Timberati » Timber Harvesting Plan

Forests and Climate Change, Not Clearcut

Timberati — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:06:58 +0000

“If you don’t have the law, you argue the facts; if you don’t have the facts, you argue the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, then you argue the Constitution” – John Adams

Poster from The Green Chain used by permission

It’s not clearcut

At Issue: Clearcutting and Climate Change

On January 27, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a Tucson-based environmental advocacy group, filed suit against my former employer.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) regulates harvesting on California’s non-federal forests. Oddly, CBD isn’t claiming clearcutting 5,000 acres (none of harvest areas are greater than 40 acres^[1]) disrupts habitat and thus endangers plants and animals. No, they’ve filed suit because clearcutting, ostensibly, increases global warming. “A clearcut is about as beneficial to the climate as a new coal-fired power plant,” says Brian Nowicki, CBD’s California climate policy director. At issue is whether Cal Fire “failed to carry out any project-specific analysis of the (greenhouse gas) emissions that would come from clearcutting projects it approved.”

“A clearcut is about as beneficial to the climate as a new coal-fired power plant “- Brian” Nowicki, CBD’s California climate policy director

Forests do a good job of soaking up carbon dioxide (CO₂), a “greenhouse gas.” When harvesting removes the trees, some of the carbon in the soil, branches, litter, and leaves, escapes back into the atmosphere. It may be more than normal but it’s normal. Forests constantly exchange carbon, pulling CO₂ from the air and putting it back through respiration. One textbook I consulted said of a normal forest, “Measurements have shown as much as 20 pounds [of CO₂] per acre per hour being liberated from soil.”

The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) estimates 80% of the terrestrially exchanged carbon is done by forests. California’s forests pull more than 14 million metric tons (MMT) of CO₂annually from the atmosphere. “Most foresters I talk to feel the 14 million metric tons gross sequestration [the incorporation of carbon into the tree] rate is an underestimate,” said Gary Nakamura, Forestry Specialist for University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Forestry and a member of the California Board of Forestry.

Fires, harvesting, insect kill, disease, and the decomposition of forest products in landfills and composting facilities, return about 10 MMT back to the atmosphere. The numbers squish when squeezed. “The uncertainty in this estimate is roughly ± 38%,” Nakamura said in an email.

While the numbers aren’t certain, CBD is. They’ve defeated others before on this issue. They may win again, despite the science, the facts, or the law; never mind the constitution. “It’s part of an ongoing philosophical struggle between the forces of preservation and the forces of conservation,” Bill Keye, Government Affairs Specialist for the California Licensed Foresters Association (CLFA) told me. “They’ve shut down national forests, now they’ve branched out to private ownerships. They don’t like even-aged management [i.e. clearcutting] and they don’t like us [the forest industry].”

“It’s part of an ongoing philosophical struggle between the forces of preservation and the forces of conservation. They’ve shut down national forests, now they’ve branched out to private ownerships. They don’t like even-aged management and they don’t like us.” – Bill Keye, Government Affairs Specialist for the California Licensed Foresters Association

“Clear-cutting is an abysmal practice that should have been banned long ago due to its impacts on wildlife and water quality,” CBD’s Senior Counsel, Brendan Cummings said in a statement. “Now, in an era where all land-management decisions need to be fully carbon-conscious, there is simply no excuse to continue to allow clear-cutting in California.”

“Now, in an era where all land-management decisions need to be fully carbon-conscious, there is simply no excuse to continue to allow clear-cutting in California.” – CBD Senior Counsel, Brendan Cummings

Different Trees, Different Needs

Yet if we want to keep a healthy mix of trees, there’s not only an excuse to allow clearcutting, there’s a place for clearcutting. Every gardener knows some plants work best in shade and some thrive in full sunlight. The same holds for trees. Some trees, such as ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, do best in full sunlight. Other trees grow in shaded conditions.

Foresters prescribe clearcutting in order to be able to plant trees that are intolerant to shade. Selection cutting shifts the species mix toward shade-tolerant trees because the ones needing full sunlight won’t be able to compete and will get crowded out. Without major stand disturbance such as fire, logging, or extensive windthrow to create those openings, trees such as ponderosa and Douglas-fir won’t have the conditions they need to survive and will be shaded out.

So, if the desired future is to have ponderosa pines or Douglas-firs in our forests, clearcuts beat selection harvests. The only argument should be over the size of the openings allowed, and after the biological needs of a species are met, it’s a matter of policy. California’s regulations restrict clearcut size to 20-40 acres, the smallest openings allowed in the western United States.

A CBD Win Won’t Help the Environment

However well-intentioned lawsuits such as CBD’s latest against Cal Fire are, they have the power to cause unintended consequences. If Bill Keye is right and CBD’s goal is to end all harvesting, the result is far more pollution, not simply more CO2; results CBD contends they are trying to prevent.

““When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”“- Alston Chase, author of “Playing God in Yellowstone.”

