Thanks to Doug McDonald, Timber Data Co.
COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho — A viable timber industry is needed to help the U.S. Forest Service deal in an economical way with bark beetle infestations that have been ravaging forests in the Rocky Mountain West, an official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture said.
Robert Bonnie, a senior advisor to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, said Thursday that the Forest Service is relying on the timber companies to thin stands of unhealthy, crowded trees.
"The Forest Service is going to have to pay someone to do it, if they can't sell that timber," Bonnie told a receptive audience at a small-diameter log conference in northern Idaho, The Spokesman-Review reported. "We need forest management for the health of the landscape and the economic stability of rural communities."
But officials say many rural communities have lost sawmills due to various reasons, including a sagging U.S. housing market.
John Konzen, county commissioner in Lincoln County, Mont., said a lack of sawmills there means trees cut on the Kootenai National Forest are trucked out of state for processing. The nearest mill is at Moyie Springs, he said.
The Forest Service last year pledged $54 million to fight bark beetles, which since the late 1990s have killed 5,550 square miles of lodgepole pine and spruce forest in the Rockies. The money is intended to thin trees to reduce wildfire danger near rural communities while restoring watershed health.
The beetles are blamed in Idaho for killing trees from Lolo Pass to Lookout Pass along the Idaho-Montana border.
The costs of thinning projects escalate if the Forest Service has to pay someone to do it rather than selling the timber, Bonnie said.
Conservation groups are starting to understand the role that timber companies have in keeping forests healthy, and taking part in collaboration efforts, he said. If fewer timber sales are delayed through legal action, mills have a steadier stream of timber from federal lands, Bonnie said.
That allows timber companies to continue operating and strengthen local communities, he said.
Jonathan Oppenheimer of the Idaho Conservation League said one of the main problems with attempting to log beetle-killed stands is that it's not profitable for timber companies.
"The fundamental core issue with pulling out beetle-killed timber is that it generally doesn't pay its way out of the woods," Oppenheimer told The Associated Press on Friday.
Conservation groups are looking at areas where collaboration is possible, he said.
"In general, we need a multifaceted approach," Oppenheimer said.
The destruction caused by beetles also extends farther south down the Rockies.
A recent aerial survey by the U.S. Forest Service and the Colorado State Forest Service showed the epidemic has spread across 4 million acres of trees in Colorado and Wyoming, devastating entire forests in Colorado's Summit, Grand and Eagle counties.
There's some indication that the timber industry is responding.
A Utah company plans recently announced that it intends to operate a sawmill in Encampment, Wyo. — a small town near the Colorado border — to process beetle-killed trees from the Medicine Bow National Forest.
Thompson Logging of Kamas, Utah, said it expects to employ 15 to 18 people by mid-April at the sawmill, The Rawlins (Wyo.) Daily Times reported this month.
Company President Terry Thompson said he expects to be able to operate for years in the area because of the massive amount of beetle-killed timber.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Failed Plan's Architects Try Again
When the Northwest (nee "Clinton") Forest Plan was implemented in the
early 1990s, many forest scientists and resource managers at that time
said it would never work. It never has, and the results included
economically devastated rural communities, millions of acres of
damaged and degraded forest lands, and a continuing decline in spotted
hoot owl numbers.
Now, the principal architects of this failure are in the news again --
admitting (some of) their former errors, and trying to provide a
modified direction for public forests:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700122075/Pilot-projects-seek-way-out-of-forest-logjam.html
It must be pointed out that, while Jerry Franklin is the widely
accepted "Guru of Old-Growth," and Norm Johnson is well known for his
expertise in Forest economics and policy, neither man has ever
successfully engaged in forest management at any scale, has any
particular expertise or track record regarding reforestation, has
demonstrated any scientific ability or knowledge regarding forest
wildfire or fire history, or been held accountable for their earlier
failures.
If this is actually a "scientific" proposal, shouldn't it be subjected
to a rigorous peer review first before being further promoted via
political channels?
