Blog

Spending bill urges peace in the Sierra: Language is inserted for logging mediation

Betony Jones — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:40:10 -0800

By MICHAEL DOYLE
BEE WASHINGTON BUREAU

last updated: December 19, 2007 03:21:07 AM

WASHINGTON -- Congress is playing Sierra Nevada peacemaker in a big spending bill that tries to gently resolve lawsuits about logging around such places as Giant Sequoia National Monument.

With a few words discretely tucked into a several-thousand-page bill, lawmakers are urging the Forest Service, tree cutters and tree huggers to work out their differences over timber harvesting. Mediation beats litigation, Congress figures.

"The goal of this language is to push the sides together to come up with a solution that works," Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said Tuesday.

The $474 billion spending bill which gained final Senate approval Tuesday includes Feinstein's language directing the Forest Service "to collaborate" with loggers and environmentalists on harvest operations around the Sierra National Forest, Giant Sequoia National Monument and vicinity.

In theory, this encourages negotiated settlements rather than courtroom battles in the perennial conflict over Sierra Nevada logging. In practice, it's not clear what weight, if any, the words will have.

"I'm not sure it's going to do any good," Earthjustice attorney George Torgun said of the congressional language, though "it can help to encourage the parties to negotiate."

The Sierra Club and Sierra Forest Legacy repeatedly have sued the Forest Service over Sierra logging practices. Last year, environmental groups convinced a federal judge to block four proposed timber sales in and around Giant Sequoia National Monument.

Environmentalists worry that excessive logging around the 327,769-acre national monument could destroy habitat for the Pacific fisher, an endangered member of the weasel family.

"The Forest Service has failed to conduct an adequate and sufficient hard look at significant new information pertaining to the Pacific fisher," U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled last year.

Sierra Forest Products has appealed Breyer's decision. The timber company says stringent logging limits cost jobs. The Forest Service, though it didn't join the appeal, insists that accumulated fuel must be removed to prevent catastrophic forest fires.

More recently, environmental groups sued to block the 131,500-acre Kings River logging project proposed for the nearby Sierra National Forest. Feinstein drafted her language encouraging negotiations last summer, apparently prompting environmentalists and the Forest Service to agree to bring in a mediator for the Kings River case.

"The mediator concluded the parties were too far apart, but ... she did encourage the two parties to keep talking," Torgun said, adding that "discussions have continued informally."

Three more months to talk

In early December, the competing sides advised Fresno-based U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii: "The parties are engaging in good-faith discussions which could obviate the need to litigate this matter." Ishii agreed to give them three more months.

Feinstein cited the Giant Sequoia and the Sierra National Forest cases in the legislation. One interpretation is that it will help keep negotiators' feet to the fire. Another interpretation, Torgun said, is that the language has become extraneous.

It doesn't include any money figures, and it takes up only one paragraph in a package that totals 3,565 pages' worth of legislative and documents.

Still, the logging language shows how lawmakers use must-pass spending bills to accomplish other objectives.

The bill, for instance, reauthorizes the so-called Quincy Library Group project to manage trees across 1.5 million acres of the Plumas, Lassen and Tahoe national forests.

Sometimes the bills dictate policy through the power of the purse. The fiscal 2008 package, for instance, prohibits the Interior Department from buying light bulbs that aren't rated as Energy Star efficient.

Bee Washington Bureau reporter Michael Doyle can be reached at mdoyle@mcclatchydc.com or 202-383-0006.

Ecosystem Services in South Lake Tahoe

Betony Jones — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:23:00 -0700

Thursday, August 16th
South Lake Tahoe, Heavenly Ski Resort
Program 1:30-4:30
Press Event and Reception 4:30-6:00

Ecosystem Services: Tools for a New Economy

Join the Sierra Business Council, Bernie Weingardt (Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region), and Jay Vestal (National Forest Foundation) in an afternoon discussing exciting new partnership opportunities and proactive solutions to the challenges facing the region’s forest ecosystems and communities.

