A Tempest in a Toilet Bowl – Environmentalists Say 'Plush Toilet Paper Wipes Out Forests'

Environmentalists Say Plush Toilet Paper Wipes Out Forests

Does buying soft toilet paper really threaten the environment?

The blogosphere overflows with hyperbole saying it does. “Americans Wipe Their Butts with Non-Renewable Trees,”¹ one site trumpeted. Another gushed, “Use recycled toilet paper and paper towels and reduce the demand of destroying virgin forests!”² I’m sure she meant toilet paper made from recycled paper rather than already-used TP, but despite the fractured syntax her conviction was clear.

The great toilet paper debate has rolled to the frontlines of the mainstream media. Radio, television, and print outlets³ have all reported on the contested consequences of choosing softness over recycled brands.

Everyone quotes Dr. Allen Hershkowitz,⁴ the Natural Resources Defense Council’s expert on waste, who stated, “People just don’t understand that softness equals ecological destruction.”⁵ Peabody Award winning journalist John Hockenberry agrees, using typical American toilet paper has “enormous environmental consequences.”⁶

Opposing arguments are also awash in over-the-top wording, but generally boil down to: “You can have these super-soft rolls when you pry them from our cold, dead hands! Hooray for Free Market Capitalism; we’ll wipe our pampered tushes with spotted owls if we want to because we can afford it!”

Thus is the debate framed: John Muir versus Adam Smith, environmentalism versus capitalism. Which are we to believe: the recycled-choice set which sounds like a public radio pledge-drive striving to guilt people into changing or the plush-choice side which relies on less-than-perfect market systems to rein in excesses? Neither, we need facts, not a conflated mish-mash of hearsay.

Here are some points to consider:

The production process.

The production of our paper has changed only in speed and scope from its beginnings two thousand years ago in China: make a cellulosic slurry by dissolving the wood’s lignin and hemicellulose binding the wood’s fibers, rinse, spread the pulpy mush over a framed mesh to drain, and dry.⁷ The Chinese also invented toilet paper about one thousand years later.⁸

The source of wood fiber.

We don’t use filet mignon for generic dog food and timber companies don’t use tight grained, knot free wood for low-profit ends. While environmentalists conjure pictures of paper companies hewing virgin forests with majestic trees and then chipping the logs directly into toilet paper, such is not the case. Fully half of the raw material for paper manufacturing comes from mill scraps—sawdust and end pieces that would otherwise be burned or dumped.

So even though the chips used for pulping may come from an older tree, the tree itself was not harvested expressly for paper, its wood went into furniture and dimension lumber. Then the mill sold its waste scraps and sawdust in a secondary market. When the choice for the outcome for this waste sifts down to landfill, burning, converting to ethanol, composting (all which release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere) or pulping the waste into paper (which binds the cellulose fibers), the choice seems obvious. These scraps have desirable fiber lengths for the pulping process.

Fiber length is an issue because longer fibers make softer paper. Old-growth fiber is not necessarily longer than young-growth. Wood fiber length varies by species and the location on the tree.⁹ How far the tracheid (fiber) occurs from the center pith and whether it is above or below midway up the tree affects length. Species matters too: A 25-year-old Pinus caribaea has longer fibers (2.34 mm average length)¹⁰ than a 50-year-old Eucalyptus regnans (0.80mm average fiber length)¹¹.

A few old trees do not an old-growth forest make.

There is a tendency in the news stories to label second-growth stands established in the 1950’s or 1960’s as “old-growth” because the trees happen to be past an average American’s middle-age. You can see the tendency in the Washington Post piece, “… trees that were decades or even a century [old].”¹² To a forester, thinking a quarter-century ahead constitutes short-term planning.

Though what ‘old-growth’ is is a matter of debate, analogous to US Supreme Court Justice Stewart Potter’s definition of pornography as: “I know when I see it.” There is consensus that old-growth refers to a forest stand’s structure and characteristics.¹³ The University of California’s Cooperative Extension’s definition is: “Trees that have been growing for such a long time that net growth or value is often declining.”¹⁴

The effectiveness of choosing recycled over plush.