From: Bob Zybach ZybachB@ORWW.org
early 1990s, many forest scientists and resource managers at that time
said it would never work. It never has, and the results included
economically devastated rural communities, millions of acres of
damaged and degraded forest lands, and a continuing decline in spotted
hoot owl numbers.
Now, the principal architects of this failure are in the news again --
admitting (some of) their former errors, and trying to provide a
modified direction for public forests:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700122075/Pilot-projects-seek-way-out-of-forest-logjam.html
It must be pointed out that, while Jerry Franklin is the widely
accepted "Guru of Old-Growth," and Norm Johnson is well known for his
expertise in Forest economics and policy, neither man has ever
successfully engaged in forest management at any scale, has any
particular expertise or track record regarding reforestation, has
demonstrated any scientific ability or knowledge regarding forest
wildfire or fire history, or been held accountable for their earlier
failures.
If this is actually a "scientific" proposal, shouldn't it be subjected
to a rigorous peer review first before being further promoted via
political channels?
From: Bob Zybach ZybachB@ORWW.org
Friday, March 25, 2011
Changing forest trends create some unusual partnerships
The lumber company stalwart and the firebrand environmentalist had nothing in common ... until they discovered they both cared for trees
John Shelk
Related Documents
Oregon’s forestland Our state’s forests are some of the most diverse and productive found anywhere in the country. While the percentage of forestland hasn’t changed much since the days of Lewis and Clark, their structure and composition certainly have.
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 12:09 pm | Updated: 12:41 pm, Fri Mar 25, 2011.
JOHN DAY — Longtime Oregon lumberman John Shelk remembers the first time a colleague suggested that if he was interested in the idea of collaboration, he might want to talk to Andy Kerr.“My first reaction was, ‘Oh, really ... there aren’t enough hours in the day,’” recalled Shelk, the managing director of Ochoco Lumber.
Wade Mosby, a Collins Pine Co. executive, had suggested the conversation because of Kerr’s involvement in Lakeview’s Federal Sustained Yield Unit, home to one of the longest running and most productive collaborative efforts in the state.
Kerr was better known, however, as a firebrand environmentalist with a knack for making headlines and leaving the old industry guard spitting mad.
Mosby also had been telling Kerr to talk to Shelk – and getting an equally skeptical response.
“We knew of each other, and we had low opinions of each other,” Kerr recalled. “We came from opposite sides of the timber war.”
Eventually, Kerr met with Shelk at his office in Prineville. A tentative discussion led to a couple of trips into the woods. One was to the Malheur National Forest, where Tim Lillebo of Oregon Wild and Mike Billman of the Ochoco subsidiary, Malheur Lumber, had already been promoting collaboration.
“We realized that the world had changed, and we had a lot more in common than we thought,” said Kerr.
Partnership helped foster legislation
The bold plan was to require the U.S. Forest Service to identify and develop landscape-scale projects – at least 25,000 acres – on the federal forests in Eastern Oregon, with an aim of supplying timber for local mills, improving over-dense forest stands and retaining or creating jobs.
Despite an 11th-hour push, the bill stalled out last December as the Senate minority blocked virtually all attempts to pass public lands bills before the end of the session. Wyden hasn’t given up, however. On Jan. 27, he reintroduced the proposal, with revisions, as Senate Bill 220.
Whatever happens in the new session, proponents say the proposal has focused a national spotlight on the plight of the fire- and disease-prone forests of Eastern Oregon. It also reflected an evolving approach to forest management – one that puts former foes like Shelk and Kerr at the same table in an attempt to shortstop the litigation that has shut down logging on the eastside forests over the past two decades.
Wyden says the eastside alliance arose out of a mutual recognition by forest stakeholders – many of them former adversaries – that the forests and the communities amidst them are in crisis.
“We saw that there’s this window of time,” he said in a recent interview, “and it’s going to close in a hurry. The mills are going to close, the fires are going to burn down the forests.”
Wyden said it’s no surprise that the citizens who gathered to hash out the Eastside Forests bill include “principled and pragmatic folks” from both camps. They saw dwindling options.
“If we lose the mills, we won’t have jobs for the communities, and we won’t have that infrastructure that’s so necessary for environmental restoration,” he said.
