they are not economically feasible for ANY company. That is why no one in WA is FSC certified.

Companies like Weyerhaeuser who have been operating fairly sustainably in the past decade or two have to compete with supposedly FSC-certified companies in other countries who have the shiny FSC label but actually have lower standards. With the FSC label, you think you’re getting something good. But depending on where you get it from it might not be that great.

Someone as powerful as Goldman can grab headlines by filing legal complaints, but it certainly doesn’t mean he knows what he’s talking about. Anyone in Washington who relies on working forests — from timber communities and loggers to private landowners and consumers of forest products — knows that forests can be harvested in a responsible way, while still providing livelihoods for Washington families.

Landowners left behind

February 19th, 2010

The Washington Legislature is debating the future of the Forest Riparian Easement Program (FREP), which compensates small forest landowners for the value of trees they can’t cut down because of regulations. According to this KPLU story, the program was suspended last year because some landowners were apparently abusing the system. The so-called abuse was by property owners that never had any intention of developing the land, like a nonprofit archery range or owners of vacation homes.

The suspension of the program, as well as its current limbo in Olympia, is troubling because it takes away one of the few tools that forest landowners had in the face of encroaching development, especially in such a poor economy. Many property owners are committed to keeping their forests as-is, but with the declining value of the land because of regulations and other financial pressures, some landowners could be forced to sell to developers unless they recieve some other kind of compensation for preserving the land.

Rick Dunning, the head of the Washington Farm Forestry Association, agrees, according to the KPLU story:

Dunning says he’s open to reforms. But he’s dismayed the program has been put on hold. He notes Washington lost 700-thousand acres of timberland to development and other uses between 1978 and 2001. Dunning believes FREP is essential to helping stem that tide. He adds that by cancelling the program the state of Washington is reneging on a promise it made to small forest landowners in 1999 in order to win their support for the Forest and Fish law.

What’s worse, rather than restore the program, the Legislature may create a task force to study it. In the meantime, there could be years of losses of our precious forests while our lawmakers consider whether they should make a decision.

In other news, remember the lawsuit-happy Center for Biological Diversity? They just filed four more lawsuits in Oregon.

More cooperation in the forests

February 16th, 2010

Forest wars finally end?

The headline, even with a question mark, is provocative. Is it possible that the forest wars that have been waged for decades are over? Well, that remains to be seen, but the story from the Payson Roundup in Arizona raises some interesting issues.

The article describes a visit to Payson from U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack designed to highlight “years of effort that have forged a consensus on the need to restore forest health by reinventing the timber industry to thin millions of acres in four national forests” in Arizona.

Timber communities, timber companies, local and federal officials and environmental groups came together in historic agreement.

From the Payson Roundup:

The so-called Four Forests initiative involved a years-long series of studies to forge an agreement on how much wood a refocused timber industry could take out of the region’s forests. In that vast area, tree densities have risen from perhaps 50 per acre to more than 1,000 per acre after a century of grazing, logging and fire suppression.

Now, with the remaining big trees beset by debilitating thickets of saplings and forest communities menaced by the threat of monster wildfires, the formerly warring factions have agreed on ground rules that could guarantee timber companies millions of trees annually if they can build mills and biofuel plants than can make money on little trees.

An analyst with the Center for Biological Diversity, the Arizona environmental group that has filed numerous lawsuits, said: “I’m hoping to look back on this day as the official end of the forest wars.”

Working together, rather than separately, is also the idea behind a plan announced this week by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the Cascade Land Conservancy. Their plan centers around this: “One of the best ways to attack the growing conversion of land is a simple one: Keep working land working. Keep the economic value in growing forests or farming. Give landowners an alternative to development.”

Is this kind of teamwork a signal of increased cooperation among forest stakeholders? Are the forest wars close to an end?

A fight over carbon in California

February 10th, 2010

The Center for Biological Diversity, an Arizona environmental group, has been very busy lately suing government agencies. Over the course of a few days, the group filed a notice to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its cleanup of toxins on a Pacific Ocean atoll, sued the state of California over its fish hatchery program and then sued California again, this time filing seven lawsuits over the state’s management plan for private forests.

The lawsuits regarding California’s forest plan trouble us the most because they fly in the face of years of work and research, with lots of input from environmental groups, on how to manage the forests. They also pose a further threat to a timber industry that has seen better days but has worked with all the appropriate parties to come up with a forest management plans that works.