I applaud the environmental community for heralding the need to curb the demand side of the supply-demand equation. We Americans consume three times as much wood per capita than the world average, we use one-third more paper than the average European, and much of the wood we use is imported. And while the U.S. may lead the paper pack, the rest of the world is at our heels.¹⁵

But toilet tissue is the wrong target because only about five percent of our total paper consumption is for toilet paper—about forty pounds per person per year. The remaining 760 pounds per person per year includes packaging, office supplies, books, newspapers, and magazines.¹⁶

One place to cut down is in office use. Due to computers and fast printers, America’s paper consumption skyrocketed from 4.2 million tons to 7 million tons in just three years alone between 1981 and 1984.¹⁷ Obviously, creating fewer copies for distribution in offices will make a greater contribution to lowering our consumption than changing brands of toilet paper.

Finally, much of the toilet paper consumed in the U.S. is for institutional use, and therefore is already from recycled paper (it’s the least expensive). Given all those clarifications, the argument devolves into niggling fussiness.

Follow the Money.

The purpose for the great TP debate may not be the health of the environment, but rather to make you reach for your wallet using the “destruction” of old-growth as the stick. In 2001, Tom Knudson wrote a series in the Sacramento Bee called Environment, Inc., “Competition [among environmental groups] for money and members is keen…Crisis, real or not, is a commodity. And slogans and sound bites masquerade as scientific fact.” Without a crisis to scare you, they don’t stay in business.

Summary

As a forester, I support conserving trees, but I also support using trees. With four decades in the field, I have marked trees for harvest, have seen them cut down, and have planted seedlings in their place. I have watched those seedlings grow more than sixty feet on their way to becoming three or four times that height. Bottom line: Forests replenish with proper stewardship, even slow-growing ones such as Canada’s northern boreal forests.

Let’s manage forests in accordance with scientific principles, not fear, guilt, or romanticism. Our goal must be sustainability and balance. That discussion might be had when we possess the facts. Unfortunately, facts don’t seem to stop this debate, rather than discussing a realistic balance point and how to stay there, we squabble over the non-consequential. Environmentalists should not emulate fundamentalists who only have “no” for an answer.

To learn what to say yes to, I recommend “Natural Capitalism – Creating the Next Industrial Revolution,” by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins. They show how environmental conscience and business sense can work together for a cleaner, greener future.

So change to toilet paper using recycled materials if you wish, but do not think that this choice will slow deforestation. Weigh the arguments critically, looking for those misuses of terms and concepts.

Norm Benson is a Licensed Forester living north of San Francisco. He uses Costco’s store-brand toilet paper.

Notes

^[1] Gutierrez, David. “Americans Wipe Their Butts with Non-Renewable Trees,” Natural News Website, July 15, 2009, http://www.naturalnews.com/026627_paper_toilet_paper_forests.html (accessed November 19, 2009)

[2] Lindo, Nancy. “Daily Green Living Tips,” The Green Girls Website, March 24, 2009, http://www.thegreengirls.com/blog/post/2009/03/DAILY-GREEN-LIVING-TIPS.aspx (accessed November 19, 2009)

^[3]Fahrenthold, David. “Environmentalists Seek to Wipe Out Plush Toilet Paper, Soft Toilet Paper’s Hard on the Earth, But Will We Sit for the Alternative?” Washington Post Website, September 24, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092304711.html (accessed November 21, 2009)

Kaufmann, Leslie. “Mr. Whipple Left It Out: Soft Is Rough on Forests,” New York Times Website, February 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/science/earth/26charmin.html?_r=1&em (accessed November 19, 2009)

[4] Hershkowitz, Allen. “Will recycled fiber toilet paper become the next compact fluorescent light bulb?” Natural Resources Defense Council Website, February 27, 2009, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ahershkowitz/will_recycled_fiber_toilet_pap.html (accessed November 19, 2009)

[5] Goldenberg, Suzanne. “American taste for soft toilet roll ‘worse than driving Hummers’,” Guardian UK Website, February 26, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/26/toilet-roll-america (accessed November 19, 2009)

[6] Hockenberry John. “Americans won’t stop squeezing the Charmin, despite the environmental impact,” The Takeaway [Podcast], February 26, 2009, http://www.thetakeaway.org/stories/2009/feb/26/americans-wont-stop-squeezing-charmin-despite-environmental-impact/ (accessed November 19, 2009)

[7] Hawken, Paul, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins, 1999. “Natural Capitalism – Creating the Next Industrial Revolution.”