Celebrate the launch of the new $1 for the Sierra program, a partnership between the Sierra Business Council and the National Forest Foundation to capture payments for ecosystem services provided by forests in the Sierra Nevada. We will also announce and describe a new one-of-a-kind partnership between the Sierra Business Council and the US Forest Service to share data and information on ecosystem services in the Sierra Nevada.

Events are free and open to the public. Spaces are limited. Registration is required. Register now by calling (530)-582-4800.

New Forest Product Regulations in California

Betony Jones — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:13:35 -0700

Tough controls on formaldehyde enacted The state air board agrees to limit the use of formaldehyde glues used in veneer and plywood. It has been shown to cause cancer. By Janet Wilson, Times Staff Writer
April 27, 2007
California air regulators Thursday unanimously passed the world's toughest controls on toxic formaldehyde in wood products widely used in kitchen cabinets, countertops and other construction.

Environmentalists, public health advocates, and manufacturers and distributors of formaldehyde-free wood cheered the news.

Formaldehyde, widely used as a glue in wood veneer, plywood and other construction materials, has been shown to cause throat cancer, respiratory ailments and other problems.

The Air Resources Board vote limiting formaldehyde levels in wood products, which came after hours of testimony from all sides, was "a tremendous victory" for those who work with wood products, said Harry Demarest, chief executive of Columbia Forest Inc. of Portland, Ore., the largest manufacturer of veneer that uses soybean glue rather than formaldehyde.

"Formaldehyde is bad. We don't want it in our homes, and we don't want it in our stores. It is not healthy, believe me," said Valerie Cavazos, who handles sales at California Panel & Veneer Co. in Cerritos. The independent distributor has switched almost entirely to formaldehyde-free wood products, at the request of school districts and other large customers seeking environmentally friendly products.

But there was fierce debate about how the regulations, scheduled to be phased in between 2010 and 2011, would affect consumer prices.

California Air Resources Board staff said their research found it could cost as much as $6 more for a wood panel, but that would add just $400 to the cost of a new $500,000 home, or less than 1%.

But other wood industry and construction trade groups testified that the stricter limits could cause prices on wood products to skyrocket, possibly bankrupting cabinetmakers and other small businesses across the state.

Domestic manufacturers in particular fretted that overseas manufacturers would issue fraudulent paperwork saying the material met the standards, giving them an unfair advantage over local producers who could be more readily inspected. Countered Demarest of Columbia Wood: "We think the industry will be able to comply with no additional costs. We sell our product for the exact same cost" as veneer containing formaldehyde.

Cavazos, who has worked at California Panel & Veneer for 21 years, said she had suffered headaches and burning eyes from formaldehyde fumes. She thought the new regulations were a fine idea.

"They did it with all the other chemicals, so why not this?"

Scientists representing industry groups said there were conflicting studies on heath risks, and said the state's own estimates as well as national and international studies showed a tiny amount of cancer deaths, if any, would be avoided as a result of the regulations.

But Melanie Marti, chief epidemiologist for the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, said there was no known safe threshold for formaldehyde exposure and that cancer risks from fumes in wood products would decline by 42% under the new caps.

Currently there are an estimated 86 to 231 such deaths annually; that would decrease by 35 to 97 deaths, state researchers found.

Major home improvement stores will be among those affected by the new rules. The Home Depot did not return requests for comment, but composite-wood manufacturers said the home improvement chain had recently announced it would abide by European standards allowing minuscule amounts of formaldehyde.

Formaldehyde in wood has been banned or tightly regulated in many countries, but in the United States its use is legal except in manufactured homes, and it is routinely crafted into cabinets and furniture.

California's new rules will require even lower levels than European and Asia standards.

"California will have the most stringent standard in the world for wood resin products," said Catherine Witherspoon, executive director of the state air board.

*

janet.wilson@latimes.com

Forestry Project Protocols for Mitigating GHG Emissions

Betony Jones — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:38:22 -0700

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. This decision starts to establish, at the national level, the framework for nation-wide action to combat and mitigate climate change.