Observers say the press conference helped to plant the seeds of that message in an important arena – the halls of Congress.
For Kerr and Shelk, the journey began with some trips into the woods to kick the duff and talk about trees.
“The idea was to see if we could find any common points of interest, beyond thinking the other is an SOB,” Shelk said. Despite a tension headache or two, the meetings generated some agreement – and the tantalizing idea that the group should work on legislation for a compromise over the forests of Oregon.
The discussions proceeded with a hand-picked group of environmentalists and industry people – seven from each side. Shelk said that by seeking out moderates, “it took out the bomb-throwers on either end of the spectrum.”
The “7x7” group still represented an array of views – from the Oregon Wild to Roseburg Lumber, from Pacific Rivers Council to the American Forest Resources Council. Shelk remembers the first meeting for its classic body language: “Everybody was armed for battle.”
Participants knew that the forests were overgrown, and that fires and insects were destroying thousands of acres of trees. Yet they were wary of each other’s motives for still-polarized stands on active management. Shelk recalls it went something like: “You’re blocking any sort of activity in the forest” vs. “You just want to cut down more big trees.”
Throughout, the participants tested each other on specific scenarios.
“Let’s say a 36-inch tree blows over and has to be removed. What do you do with it? They wanted to cut it but leave it in a stream or on the ground for habitat,” Shelk recalled. “My answer was, how about if I could take that tree to a mill and generate positive revenue, enough revenue to pay for thinning five acres of overgrown land?”
As the talks continued, the group narrowed its focus to the dry eastside pine forests where they had more in common.
At the time, Wyden had some discussion drafts of forest legislation that neither side liked. Instead, the group proposed a new approach, and Wyden’s chief of staff agreed to work with them.
The result was the bill unveiled at the December 2009 press conference.
Critics attacked plan
Grant County Judge Mark Webb conceded that while the backers were well intentioned, he opposed the bill. He said it would significantly increase regulation without giving the Forest Service any new authority or funding to manage the land. Environmentalists would gain more rules on which to appeal or litigate forest projects, he said.
Opponents particularly disliked a proposal for a science panel – a group of experts who would vet the large projects. Webb said that would put the federal forest managers under the control of outsiders, likely academicians, and further erode local influence on decision-making.
Shelk understood the concerns but also defended the intense discussion and debate that went into the bill.
He said the idea was to be prepared if, or when, a project gets to court.
“We were looking at key questions: How will this be viewed by a judge? How do we create a forest project that is bullet-proof?” he said. “We worried these subjects to death – from two separate ideological viewpoints. But we agreed that we were looking for ways to move biologically defensible projects forward – projects that would be practical, economically viable and defensible in court.”
Kerr also acknowledged that the bill had its detractors, but he said it had been adjusted to reflect concerns from both sides. Asked about the concerns voiced by some environmental groups, he said, “There are some organizations that are unhappy with the bill as it was introduced. There are some that will be unhappy with anything.”
Wyden also finds that people are often suspicious until they can see a strong law at work on the ground, but he sees hope for a solution in the future – if industry and conservation groups can work together.
“Keeping the forests healthy can translate into a healthy economy,” he said. “It’s good for the mills, it’s good for the ecosystems.”
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Wood First Bill Gets Airtime
The Oregon Capitol played host on March 21, to local and international experts on top of the economic, employment and environmental benefits of the use of wood in construction of State funded buildings. The House Agriculture and Natural Resource Committee heard two hours of testimony on House Bill 3429.
The Oregon Business Plan called for “(d)eveloping market opportunities for wood products, such as launching an ‘Oregon Wood First’ campaign for the state’s public buildings.” Honorable Pat Bell, the British Columbia Minister of Jobs, Tourism & Innovation, spoke to the significant success of B.C.’s Wood First initiative. The 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver showcased several wood buildings including the spectacular ice pavilion.
Allyn Ford, leader of his family-owned Roseburg Forest Products, and Andrew Miller, President of his family-owned Stimson Lumber Company presented compelling testimony regarding the employment benefits in rural communities of enhancing the production of Oregon wood products. Bill Kluting, long-time advocate for the Carpenters Industrial Union, noted that not only have federal forests been neglected, but also Oregon’s own Elliott State Forest is biologically capable of producing twice as much timber as it has in the last decade.