[8] “The Paper Project” (http://paperproject.org/paperfacts.html)

[9] Panshin, A. J. and C. De Zeeuw, 1970. “Textbook of wood Technology Volume 1.” Pp 164-245

[10] Oluwafemi, O. A. 2007. “Wood Properties and Selection for Rotation Length in Caribbean Pine (Pinus caribaea Morclet) Grown in Afaka, Nigeria.” pp 350-362

[11] Panshin, A. J. and C. De Zeeuw, 1970. “Textbook of wood Technology Volume 1.” Pp 164-245

[12] Fahrenthold, David. “Environmentalists Seek to Wipe Out Plush Toilet Paper, Soft Toilet Paper’s Hard on the Earth, But Will We Sit for the Alternative?” Washington Post Website, September 24, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092304711.html (accessed November 19, 2009)

[13] The UN’s Forest and Agriculture Organization has only a list of characteristics that vary between forest types. See “Old-growth forests in Canada – a science perspective.” http://www.fao.org/docrep/article/wfc/xii/0042-b1.htm

[14] UC Extension

[15] Hawken, Paul, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins, 1999. “Natural Capitalism – Creating the Next Industrial Revolution.”

[16] “The Paper Project” (http://paperproject.org/paperfacts.html)

[17] Hawken, Paul, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins, 1999. “Natural Capitalism – Creating the Next Industrial Revolution.”

Occam’s Razor and the Former Snows of Kilimanjaro

Occam’s Razor is often interpreted as “the least complicated answer is usually right.”

The Huffington Post has a post blaming global warming for the loss of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro. “The increase of Earth’s near surface temperatures, coupled with even greater increases in the mid- to upper-tropical troposphere, as documented in recent decades, would at least partially explain” the observations. The research, led by paleoclimatologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University, was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Maybe global warming is not the cause of the snow loss. A paleoclimatologist will look at problems from a point of view that may not see other possibilities. (When you’re a hammer every problem looks like a nail.) According to at least two peer reviewed studies, other researchers have put forward a more prosaic reason for Kilimanjaro ice going bye-bye: deforestation.

“Studies show local climate in mountain regions are impacted by deforestation at upwind locations….While the prior investigations have focused on the effect of low land deforestation on Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, low land deforestation also has the potential to impact alpine glaciers.” — Impact of Upwind Land Cover Change on Mount Kilimanjaro

Another group of researchers noted the same root cause:

“Deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the most likely culprit because without forests there is too much evaporation of humidity into outer space. The result is that moisture-laden winds blowing across those forests have become drier and drier.” — Nicholas Pepin of Britain’s Portsmouth University

Read the Guardian article

It’s worth noting again that deforestation is the opposite of forest harvesting: the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines deforestation as “the conversion of forest to another land use or the long-term reduction of tree canopy cover … Deforestation implies the long-term or permanent loss of forest cover. Such a loss can only be caused and maintained through a continued man-induced or natural perturbation.” (World Forest Resource Assessment in 2000, On Definitions Of Forest And Forest Change). [emphasis added]

Occam's Razor and the Former Snows of Kilimanjaro

Occam’s Razor is often interpreted as “the least complicated answer is usally right.”