The lawsuits claim that the state approved the forest projects “without properly analyzing carbon emissions and climate consequences under the California Environmental Quality Act,” according to the Los Angeles Times. Basically the center believes that harvesting forests emits more carbon than it saves, while the state has plenty of data to back up the fact that responsible harvesting of trees helps sequester carbon and combat global warming.

The California Forestry Association posted a response to the lawsuits, which is excerpted below:

There is a wealth of scientific evidence that active forest management provides greater carbon sequestration benefits than a hands-off, preservation approach…Increased forest management has also been shown to reduce wildfire severity and the emissions and other environmental consequences associated with high-intensity wildfire.

The court will ultimately decide whether the California Dept. of Forestry performed proper due diligence in approving the timber harvest plans in question, but the carbon sequestration benefit of active forest management on private land should no longer be in doubt given the exhaustive efforts of CARB and the Environmental Protection agency to analyze and demonstrate the sequestration benefit already being provided by the forestry sector.

By continuing to file lawsuits with a singular objective using multiple tactics and thereby obstructing fuel-reduction efforts and sustainable forestry practices, the (Center for Biological Diversity) has proven its focus lies squarely with advancing a preservationist agenda rather than conserving natural resources. With California’s forestry infrastructure in decline and the cost of fuel reduction and wildland firefighting increasing as a result, it is time for California’s courts and legislators to put an end to out-of-state lawsuits that clearly are inconsistent with the best interests (of) California’s environment and communities.

Another way to use wood

February 9th, 2010

A lot of people outside the timber world don’t even know what the word “biomass” means, but that probably won’t be true for much longer. Biomass — the woody material left over from timber harvesting or thinning — has the potential to be a potent source of energy, and everyone from the federal and state governments to the business community is realizing this.

President Obama recently spoke about his support for biofuels, including those made from wood, as he drums up support for his climate change bill. And Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack spoke to reporters about the first biofuel rule created by the president, including some carrots offered to the wood products industry.

The National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) applauded the president’s new biofuel rule but said current federal law still does not allow biomass from most private forests.

NAFO President David Tenny:

By excluding private forests as a part of our nation’s renewable energy strategy, the (2007) EISA biomass definition forecloses a critical part of the solution to reducing our dependence on foreign, high carbon sources of fuel.  That hurts the quality of our air, the energy independence of our nation and the ability of forest owners to invest in long term health of their forests.

As we previously wrote about, Peter Goldmark, Washington State’s Commissioner of Public Lands, recently announced that the state is partnering with four companies on biomass projects using wood waste from state forestlands. In a separate deal, Maryland-based Duke Energy and global firm Areva said they will build a $250 million biomass plant in Shelton, Mason County. Their new biomass energy startup is called Adage.

The project drew strong support Thursday from political and community leaders in Mason County, a rural Western Washington county with a 10.7 percent unemployment rate and long reliance on the timber industry.

“There’s a great labor force here – ready, willing and able to work,” said state Rep. Fred Finn, a Democrat whose district includes Mason County.

…(W)ood debris is viewed by Adage and other companies entering the field as a renewable natural resource that can be converted to energy to reduce both foreign dependence on oil and greenhouse gas emissions from uncontrolled burning.

“This is part of the next chapter in the forest products industry,” said Mason County Commissioner Lynda Ring Erickson.

This is great news for timber communities, great news for forest landowners and great news for the burgeoning biomass industry.

Maintaining a balance

February 3rd, 2010

Maintaining working forests is not an easy job, and what just about everyone can agree on is that keeping the forests rather than selling them off for development is a good thing. HB 2541, which is now making its way through the Washington Legislature in Olympia, would give forest landowners more flexibility in how they maintain their property.

As this Capital Press story describes:

..(L)andowners could voluntarily participate in incentive programs similar to those offered for agriculture. It would require the state Forest Practices Board, before adopting new rules, to propose incentives for landowners to take voluntary conservation measures.”

The board would also be directed, when faced with one or more alternative proposed rules with substantially equivalent environmental protection, to select the option that retains the greatest economic value to forestry.

Of course environmental regulation is always a balancing act, but at some point, excessive government regulation prevents the exact kind of conservation it is trying to encourage. Forest landowners get fed up with the bureaucratic delays and rule changes and they sell to a developer who has no commitment to working forests, only the bottom line.

Does government do a good job with the balancing act? What kinds of changes, if any, would you like to see in your city or state?