Such lawsuits hold the power to shift people away from California’s renewable second-growth forests, and the wood they provide, to non-renewable resources and their more energy-intensive requirements; or perhaps worse, shifting to sources where environmental policies carry little regard. “When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy,” said Alston Chase, author and former philosophy professor, “the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”

Never mind the metaphorical coal-fired power plant, real coal-fired power plants will be running harder to create products from substitutes, such as concrete, steel and aluminum. These substitutes require more energy to explore, excavate, smelt, and manufacture.

Our California forests have the capacity to produce all the wood we need and export some as well, yet we import 75% of our wood. And, when we do buy wood, it may not be from places that carefully scrutinize harvests. It’s Kabuki environmentalism and the “zero-cut,” illusion of preservation, getting wood from countries with lax environmental enforcement.

The lawsuit seems to be classic NIMBYism: “think locally, pollute globally.”

—————————————————

^[1] 40 acres is the maximum clearcut size allowed by the Forest Practice Rules

Extending THP Time

Timberati — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:59:58 +0000

An article on the California Progress Report website says that California Assembly Bill (AB) 1066 would weaken environmental protections provided by the the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act. Taking An Ax To Forest Protection: Legislature Poised To Weaken Timber Harvest Plans was written by Traci Sheehan, Executive Director of the Planning and Conservation League. She contends, “Even after several rounds of amendments” AB 1066, “threatens the health of our forests, water, and air…”

Ms. Sheehan argues, “By allowing repeated one and two year extensions [to a Timber Harvest Plan (THP)], AB 1066 increases the difficulty of THP reviewing agencies…to effectively analyze environmental impacts.”

What AB 1066 Does

If passed, AB 1066 changes the effective period of a THP from its current three year lifespan to five years. Cal Fire, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (the lead agency under California’s Environmental Quality Act) then may give the THP up to a maximum of two one-year extensions if a listed species has not been discovered AND significant physical changes to the harvest area (or adjacent areas) have not occurred.

The Current Requirements

Before any timber operations start, the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 requires an approved THP for all forestland in California (non-federally owned).

The THP gives the location of the planned harvest, the harvest method, the measures to used to avoid excessive erosion, the timeframe of operations, and other information required by the forest practice rules (FPR) adopted by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. (Rules are created by regulators to put an act into practice with quantifiable objectives.)

The THP must be prepared by a Registered Professional (Licensed) Forester (RPF).

The THP is reviewed by the Cal-Fire, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Fish and Game, California Geological Service, and other stakeholders including the public. It is Cal-Fire’s responsibility to deny or approve THPs.

Once approved, a THP is limited to three years, though it may be extended (if work has commenced) for two, one-year extensions if cause is shown and all timber operations comply with law and mitigations agreed upon in the THP.

Registered Professional Foresters in California

California created RPFs in 1971. To become an RPF, one must have a minimum of seven years experience in forestry work (four of which can be substituted by a BS in forestry) and pass an extensive written examination. “Typically, less than 40 percent of those taking a given exam achieve the minimum passing grade of 75 percent.”¹I’m an RPF and the test is rigorous to say the least.

The Legislature’s Intent for the 1973 Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act

THPs were created with the enactment of the 1973 Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act. The Legislature declared they wanted “to encourage prudent and responsible forest resource management.” Their intent was to create comprehensive regulations assuring California’s non-federal timberlands maintained “maximum sustained production of high-quality timber products”

Why I’m For the Change

The bill’s aim seems pretty straightforward. THPs go from three years to five years with two possible extensions granted with major provisions.

The stipulation of no new listed species discovered AND no significant physical changes to the harvest area (or adjacent areas) is not small potatoes. RPFs watch the threatened and endangered species lists the way stockbrokers watch the Dow.

The California Licensed Foresters’ Association (I’m a card-carrying member of CLFA) puts it this way:

Originally, a typical THP required a few days of an RPF’s time to conduct field work, prepare the standard form, maps and supporting documentation. At that time, a plan could be prepared in the spring of the year, approved and then completed before the fall rains. This process was simple and straightforward, yet provided a giant step forward in environmental protection and public disclosure over the previous forest practice rules.

As for “exacerbating” the boom/bust industry cycle as Ms. Sheehan contends, I’d like more information with analysis. Selling in a down market is not recommended by any of the economists I’ve read. As CLFA notes,

Today a THP can take a full year or more to prepare for submission, require months to pass through the review process and cost the landowner tens of thousands of dollars in preparation costs and fees. Market conditions can change significantly during this period, meaning that upon plan approval the owner’s economic prospects might be entirely different than originally expected.

Much has changed in the four decades of the Forest Practice Act’s existence. Certainly the requirements have lengthened, a Rule Book used to fit in my back pocket. The size of a standard THP has exploded over 1000%. A little more time to get the job done by the timber operator, the RPF, and the regulators provides breathing room. Rather than increasing, “the difficulty of THP reviewing,” as Ms. Sheehan says, additional time should lower the temperature and allow time for stakeholders review these complex (and tedious) documents and for Cal-Fire to assure compliance on the ground where it counts.

———————-

My thanks to the Board of the California Licensed Foresters Association (CLFA) for allowing me to quote liberally from their AB 1066 endorsement letter.

To read the full text of why CLFA supports AB 1066 you may find it here, under their What’s News link.