The Huffington Post has a post blaming global warming for the loss of snow on Mount Kilimanja. “The increase of Earth’s near surface temperatures, coupled with even greater increases in the mid- to upper-tropical troposphere, as documented in recent decades, would at least partially explain” the observations. The research, led by paleoclimatologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University, was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“Studies show local climate in mountain regions are impacted by deforestation at upwind locations….While the prior investigations have focused on the effect of low land deforestation on Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, low land deforestation also has the potential to impact alpine glaciers.” — Impact of Upwind Land Cover Change on Mount Kilimanjaro

Another group of researchers noted the same root cause:

“Deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the most likely culprit because without forests there is too much evaporation of humidity into outer space. The result is that moisture-laden winds blowing across those forests have become drier and drier.” — Nicholas Pepin of Britain’s Portsmouth University

Read the Guardian article

WWF Sweden says stopping deforestation helps to slow climate change

Note that I fundamentally agree with the World Wildlife Fund of Sweden:

“Sweden should follow the examples set by its northern neighbors in developing systems to halt deforestation…Stemming deforestation is one of the most efficient tools we have to slow down climate change.”

– WWF CEO General Lasse Gustavsson

It’s worth noting that deforestation does not equal timber cutting (not even clearcutting counts)

The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines deforestation as “the conversion of forest to another land use or the long-term reduction of tree canopy cover below the 10% threshold … Deforestation implies the long-term or permanent loss of forest cover. Such a loss can only be caused and maintained through a continued man-induced or natural perturbation.” (World Forest Resource Assessment in 2000, On Definitions Of Forest And Forest Change). [Italics added]

You can read the full news release here: WWF Sweden.

Six Reasons Why Fancy TP is No Big Deal

Well, an article in the October 2, 2009 issue of The Week caught my attention. It’s titled “Soft toilet paper: Environmental threat?” If you’re not familiar with The Week, it draws from multiple sources to give an idea of the news and opinions currently filling newspapers, magazines, and our airwaves.

One of the sources quoted is David Fahrenthold in The Washington Post. In his article, Environmentalists Seek to Wipe Out Plush Toilet Paper he writes:

Environmental groups say … [using soft toilet paper constitutes a] dark-comedy example of American excess … [because] plush U.S. toilet paper is usually made by chopping down and grinding up trees that were decades or even a century old.

Faithful Timberati readers know I’ve written about this tempest in a toilet bowl before (see Toilet paper, hummers, and global warming oh my!).

1. Old-growth trees are not cut down to be made into paper … tissue or otherwise.

My reading of this kerfuffle is that people seem to think paper companies hew massively majestic over-mature trees to be chipped directly into paper. Such is not the case. Tight grained, knot free wood does not go for such low-profit ends. That is akin to using filet mignon for generic dog food.

“[Fifteen] percent of the wood harvested is used to manufacture pulp and paper mainly for printing, packaging, and sanitary purposes. Fully half of this wood is derived from the wastes from the sawmills which produce the solid wood products for building. Most of the remaining supply is from tree plantations many of which are established on land that was previously cleared for agriculture. So even if we did stop using wood to make pulp and paper it would not have the effect of ‘saving’ many forests.”

— Co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore

So while the chips used for pulping may come from an over-mature tree, the tree itself was not harvested expressly for paper; its wood went into furniture and dimension lumber. Then the end-pieces and sawdust from the mill went to the secondary market for pulping.

2. Fiber length hinges more on species than on age.

Fiber length is an issue because longer fibers make softer paper. David Frielander at Treehugger.com says that paper companies use old growth because, “Old growth and virgin fibers are longer than recycled ones.” This is true as far as it goes. True, tracheid cells (the fibers) increase with age, yet the species and even the cell’s position on the tree factor much more in the final result.¹ (to read David Frielander’s post see Plush Toilet Paper: Soft on Your Butt, Hard on the Environment)

Within every tree are fibers of differing length, some shorter than average for their species and some longer than average for their species; it all depends on the position in the tree. A 25 year-old Pinus caribaea has longer tracheids (2.34 mm average fiber length)² than a 50 year-old Eucalyptus regnans (0.80mm average fiber length).³

3. It’s a safe bet virgin fibers didn’t come from virgin tracts.

Virgin fibers are fibers that have not yet seen their first pulping process. Yes, virgin fibers average longer than recycled ones. That’s because recycling breaks fibers during the process of making new paper. But “virgin fiber” is not synonymous with fibers from primary forests⁴ and it’s definitely not synonymous with “old growth” (see the point above). Virgin fiber, as far as the paper process is concerned, is that fiber coming directly from a cellulose producing plant.