California has been the leader in regulating CO2 emissions, and establishing a registry where entities report and certify their emissions and emission offset projects. Going far beyond what any other state has done or even the Kyoto protocol, this registry (California Climate Action Registry ) has recognized the important role that forests can play in sequestering CO and thus reducing the amount of CO2 that stays in the atmosphere.

California's forests are among the most "carbon dense" ecosystems on earth. California's giant conifers are big, and they grow (i.e. capture carbon turning it into wood) relatively fast. To recognize the important role California's forests play in climate change establishes the rationale for establishing a monetary value for healthy, standing, growing forests that could significantly help conservation efforts. On the other hand, some may argue for getting credit for "business as usual forestry practices" or establishing "carbon plantations" of non-native, quick growing trees.

As they stand the draft protocols have several requirements:

The protocols require permanent protection of forestland, established by a permanent conservation easement
The protocols also require additionality, meaning forest management practices that will lead to more carbon sequestered than the legally allowable harvest limits.
Projects must promote and maintain California's native forests and utilize natural forest management practices (mixed ages and species)
The project must address leakage, so that the market does not shift to supporting unsustainable harvesting outside the project's boundaries

There are forest protocols for projects for reforestation, afforestation, conservation, and sustainable management, and there is ongoing research to establish a protocol for fuels reduction and fire management.

A lively debate is starting to take shape over how these protocols could and should be altered. The draft protocols were written with extensive input from many diverse forest interests. California is the first to tackle the complicated issue of how to quantify the role of forests in contributing to and mitigating climate change. The debate that we are starting to see in California is only a glimpse of what may come in the international arena.

What cannot be denied is that the carbon market is growing rapidly. Almost $30 billion dollars of CO2 were traded in 2006, and the market continues to grow rapidly. Regulations or caps on CO2 drive up the value of carbon.

The stricter the standards for measuring the climate benefits forestry projects the more likely it is that other countries and entities will agree to accept California's forestry projects as offsets. In other words, the stricter the standards, the higher the monetary value of forestland for carbon sequestration.

I'm interested to hear what people think about the potential role California's forests can play in mitigating climate change.

What do you think about the protocols?

What are the challenges, obstacles, threats, or opportunities you see in implementing or failing to adopt the protocols?

Federal Judge Strikes Down Forest Management Rules

Betony Jones — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:08:07 -0700

WASHINGTON, March 30 — A federal judge in California on Friday overturned the Bush administration’s revised rules for management of the country’s 155 national forests, saying that the federal Forest Service violated the basic laws ensuring that forest ecosystems have environmental safeguards.

The rules, issued in early 2005, cut back on requirements for environmental reviews and safeguards for wildlife, and limited public participation in the development of management plans for individual forests.

Instead, they broadened the power of forest managers to decide whether mines, logging operations, cellphone towers or other development would be appropriate uses of forest land.

In the ruling Friday, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of Federal District Court in San Francisco said the Forest Service had violated several laws when it changed the rules forest managers must follow when making decisions, and did so without consulting the public or considering environmental impact.

The judge issued an injunction forbidding the service from using the rules to make decisions about the national forests and grasslands, which cover 8 percent of the country.

Judge Hamilton said she could not determine if the rules were environmentally benign, as the Forest Service argued, or if endangered species would be unaffected, because no studies had been done.

“The agency was required to undertake some type of consultation, informal or otherwise, prior to making a conclusive determination that there would be no effect,” she wrote.

She sent the management plans back to the Agriculture Department, the parent agency of the Forest Service, to be redone, this time in consultation with the public and with the federal agencies that protect wildlife.

Tim Preso, a lawyer who argued the case for the environmental group Earthjustice, said Friday, “Basically, the importance of this decision is that the Bush administration had been trying to take all mandatory environmental protections out of forest planning process and this decision puts them back in.”