Oregon’s vast Douglas fir and Ponderosa Pine forests give the timber industry inherent advantages in the manufacture of a variety of wood products for use in Oregon and throughout the world. Experts from “Wood Works” and the University of Washington’s Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials spoke to the structural and carbon dioxide advantages of wood.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Managing Forests for Carbon
From: Bob Zybach (ZybachB@ORWW.org)
Hurteau, M. D., M. T. Stoddard, et al. (2011). "The carbon costs of
mitigating high-severity wildfire in southwestern ponderosa pine."
Global Change Biology 17(4): 1516-1521.
Forests provide climate change mitigation benefit by sequestering
carbon during growth. This benefit can be reversed by both human and
natural disturbances. While some disturbances such as hurricanes are
beyond the control of humans, extensive research in dry, temperate
forests indicates that wildfire severity can be altered as a function
of forest fuels and stand structural manipulations.
The purpose of this study was to determine if current aboveground forest carbon
stocks in fire-excluded southwestern ponderosa pine forest are higher
than prefire exclusion carbon stocks reconstructed from 1876, quantify
the carbon costs of thinning treatments to reduce high-severity
wildfire risk, and compare posttreatment (thinning and burning) carbon
stocks with reconstructed 1876 carbon stocks. Our findings indicate
that prefire exclusion forest carbon stocks ranged from 27.9 to
36.6 Mg C ha-1 and that the current fire-excluded forest structure
contained on average 2.3 times as much live tree carbon. Posttreatment
carbon stocks ranged from 37.9 to 50.6 Mg C ha-1 as a function of
thinning intensity.
Previous work found that these thinning and
burning treatments substantially increased the 6.1 m wind speed
necessary for fire to move from the forest floor to the canopy
(torching index) and the wind speed necessary for sustained crown fire
(crowning index), thereby reducing potential fire severity. Given the
projected drying and increase in fire prevalence in this region as a
function of changing climatic conditions, the higher carbon stock in
the fire-excluded forest is unlikely to be sustainable.
Treatments to reduce high-severity wildfire risk require trade-offs between carbon
stock size and carbon stock stability.
Hurteau, M. D., M. T. Stoddard, et al. (2011). "The carbon costs of
mitigating high-severity wildfire in southwestern ponderosa pine."
Global Change Biology 17(4): 1516-1521.
Forests provide climate change mitigation benefit by sequestering
carbon during growth. This benefit can be reversed by both human and
natural disturbances. While some disturbances such as hurricanes are
beyond the control of humans, extensive research in dry, temperate
forests indicates that wildfire severity can be altered as a function
of forest fuels and stand structural manipulations.
The purpose of this study was to determine if current aboveground forest carbon
stocks in fire-excluded southwestern ponderosa pine forest are higher
than prefire exclusion carbon stocks reconstructed from 1876, quantify
the carbon costs of thinning treatments to reduce high-severity
wildfire risk, and compare posttreatment (thinning and burning) carbon
stocks with reconstructed 1876 carbon stocks. Our findings indicate
that prefire exclusion forest carbon stocks ranged from 27.9 to
36.6 Mg C ha-1 and that the current fire-excluded forest structure
contained on average 2.3 times as much live tree carbon. Posttreatment
carbon stocks ranged from 37.9 to 50.6 Mg C ha-1 as a function of
thinning intensity.
Previous work found that these thinning and
burning treatments substantially increased the 6.1 m wind speed
necessary for fire to move from the forest floor to the canopy
(torching index) and the wind speed necessary for sustained crown fire
(crowning index), thereby reducing potential fire severity. Given the
projected drying and increase in fire prevalence in this region as a
function of changing climatic conditions, the higher carbon stock in
the fire-excluded forest is unlikely to be sustainable.