4. Fibers from old trees doesn’t necessarily equal old-growth.

There seems to be a trend to label second-growth and even third-growth stands as “old growth” because they happen to past middle age for the average American. You can see such a conflation in David Fahrenthold’s Washington Post piece, “… trees that were decades or even a century.” Up to a century is not terribly long in most forestry circles (New Zealand being a notable exception). You might say, foresters think in quarter centuries not quarters.

The University of California’s Cooperative Extension defines old-growth as “Trees that have been growing for such a long time that net growth or value is often declining.” Therefore, old-growth forest stands are so old they have numerous afflictions: rots, dead trees, broken tops, fire scars, etc. Yet, for purposes of pulping, older just means no longer a sapling.

For more information on old-growth forests see Old Growth Forests and Ancient Woodlands.

5. There is more variation between species than between over-mature and young-growth trees.

As you have read, not all trees have the same properties, partly because fiber length varies by species and partly the fact tracheid length varies by the location on the bole: whether it’s in the circumference and whether it’s above or below midway up the tree.

6. It’s okay, tissue paper accounts for only five-percent of the forest products market.

As noted before here, most of the material, in fact fully half, comes from scraps in the milling process not useable for higher end uses: sawdust and end pieces. The rest usually comes from tree plantations. I wonder if any of the quibblers are in bed with Big Bidet?

Summary

Facts won’t stop this debate and that’s unfortunate. Our goal should be sustainability and a balance. And rather than consider and discuss the balance point and how to stay there, we hear quibbles about truly weird sh*t.

Literature cited

^{1. Source: Panshin, A. J., De Zeeuw, C. 1970. Textbook of wood Technology Volume 1. Pp 164-245}

2. Source: Oluwafemi, O. A. 2007. Wood Properties and Selection for Rotation Length in Caribbean Pine (Pinus caribaea Morclet) Grown in Afaka, Nigeria. Pp 350-362

3. Source: Panshin, A. J., De Zeeuw, C. 1970. Textbook of wood Technology Volume 1. Pp 164-245

4. “Forest/Other wooded land of native species, where there are no clearly visible indications of human activities and the ecological processes are not significantly disturbed.” United Nations, Food And Agriculture Organization.

Perhaps that Sahara Plantation Could Power Itself

University of Washington researchers have produced electricity from a tree. Perhaps once they plant the Sahara with those eucalypts to alleviate global warming, the trees could deliver the power to provide their water. Or maybe not. According to their online article,”The custom circuit is able to store up enough voltage from trees to run a low-power sensor.”

Planting a Forest in the Sahara to Save the World

Should we spend two trillion each year in afforestation costs in the Sahara Desert to potentially reduce global warming? Scientists say it’s feasible. Read here.

Natural Resources Communication Workshop

My friend Jon Hooper has asked that I pass along the word that his Natural Resources Communication Workshop will be given January 11-15, 2010. Jon’s course is well worth it. His admonition for all presentations (CBS–Colorful, Bold, & Simple) has stuck with me lo these many years.

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMUNICATION WORKSHOP

January 11-15, 2010

The Natural Resources Communication Workshop, sponsored by the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, is designed to help natural resource workers more effectively communicate with general as well as technical audiences through personal presentations using good visual aids. The workshop focuses on the use of computer-generated images created with Microsoft’s PowerPoint software. The workshop is practical-oriented and enhances participants’ communication skills in planning, preparing, presenting, and evaluating presentations. Since many of the problems in natural resources management are people-oriented, more effective communication can significantly improve many management programs.

Workshop Content:

1. Discussion topics include:

Planning: communication principles, audience analysis, graphic design
Preparing: creating computer-generated graphics, photographic composition, rehearsal tips
Presenting: equipment setup, speaking tips, dealing with difficult audiences
Evaluating: evaluation of performance

2. Each participant will bring a selection of computer-generated images (ex., graphics created with PowerPoint or other presentation software programs) for organization into an illustrated talk.