One of the crucial questions in the case was whether, simply by setting rules for its actions, a federal agency was triggering the same requirements for study and consultation that are usually set in motion by specific actions, like authorizing a timber harvest.

The environmental groups bringing the lawsuit, including Earthjustice, the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife, argued that these management rules should be seen as an action.

Judge Hamilton agreed, saying that “the trigger” for the consultations that the Bush administration failed to make was not that the rule changes were “likely to have adverse effects, but simply that the rule may affect listed species or critical habitat.”

Among the changes made in the 2005 regulations was the elimination of a requirement that forest managers ensure that no fish or wildlife species with habitat in their forest become threatened or endangered.

Mark Rey, the under secretary of agriculture who oversees the Forest Service, said his agency was “carefully reviewing the decision” and had not decided whether to appeal. He said the findings in recent court rulings on forest plans in New Mexico and Alabama appeared to contradict Judge Hamilton’s view.

Chris West of the American Forest Resource Council, a group based in Portland, Ore., that represents timber interests, said: “The court order is requiring analysis when not a grain of sand or a single hair on a critter is being moved. And we are going to spend millions of dollars doing it.”

“It’s bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake,” Mr. West said.

Just one management plan has been completed under the new rules, the one for the twin Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands in Colorado and Kansas. At least half a dozen others are well on their way to completion. Their status is questionable given Judge Hamilton’s ruling.

Sustainable Forestry News: Collins Companies Invest in Small Tree Mill and Biomass Facility

Betony Jones — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:18:42 -0700

Collins Companies, which owns and manages 94,000 acres around Chester, CA, 78,000 acres in Lakeview, OR, and 126,000 acres in Pennsylvania is always operating on the cutting edge of sustainable forestry. It's fascinating to tour their lands and biomass facility in Chester in the Northern Sierra. Collins Pine was one of the first companies in the United States to adopt "the Natural Step" a Swedish program for sustainability in businesses (also adopted by IKEA). I highly recommend a visit. (A good time to visit might be Memorial Day weekend, when the new museum opens. The museum will highlight forestry past and present and the role forestry can play in the overall health of the community, economy, and earth.)

Many mills in California and beyond are designed for large diameter logs. With restrictions on logging large trees and many fewer large trees to log, many of these mills have closed over the years and decades resulting in thousands of people out of work and floundering rural economies. Last week Cin ollins Companies announced it will add a new $6.6 small log saw mill at its Lakeview facility in Oregon. Additionally, they are putting in a biomass facility to burn the wood waste they create.

I was talking to the manager of the Collins biomass facility in Chester a few months ago who could convince anyone that biomass energy production is a sound investment. Considering the costs of oil and increased climate change regulations, biomass, as a clean, sustainable, carbon-neutral energy source, is quickly becoming a more viable source of energy, particularly in rural, heavily forested areas. Collins Pine in Chester runs their mill and offices on the energy they produce by burning wood waste, and the excess (about half of what they produce) is sold to PG&E.

On a three hour tour of the plant, I had to actually ask where the smokestack was-- it wasn't obvious as there was no black smoke pouring out. They use heavy duy magnets to scrub the smoke of all particulate matter-- ash that is then used to fertilize the forest lands. Hundreds of degress of heat produced is used to drive other processes such as drying wood chips and lumber. In the end what leaves the smokestack is light, low-temperature steam. CO2, of course, is invisible. The CO2 released into the atmosphere however, is recaptured by the growing trees through photosynthesis. In fact, there is no other natural process that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. (Respiration, decomposition, and combustion all release CO2 into the atmosphere).

Terry Collin's office has a poster of a triangle-- the points representing community, ecology, and economy-- with arrows connecting the three. They strive to operate in the center of the triangle, and continue to acts as model stewards of the forest environment and respected employers and community members, while turning a profit.