Treatments to reduce high-severity wildfire risk require trade-offs between carbon
stock size and carbon stock stability.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Measure 76 and the state budget: Think twice before unraveling what voters made clear
Published: Friday, March 04, 2011, 8:00 AM
By Janelle Sorenson
I noted with interest the recent headline in The Oregonian about new developments in the Legislature surrounding Measure 76 ("State deal on parks, schools unravels," Feb. 26).
It was my privilege to serve as the statewide organizer for the "Water, Parks and Wildlife" campaign that eventually became Measure 76 on the November ballot. In this capacity, I worked directly with volunteers from all over the state who were dedicated to ensuring continued funding to protect Oregon's clean water, provide thousands of jobs and to preserve our parks and precious natural resources.
More than 2,500 volunteers gave tirelessly of their time and energy to achieve those goals, and they were a constant source of inspiration to me. Together they gathered more than 55,000 signatures in order to get the initiative on the ballot -- a remarkable feat by any standard.
What was it that got people so fired up about this particular election campaign? There isn't just one answer to that question. The volunteers defied typecasting. They were middle-school students and great-grandparents, cattle ranchers and vegans, teachers and nurses. They were hikers, bikers, bird-watchers, fishermen, parents, political candidates and community leaders. They were Democrats and Republicans. Many of them had never been involved with a political campaign before, but this issue spurred them to action.
It's clear that Oregonians care about keeping our water pure and about people keeping their jobs. We care about parks remaining open. We care about preserving the beauty that makes Oregon special for all of us who live here now, as well as for future generations.
Once the initiative made the ballot, the coalition of supporters for Measure 76 grew to include hundreds of endorsers, including elected leaders, businesses, nonprofits, faith-based groups, neighborhood associations and many more.
This was clearly a measure that resonated deeply with the majority of Oregonians. Indeed, the bipartisan support for Measure 76 was evidenced by the fact that it received nearly 70 percent of the votes in November. As pointed out in The Oregonian, this included a majority in every county throughout the state. This was a rare measure, a rare issue that transcended politics as usual, and it obviously struck a chord with Oregonians of every persuasion. The people have spoken, and they have done so unequivocally.
So it would be ill-advised for legislators to return the matter to the voters again, asking them to reduce the protections that they just overwhelmingly voted into place. Doing so would be contrary to the wishes expressed by Oregonians in the November election and would add an unnecessary financial burden to our already strapped state government.
I'm not writing here on behalf of The Nature Conservancy or any of the other organizations that did so much to support Measure 76. But, based on the November election results, it would seem that I'm expressing the views of a majority of Oregonians.
Those contemplating unraveling Measure 76 would do well to take note.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Study: Climate change shrinks lodgepole pine range
Including Canada, where it is actually projected to increase in some places, lodgepole pine is expected to be able to survive in only 17 percent of its current range in the western parts of North America.
The research, just published in the journal Climatic Change, was done by scientists from the College of Forestry at Oregon State University and the Department of Forest Resource Management at the University of British Columbia. It was based on an analysis of 12,600 sites across a broad geographic range.
Lodgepole pine ecosystems occupy large areas following major fires where extreme cold temperatures, poor soils and heavy, branch-breaking snows make it difficult for other tree species to compete. This includes large parts of higher elevation sites in Oregon, Washington, the Rocky Mountains and western Canada. Yellowstone National Park is dominated by this tree species.
However, warming temperatures, less winter precipitation, earlier loss of snowpack and more summer drought already appear to be affecting the range of lodgepole pine, at the same time increasing the infestations of bark beetles that attack this tree species.
The researchers concluded that some of these forces have been at work since at least 1980, and by around 2020 will have decreased the Pacific Northwest range of lodgepole pine by 8 percent. After that, continued climatic changes are expected to accelerate the species' demise. By 2080, it is projected to be almost absent from Oregon, Washington and Idaho, some of the areas facing the most dramatic changes.
"For skeptics of climate change, it's worth noting that the increase in vulnerability of lodgepole pine we've seen in recent decades is made from comparisons with real climatic data, and is backed up with satellite-observations showing major changes on the ground," said Richard Waring, an OSU distinguished professor emeritus of forest science.
"This is already happening in some places," Waring said. "Bark beetles in lodgepole pine used to be more selective, leaving the younger and healthier trees alone.