3. Each participant will prepare graphics (titles, graphs, charts, maps, cartoons, etc.) to be used in their presentations.

4. Each participant will give a 5- and 15-minute presentation (which will include graphics prepared during the workshop). These presentations will be evaluated by the class and the instructors.

Instructional Team: Dr. Jon K. Hooper, Professor, Calif. State Univ., Chico (Certified Wildlife Biologist, Certified Interpretive Trainer, Ph.D. in Wildlife Ecology, 35 years teaching communication workshops around the country), Mr. Ethan Rotman, Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game (Coordinator, Fishing in the City in the San Francisco Bay Area, Certified Interpretive Trainer, Certified Interpretive Guide, Certified Interpretive Manager, 30 years of professional experience as an environmental interpreter and communicator), and Ms. Kim Rubin, (tour guide, interpreter, 9 years experience facilitating the Natural Resources Communication Workshop).

Location: California State University, Chico (90 miles north of Sacramento)

University Credit: Participants receive 1-unit CSUC Continuing Education credit; the workshop is worth 32 hours of continuing wildlife education credit through The Wildlife Society’s Professional Development Program (Category II).

Application Procedure: The initial deadline for applications is October 30, 2009 (Friday). Late applications are accepted (such applicants will become participants if the workshop is not yet full; otherwise, they will be placed on a waiting list in case of cancellations). The registration fee is $749. The workshop is limited to 16 participants. Since more applicants usually apply than there are spaces available, the registration fee is not due until an applicant has been officially accepted into the workshop (this occurs shortly after the October 30 deadline).

Since the workshop has a limited capacity, all applicants will be contacted after October 30, 2009 to notify them if they have been accepted. Instructions on paying the registration fee will be provided at that time. Payment must be received before applicants will be fully registered. Failure to make timely payment will result in alternate applicants being selected.

To apply, send a letter, fax, or email describing: (1) your current position within your agency or organization, (2) how you will use the training, (3) any special reasons why you feel you should be chosen as a participant, and (4) if you already have official agency/organization approval to attend. In your application, include your address, phone number, fax number, and email. To apply or for more information, write or call:

Dr. Jon K. Hooper

Dept. Recreation and Parks Management

California State University, Chico

Chico, CA 95929-0560

(530) 898-5811 or 898-6408

fax: (530) 898-6557 e-mail: jhooper@csuchico.edu

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

FLASH!!! Participants in the 2010 workshop will not only learn professional tips for using PowerPoint, but also will gain exposure to Photoshop Elements (digital photo editing and cataloging software).

Agenda

“NATURAL RESOURCES COMMUNICATION WORKSHOP”

January 11-15, 2010 at Calif. State University, Chico

Instructional Team: Jon Hooper, Ethan Rotman, and Kim Rubin

Monday

8:00 – 8:30 Registration

8:30 – 10:00 Workshop Overview (Step 1: Pass the “Source Test”)

10:00 – 12:00 “Planning the Presentation Using the Targeted Design Approach” (Step 2: Determine Your Target)

12:00 – 1:15 Lunch

1:15 – 4:00 “Outlining the Presentation” (Step 3: Organize It)

4:00 – 5:00 “Designing Great Graphics” (Step 4: Visualize It)

Tuesday

8:00 – 10:00 “Designing Great Graphics” (cnt’d)

10:00 – 12:00 Lab Exercise: “A PowerPoint Presentation Anyone Can Create”

12:00 – 1:15 Lunch

1:15 – 2:15 “PowerPoint Pitfalls (and How to Purge Them from Your Presentation)”

2:15 – 4:00 Lab

4:00 – 4:30 “Computer Hardware: Scanners, Card Readers, etc.”

