Alternative harvesting method provides foundation for Wyden O&C plan

Alternative harvesting method provides foundation for Wyden O&C plan: Guest opinion

Print

By Guest Columnist 
Follow on Twitter 
on November 30, 2013 at 9:00 AM, updated November 30, 2013 at 9:04 AM

By Jerry F. Franklin
and K. Norman Johnson

Variable retention harvesting is prescribed in Sen. Ron Wyden's proposed legislation for harvesting in younger highly-productive Douglas fir and Western hemlock forests (the "moist forests") on the O&C lands of western Oregon. Understanding the forestry technique is critical to understanding the senator's plan.

View full sizeIn variable retention forestry, portions of forest are retained throughout the harvest. area providing "lifeboats" for ecosystems. (Computer simulation by Laura Hardin, OSU)

Variable retention harvesting is modeled on patterns of natural disturbances, such as wildfire.  In contrast to clear-cutting, where essentially all of the trees are removed, significant amounts (about 1/3 in the proposed legislation) of the pre-harvest forest are retained throughout the harvest area (see top photo). The retention would typically include unlogged forest patches up to several acres in size well distributed through the harvest area – "aggregated retention" -- as well as individual or small clusters of live and dead trees and down logs, distributed over logged portions of the harvest area -- "dispersed retention." Some of the aggregated retention will be along streams within the harvest area.

One important objective of variable retention harvesting is to "lifeboat" many of the forest-related plant and animal species, sustaining them within the harvest area until the new forest becomes established. For example, forest-dwelling small mammals and amphibians can be sustained by retaining heavily rotted logs that provide critical habitat for them. 

Variable retention also provides for continuity in life-sustaining flows of energy into the soil from trees. In addition, the un-harvested forest patches or aggregates have special ecological value since they include undisturbed forest floors, a full range of tree sizes and mellow microclimates.

View full sizeThe openings created in variable retention forestry aid development of highly bio-diverse ecosystems. (Photo by Jerry Franklin)

Variable retention harvesting is being widely applied globally as a versatile and effective silvicultural approach, particularly where management goals require integration of ecological, economic, and cultural objectives. It is currently being used on five continents in countries as diverse as Sweden, Canada, Australia, Argentina and Chile. It also is being used on a diversity of forest ownerships including federal, state, and local public lands, trust lands, and private forest lands. Hundreds of peer-reviewed publications document the scientific underpinnings and the ecological benefits of variable retention harvesting.

Of course, a key question is what stands would receive variable retention harvesting in Sen. Wyden's proposed legislation. Harvesting would occur only in moist forest stands designated for sustained yield management. All of these would be stands currently less than 120 years of age and most would be stands that originated after previous harvests (usually clear-cutting) 60-90 years ago. No old-growth forests or trees would be harvested.

As proposed for the Bureau of Land Management lands, variable retention harvesting has the additional major ecological benefit of providing the significant openings needed for development of the highly bio-diverse "early successional ecosystems." These are the ecosystems that initially develop on forest sites after a harvest or other major disturbance, such as wildfire. They are biologically rich communities of herbs, shrubs and trees that, in turn, support an immense variety of animal life because of the abundant and diverse sources of food – herbage, nectar, fruits, nuts, seeds and prey. (See bottom photo.)

Many of the species found in these early successional ecosystems are habitat specialists that require early successional habitats. These include many songbirds and butterflies. Also, as hunters know, they are favored and critical habitat for deer and elk, because there is food for them to eat. Research at Mount St. Helens – the biodiversity hotspot of the Cascade Range -- has been critical in helping us to understand the ecological importance of early successional ecosystems.

While private forest lands might be expected to provide for biologically rich early successional ecosystems, they generally do not. Production forestry on industrial lands -- the source of most private harvest in Western Oregon -- seeks to maximize economic returns with intensive practices, such as intensive site preparation, dense tree planting, and control of shrubs and herbs with herbicides. Encouraging shrub-dominated communities and gradual re-establishment of tree cover is not consistent with such goals.

In summary, variable retention harvesting proposed in Sen. Wyden's legislation is fundamentally different from clear-cutting and associated practices. Variable retention is grounded in principles derived from natural forest ecosystems. As proposed it will provide for both continuity in forest biota and creation of openings needed for early successional species and processes.

Jerry Franklin is a professor in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences at the University of Washington; K. Norman Johnson is  a professor in the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State University. They each worked on development of the Northwest Forest Plan and on development of Sen. Ron Wyden's forest management plan unveiled this week.

Using Oregon's forests for bioenergy production has a down side: increased carbon emissions

By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian

View full size 

Matthew Preusch/The OregonainWood chips are piled next to a biomass burner at the D.R. Johnson Company's Prairie City power plant.

 

Oregon's blue-sky thinking on alternative energy envisions the state's forests as a terrific source of biomass. Woody debris from thinning, brush clearing and removing dead trees could generate electricity, heat manufacturing plants and be turned into biofuels.

 

Better yet, the thinking goes, such work could restore forest health and provide jobs in rural communities in addition to helping the state meet its renewable energy goals. The Oregon Forest Resources Institute calls it the "woody biomass triple win."

 

Researchers at Oregon State University rain on that notion.

 

In a four-year study OSU describes as the largest and most comprehensive to date, researchers say managing the forests for biofuel production will increase carbon dioxide emissions from the forests by at least 14 percent.