"Now their populations and pheromone levels are getting so high they can more easily reach epidemic levels and kill almost all adult trees," he said. "Less frost, combined with less snow favors heavier levels of bark beetle infestation. We're already seeing more insect attack, and we project that it will get worse."
Some species are adapted to lower elevations, experts say, but lodgepole pine is predominately a sub-alpine tree species. Its new foliage can handle frost down to temperatures below freezing, it easily sheds snow that might break the branches of tree species more common at lower elevations, and it can survive in marginal soils.
But it makes these adaptations by growing more slowly, and as the subalpine environment becomes less harsh, lodgepole pine may increasingly be displaced by other species such as Douglas-fir, grand fir and ponderosa pine, which are also more drought-tolerant.
As lodgepole pine continues to decline, one of the few places on the map where it's still projected to survive by 2080 is Yellowstone National Park - a harsh, high-elevation location - and a few other sub-alpine locations.
The species historically has played important ecological and cultural roles. It provided long, straight and lightweight poles often sought for tepees by Native American tribes, was later harvested commercially for poles and fence materials, and offers cover and habitat for big game animals.
Funding for this research was provided by NASA and the Natural Sciences Engineering and Research Council of Canada. A co-author of the study was Nicholas Coops with the University of British Columbia.
Copyright 2011 gazettetimes.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The research, just published in the journal Climatic Change, was done by scientists from the College of Forestry at Oregon State University and the Department of Forest Resource Management at the University of British Columbia. It was based on an analysis of 12,600 sites across a broad geographic range.
Lodgepole pine ecosystems occupy large areas following major fires where extreme cold temperatures, poor soils and heavy, branch-breaking snows make it difficult for other tree species to compete. This includes large parts of higher elevation sites in Oregon, Washington, the Rocky Mountains and western Canada. Yellowstone National Park is dominated by this tree species.
However, warming temperatures, less winter precipitation, earlier loss of snowpack and more summer drought already appear to be affecting the range of lodgepole pine, at the same time increasing the infestations of bark beetles that attack this tree species.
The researchers concluded that some of these forces have been at work since at least 1980, and by around 2020 will have decreased the Pacific Northwest range of lodgepole pine by 8 percent. After that, continued climatic changes are expected to accelerate the species' demise. By 2080, it is projected to be almost absent from Oregon, Washington and Idaho, some of the areas facing the most dramatic changes.
"For skeptics of climate change, it's worth noting that the increase in vulnerability of lodgepole pine we've seen in recent decades is made from comparisons with real climatic data, and is backed up with satellite-observations showing major changes on the ground," said Richard Waring, an OSU distinguished professor emeritus of forest science.
"This is already happening in some places," Waring said. "Bark beetles in lodgepole pine used to be more selective, leaving the younger and healthier trees alone.
"Now their populations and pheromone levels are getting so high they can more easily reach epidemic levels and kill almost all adult trees," he said. "Less frost, combined with less snow favors heavier levels of bark beetle infestation. We're already seeing more insect attack, and we project that it will get worse."
Some species are adapted to lower elevations, experts say, but lodgepole pine is predominately a sub-alpine tree species. Its new foliage can handle frost down to temperatures below freezing, it easily sheds snow that might break the branches of tree species more common at lower elevations, and it can survive in marginal soils.
But it makes these adaptations by growing more slowly, and as the subalpine environment becomes less harsh, lodgepole pine may increasingly be displaced by other species such as Douglas-fir, grand fir and ponderosa pine, which are also more drought-tolerant.
As lodgepole pine continues to decline, one of the few places on the map where it's still projected to survive by 2080 is Yellowstone National Park - a harsh, high-elevation location - and a few other sub-alpine locations.
The species historically has played important ecological and cultural roles. It provided long, straight and lightweight poles often sought for tepees by Native American tribes, was later harvested commercially for poles and fence materials, and offers cover and habitat for big game animals.
Funding for this research was provided by NASA and the Natural Sciences Engineering and Research Council of Canada. A co-author of the study was Nicholas Coops with the University of British Columbia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)