4:30 – 5:00 “Adding Audio and Video to PowerPoint”

Wednesday

8:00 – 9:00 Lab Exercise: “An Introduction to Photoshop Elements”

9:00 – 11:00 Lab

11:00 – 11:30 “Digital Photography”

11:30 – 12:00 “Presentation Do’s and Dont’s” (Step 5: Plan Facilities and Equipment)

12:00 – 1:15 Lunch

1:15 – 1:45 “Adding Presentation Sheen” (Step 6: Rehearse It)

“Working with a Host” (Step 7: Use a Host)

1:45 – 3:00 “Verbal Victories: Dealing with Difficult Audiences” (Step 8: Present It)

3:00 – 5:00 Lab

6:30 – 9:00 Lab (optional)

Thursday

8:00 – 12:00 5-minute briefings by participants (Step 9: Evaluate It)

12:00 – 1:15 Lunch

1:15 – 4:00 5-minute briefings by participants

4:00 – 4:30 “Cataloging Your Digital Images Using Photoshop Album”

4:30 – 5:00 “Hints from the Pros” (time permitting)

Friday

8:00 – 12:00 15-minute briefings by participants

12:00 – 1:15 Lunch

1:15 – 4:30 15-minute briefings by participants

4:30 – 5:00 Summary and workshop evaluation

Extending THP Time

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.

Green, Inc.

Fear motivates.

Fear was the reason I got into forestry. When I was in college (I grew up in the 1960s and graduated high school in 1969), Martin Litton’s iconinc picture of a boy looking out over a large clearcut of redwoods caused a number of us to take action.

The Photos Were a Snapshot in Time.

For most, their complete environmental education was that photo.

While Martin LItton hasn’t changed his views, I have. My forestry major allayed my fear of deforestation through timber cutting for lumber. Coast redwood (where Litton photographed) sprouts from the stump. The place the boy looked at should be covered with redwood 40-60 feet tall. Photos tell a story of a moment in time, not of all time.

Now concern revolves around deforestation and old growth. In April of 2000, President Clinton used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to create the 327,769-acre Giant Sequoia National Monument (GSNM). That nearly, 330,000 acres presumably protects less than 20,000 acres of sierra redwood (giant sequoia).

Removing 500 Square Miles of Second-Growth Forest From Further Harvests Hurts Untouched Rainforest.

According to The Illusion of Preservation (Harvard Press), for every twenty acres of previously harvested forest placed off-limits to logging, one acre of primary forest–virgin forest–somewhere else is logged. That totals:

Primary Forest Lost Due to the GSNM set aside – 16,400 ac

We get no free lunches, someone pays and the someone in this case, is the wildlife and unique flora in previously untouched wilderness. Once roads are placed in this 16,400 acres of primary forest, it is usually converted to agriculture; the wildlife is open to extirpation.

Green, Inc. Slogans Masquerading as Scientific Fact

Tom Knudson wrote in his 2001 series, Environment, Inc.:

[T]oday [environmental] groups prosper while the land does not. Competition for money and members is keen. Litigation is a blood sport. Crisis, real or not, is a commodity. And slogans and sound bites masquerade as scientific fact.

What are you going to believe, slogans or your lying eyes?

As the management of Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest proves, harvesting is not the end of the world. Yet, Green, Inc. is interested in zero timber cut from public lands, so they support moving the GSNM from the Forest Service to the Park Service, this is not only unnecessary, it is counter-productive to GSNM’s articulated goals.

Sequoia needs disturbance to regenerate. Such disturbance has historically come from fire. But the past 100 years of aggressive fire suppression, shade-tolerant white fir has seeded under the old-growth giant sequoia groves. And now fire is a problematic tool due to Clean Air Laws. Logging provides the needed bare mineral soil sequoia seedlings require. And logging can be done around giant sequoia without adverse affects. Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest (MHDSF) manages its land consistent with the recommendations in the GSNM’s management plan. One irony of the GSNM: most visitors don’t see any giant sequoia until they reach the State Forest’s boundary. MHDSF has incorporated logging its management since 1946.

Not allowing harvesting in GSNM will eventually require a name change to the White Fir National Monument.

If you’d like to use my petition to keep the GSNM in the Forest Service’s jurisdiction and not tie land managers’ hands, it’s here.