A truely visionary forestry company, their forestry credo (take from the 2007 newsletter) is: To manage the forest in such a way to increase and maximize the sustainable growth of the timber resource and the financial return of the owners while maintaining and enhancing all other forest values, including wildlife, aesthetics, clean water, soil productivity, and recreation. This should be accomplished without forfeiting any potential opportunities for future managers or generations of owners.

For more information see their website http://www.collinswood.com/

Timber Industry Eyes Development

Betony Jones — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:20:59 -0800

Sierra Pacific wants to turn some of its forests into property for home building.
By Jane Braxton Little - Bee Correspondent

Published 12:00 am PST Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Sierra Pacific Industries, owner of 1.6 million acres of California timberlands, is requesting rezoning on 23,549 acres of forests to uses that could eventually allow residential development.

The size and locations of the timberlands -- nearly 37 square miles of forest scattered across four Northern California counties -- have sparked concern among state and local officials.

Sierra Pacific officials view the rezoning requests as the beginning of a long-term process that would give counties more control over their land base, said Ed Bond, a spokesman for the Anderson-based company. Many of the parcels are close to towns and other developed areas, he said.

"We think it makes sense for the counties as well as for Sierra Pacific Industries," Bond said.

The forestlands, spread through Lassen, Plumas, Shasta and Trinity counties, are all in timber production zones, a designation approved by the Legislature in 1976. In exchange for automatically renewable 10-year commitments to limit activity to timber production, Sierra Pacific has enjoyed reduced property taxes on these lands.

The applications for zone changes start a 10-year countdown that would end the tax benefits and allow the company to use the land for residential or commercial development. It's up to county officials whether to accept the zoning requests.

As the nation loses a million acres of timberland annually, the withdrawal from timber production of the acreage is a red flag for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the agency responsible for maintaining the state's timber base.

Any loss of timberlands to urban uses is a threat to watershed, wildlife and recreational opportunities, said William E. Snyder, the agency's deputy director of resource management. It also reduces the amount of high-quality timber produced, detracts from aesthetic enjoyment, and generally increases the fire hazard from the future development that is likely to occur, he said.

"It is CDF's firm belief that changes in zoning that lead to reduced parcel sizes and encourage development detract from the benefits that can be derived from actively managed forests," Snyder said in a letter to Bob Pyle, chairmen of the Lassen County Board of Supervisors.

Since 1985, according to Bond, Sierra Pacific has put 48,724 acres into timber zones in Lassen, Plumas, Shasta and Trinity counties. The company maintains 98 percent of its statewide holdings in timber production zones. So its proposal to remove 23,549 acres would not result in a net reduction, he said.

"Our core business is manufacturing lumber. If we don't have the resources to do that, we're defeating ourselves," Bond said.

CDF has no direct authority over the requests by Sierra Pacific. That rests with each county.

The decision has been most controversial in Lassen County, where Sierra Pacific is asking to rezone 5,660 acres to agricultural forest zoning. The acreage includes lands adjacent to a U.S. Forest Service wilderness area, at the south end of Eagle Lake, and across a meadow from a four-season resort proposed for Dyer Mountain near Westwood.

The Lassen County Planning Commission recommended denying the zone changes. Without a specific project, rezoning would be premature, said Joe Bertotti, assistant director of community development.

At a heated Board of Supervisors hearing last month, opponents challenged a change without a full environmental review.

Sierra Pacific has acknowledged that its requests are a precursor to development, said Rachel Hooper, an attorney representing Mountain Meadows Conservancy, a Westwood environmental group. "These lands will not be used for timber harvest again. That is a significant change in land use," she said.

Supervisor Jim Chapman, who was on the Lassen County board when the state's timber production zones went into effect, said reducing the tax revenue was a burden for the county that the supervisors accepted in exchange for preserving the property for nonresidential use, he said.

After 30 years of tax benefits, Sierra Pacific is proposing residential development, which costs the county more to provide services than it receives in taxes, said Chapman.

"For this company to turn around now and cash out these lands without any concern to the county -- I'm not willing to do that," he said.

Lassen County supervisors delayed a decision on the rezoning until next Tuesday.