 

"Most people assume that wood bioenergy will be carbon-neutral, because the forest re-grows and there's also the chance of protecting forests from carbon emissions due to wildfire," researcher Tara Hudiburg  said in an OSU news release. But the study shows removing forest debris for bioenergy use will release more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than current practices burning it or leaving it in place, she said.

 

The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, involved 80 types of forests in 19 regions of Oregon, Washington and California, ranging from wet coastal forests to semi-arid woodlands.

 

Hudiburg and OSU forestry professor Beverly Law, co-author of the report, said the implications of managing forests for energy production have not been fully considered. "If our ultimate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, producing bioenergy from forests will be counterproductive," Law said in the news release.

 

Others believe the researchers examined the issue from too narrow a view.

 

Paul Barnum, executive director of the forest research institute, said Oregon's dry eastern forests have "unnaturally high levels of biomass" that can be used to generate electricity and heat.

 

"If we don't actively manage these forests, we run the risk of catastrophic wildfire" that would be disastrous to wildlife, water quality and buildings, he said in an email.

 

Norm Johnson, also a forestry professor at Oregon State, is a biomass supporter. Burning wood doesn't produce energy as efficiently as burning fossil fuels. But new tree growth will recapture the excess carbon emissions from biomass over time, he said.

 

"In the long run, it's better" than burning fossil fuels, Johnson said. "In the short run, yes, we'd probably conclude it's not as efficient."

 

At this point, Oregon burns "slash," mainly branches and tree tops, left over from logging to reduce fire risk. Using it to produce energy in place of fossil fuels is a better alternative for the environment, Johnson said.

 

The idea has bipartisan political backing in Oregon and nationally. Gov. John Kitzhaber, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., are among its strong supporters.

 

Oregon treats biomass as renewable power, the same as solar and wind, when it comes to meeting green power generation requirements. Oregon and the federal government also subsidize forest biomass energy projects.

 

Kitzhaber remains committed to developing biomass energy for the wide range of benefits it provides, said Tim Raphael, the governor's communications director.

 

Rural economic development, forest health, reducing the use of fossil fuels and even international energy security are among the factors, Raphael said.

 

"That's really the filter that we've looked at it through, and I'm not sure that was the filter of the study," he said.

 

"I don't know much about producing jobs, habitat restoration or wildlife restoration -- I know a lot about carbon," Hudiburg responded in a telephone interview. "If your goal is reduce carbon emissions, then it will not help. But if you have other goals, then yes, maybe."

 

"It's never going to be a win-win situation for everything," she said.

--Eric Mortenson

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

On forest issues, Oregon must break free

 By The Oregonian Editorial Board 


To get their economy flowing again, Oregonians must carve a fresh path around the barriers that have blocked productive management of public lands 

One sunny day last August, the Rogue River lost patience with the pace of progress in removing Gold Ray Dam. The river suddenly surged through a sand bar, stranded frightened workers atop the remnants of the old dam and blasted a new channel, opening 157 miles of river for migrating fish. 

That marked one of the great moments in the Oregon outdoors last year. An antiquated barrier collapsed, a bitter, decades-long debate ended and, the Rogue, one of the state's great natural resources, ran wild all the way to the sea. 

Gold Ray's removal was a significant event not only because a dam fell, but because it showed that Oregonians can come together and break through difficult, contentious debates over natural resources. 

It's that spirit, that collaboration, that Oregonians must summon this year to finally push through the barriers that have blocked progress on the management of public forests and rivers. 

Like the Rogue, Oregonians should follow promising paths wherever they lead. Here's one: Conservationists and timber industry executives have signed on to an eastside forest compromise brokered by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden. The deal protects old-growth trees while freeing up tens of thousands of acres of sick, overstocked, fire-prone forests for logging. The plan would save forests, jobs and the last few mills east of the Cascades in Oregon. By year's end, it ought to be law. 

Here's another path: Rep. Peter DeFazio recently met with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to urge a plan from widely respected foresters Jerry Franklin and Norm Johnson to increase logging and improve forest health on Bureau of Land Management forests in southwestern Oregon. By year's end, these large test projects ought to be under way, too. 

There's more common ground out there, if Oregonians, elected officials and interest groups are willing to stray from their hard lines. For instance, conservation groups seek to expand the protected wilderness around the Rogue River. The timber industry doesn't object. 

Clearly, these areas will never be logged. Again, let's get it done. By year's end, Congress should approve the new Rogue wilderness. 

There's broad agreement, too, in the Klamath Basin, where Oregonians have fought for decades over water. The Klamath Basin Resource Agreement worked out last year would sweep most of these differences away, guaranteeing reliable irrigation water and removing four fish-killing dams. It's a bold new path to more predictable conditions for more Klamath farmers, healthier fish runs and more stable fishing seasons for coastal fishermen. By year's end, this vital compromise must still be on track. 

Wherever you live, you need to care about how and when these issues on Oregon's vast public forest and rivers are resolved. Every one affects the delicate balance between economy and environment. Every one affects the future of the state. 

Oregon is not going to flourish with rural unemployment pushing 20 percent and counties struggling to maintain the most basic services, including public safety. It can't get stronger with families moving away from rural communities and their schools. 

It can't build a strong economy or a healthy environment around public forests that get ever more crowded and vulnerable to disease and wildfire. It can't strengthen its coastal economy if commercial salmon fishing is shut down every other year. 

These issues are barriers standing between Oregon and better days. They're blocking our progress. It's time to take those new paths, and break free.