Sierra Pacific's zoning requests would not change the land use in any of the four counties over the next 10 years, said Bond. And it would free county planners from the authority state officials exercise over timberlands.

"For long-term planning, we think giving a county the ability to make planning and zoning decisions makes more sense than having the state control the process," Bond said.

Plumas County Planning Director Jonathan Schnal said he is conducting a full environmental review of the 7,826-acre zone change requested by Sierra Pacific. The rezoning, which involves land near the north shore of Lake Almanor and in Warner Valley, will go to the Planning Commission later this year, he said.

The Shasta County Planning Commission will consider rezoning 6,443 acres of Sierra Pacific timberlands Thursday.

Trinity County has rezoned 3,620 acres of Sierra Pacific timberlands to open space, blocking development. County officials could entertain additional zone-change requests when they complete a revision of the county general plan, said Jeanne Bonomini, a Trinity County senior planner.

Forests, Carbon, and Climate Change

Betony Jones — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:54:17 -0800

I've been trying to follow the discussion of the role forests can play in mitigating climate change.

A conference in Oregon last week (which I did not attend) focused on this issue, and presentations and reports can be downloaded from http://www.oregonforests.org/conferences/carbon . There's some valuable material there for anyone who is interested.

Biggest Issues Facing Sierra Forests and Forest Communities

Betony Jones — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:35:45 -0800

Someone asked me today what the biggest issues are facing Sierra forests and the surrounding communities. I think this is a good place to start the Saving the Sierra “Forests Blog”, and I hope that my thoughts will elicit other thoughts and comments and kick off a discussion around these important issues. Not necessarily ranked in order of importance, I will add issues over the course of the week:

Catastrophic Wildfire

(wildfire)

(controlled burn)

As a result of past timber harvesting and fire suppression much of our region's forestland is overgrown-- dense with small trees and shrubs that act as kindling, ready to ignite. Historically, Sierra forests burned with some regularity, the fires spread slowly and covered fewer acres, and many of the larger trees were resistant to the flames which stayed relatively low to the ground. Regular fire in a forest helps protect the trees from insects and disease, improve habitat for wildlife, and release seeds from serotinous cones (which need heat to become "unglued").

Catastrophic wildfire today burns hotter, spreads faster and further, and can kill even the oldest, most resilient trees. Furthermore, these fires will scorch all of the nutrients and life out of the soil so that even hardy pioneer species cannot grow, and the land is effectively sterilized.

Restoring Sierra forests so that they are not so susceptible to catastrophic wildfire is a huge, expensive, and daunting task. It often requires manual thinning followed by reintegrating fire into the ecosystem. Cutting the small trees and shrubs is time consuming and expensive. There are few viable markets for small diameter trees, so often to help pay the costs of thinning, some larger trees, up to 30 inches in diameter, are harvested and sold. Developing new markets and new value-added products for small diameter timber could potentially reduce the quantity of larger trees harvested while providing enough value to pay for the forest restoration.

Climate Change

Betony Jones — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:48:18 -0800

Climate Change

For the second installment, I propose climate change as a threat to forest ecosystems and communities. Species composition and distribution is likely to change as a result of higher temperatures and changing precipitation. Conifer growth is likely to be reduced by about 20%. Conditions may change to favor exotic pests or pathogens that further exacerbate trees vulnerability.

Elevated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could also have significant effects on Sierra forests. Some studies suggest increased tree productivity with CO2 enrichment, while in other studies, the findings are less conclusive. Even more uncertain are the secondary ecosystem effects of elevated CO2. Does altered atmospheric chemistry alter the nutritive value of plants? How do herbivores respond to trees grown under elevated CO2 conditions, and what are the effects for the entire food chain? How will this ultimately affect ecosystem function?

In order to retain functional forests in the Sierra Nevada, forest management must understand and adapt to these changing conditions, and the rate of change coupled with uncertainty pose real challenges to the future of forests and a sustainable forestry industry in the Sierra.