Oregon Forest Industries Council

Views

Forest Carbon in the Media

Private forestland is not the problem 

Melvin Thornton, Medford Mail Tribune, December 23, 2018

Carbon Benefits of Managed Forests

Science Trends, December 14, 2018

Our choice: Use forests for products, or breathe them as smoke

Ted Reiss, Eugene Register-Guard, August 23, 2018

Federal forestland in Oregon needs to be managed differently

Seth Barnes, Salem Statesman-Journal, August 10, 2018

Working Forests Help Oregon Fight Climate Change

Jed Arnold, Daily Astorian, June 26, 2018

Analysis: In zeal to restrict logging, advocacy groups exploit dubious research

Dave Adkins, Treesource, June 13, 2018

A vibrant wood products market is good for Oregon and the climate

Kristina McNitt, Oregonian, May 5, 2018

A well-managed forest means less greenhouse gas loose in the environment

Noelle Arena, Eugene Register-Guard, April 8, 2018

Oregon Forests Capture Half of Our State’s Human-Caused Carbon Emissions

By

Imagine you’re a university professor who just finished writing a research paper claiming timber harvest is the leading source of carbon emission in Oregon. You print off your final paper copy, seal up the paper journal submission envelope, and put the envelope in the mail so it can make its way to the publisher in a truck that burns fossil fuels as it trundles across the country to its destination. You’re about to climb into your 2011 Prius to take a much-needed vacation to Yellowstone National Park, but before you shut down your computer (that runs on electricity produced by burning fossil fuels) you decide to calculate your trip’s carbon footprint. It turns out that even in your fuel-efficient vehicle, driving the 3,316 round-trip miles to Yellowstone produces 0.61 tons of carbon dioxide! The good news, though, is that you only need to plant five trees before you leave because in five years those trees will have offset all the carbon emissions from your trip.  When those five trees have reached age 40, they will have sequestered approximately 5 tons of carbon dioxide. If those were five Douglas-fir trees, they will have sequestered 69.5 tons of carbon dioxide by age 100! As you climb into your car, you have a nagging sensation in the back of your mind about the paper you just submitted. You feel like you forgot something in your calculations, but you just can’t seem to put your finger on it…

In January 2018, Oregon State University College of Forestry professor Dr. Beverly E. Law and others (Law et al. 2018) published an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) claiming timber harvest is the leading source of carbon emission in Oregon. Though the underlying data are not wrong, the researchers manipulate those data in a manner clearly designed to produce a contrived outcome. Because the assumptions are entirely untethered from reality, the paper is unusable in carbon policy conversations in Oregon.

Analysis: In zeal to restrict logging, advocacy groups exploit dubious research

There are a host of problems with the paper (click here for the top five mistakes) but the paper has one error so enormous you could drive a carbon-packed log truck through it: they completely ignored the fact that the forest sector replants after harvest.  That’s like trying to convince Oregonians we’re using up all the water in the reservoir and ignoring the fact that it rains.

According to the most recent USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis data, Oregon’s forests are growing twice as much wood annually than is harvested – in fact, since 1953, the entire U.S. annual net growth has exceeded annual harvest and the total volume of growing stock on U.S. timberlands has increased by 60% (Oswalt et al 2018). More than 40 million tree seedlings are hand-planted in Oregon every year. Not only is reforestation the right thing to do and the only way to guarantee a sustainable, reliable source of timber, but it is also the law in Oregon. Reforestation is one of the many things required by the Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA). The FPA is first-in-the-nation legislation to regulate forest management and to formalize a way to incorporate best practices and evolving science into an adaptive regulatory framework. It was landmark legislation in 1971 and remains current today, with nearly 40 revisions since then. The FPA incorporates more than 45 years of science to safeguard water, fish and wildlife habitat, soil and air. Not only does the FPA require reforestation following harvest, it also requires that within six years those new seedlings (more than 200 per acre) are thriving and outgrowing competing grass and brush on their own.

Forest carbon stock and flux data sourced from USFS FIA data (2001-2010) and emissions data sourced from Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (2015).

Roughly 50 percent of the dry weight of wood is carbon, and that carbon remains locked in wood products produced from Oregon’s forests for the entire life of those products, long after those reforested acres grow into healthy, lush forests. In fact, because one cubic meter of wood stores nearly a metric ton of carbon dioxide, a new eight-story condominium building currently being constructed in Portland (called Carbon12) with extensive use of mass timber products, will offset 577 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from going into the atmosphere. That’s equivalent to keeping 169 cars off the road for a year — with one building. The newly completed Oregon headquarters of First Tech Credit Union in Hillsboro is the largest known U.S. building to date that uses cross-laminated timber, or CLT, for flooring, and glulam posts and beams. It is five stories and high and has 156,000 square feet of office space. U.S. and Canada’s forests can grow this much wood in 2 minutes! The building stores 530 metric tons of carbon dioxide and avoids 1,130 metric tons of carbon dioxide. This is equivalent to taking 317 cars off the road for a year and saves enough energy to operate 141 homes for a year! Find out the carbon benefits of your wood home based on square footage or board feet associated with construction using this carbon calculator.

Wood is the ultimate green building material because it is the only major building material that stores carbon. It’s renewable, recyclable, and in Oregon, it’s sustainably and locally produced. Wood produced from Oregon forestland regulated by the state’s forest protection law qualifies as responsibly sourced under the internationally recognized American Society of Testing Materials standard, and therefore can count toward the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) credit for wood use in sustainable building projects. New houses are built every day in Oregon and across the United States. If we were to reduce the state’s wood production, we only ensure that developers turn to wood from other jurisdictions with more lenient environmental protections than we have in Oregon. Or worse, that we might turn to less climate-friendly alternatives to wood.

Setting aside the fact that not replanting is illegal in Oregon and therefore the Law et al. 2018 scientific model is unrealistic at best, the researchers also cast aside the permanent benefits of using wood over alternative building products, citing a news article (not a peer-reviewed scientific article) that claims modern wood buildings only last a few decades. Continuing in the “alternate universe” theme, the researchers further claim that carbon emissions from wildfire were lower than carbon emissions from timber production. In order to arrive at that conclusion, the publication used outdated fire data and omitted the Biscuit Fire as an outlier, despite more recent publications concluding that fires of that magnitude will be increasingly common in the future due to climate change (Jain, Wang & Flannigan 2017).

Understandably, the publication elicited a lot of head shaking, which enticed Dave Atkins, retired USFS forest ecologist and president of the online news outlet Treesource to take a deep dive into the details of the author’s assumptions.  Atkins interviewed better experts than evidently participated in the PNAS peer-review process and wrote an extensive rebuttal piece that sheds light on the significant flaws in the publication.

Wood products come from trees. And there’s no better place in the world to grow (and re-grow) trees than Oregon. A healthy wood products market generated by local, sustainable forest management practices incentivizes good forest practices, maintains the value of forestland, and keeps forests as forests in Oregon. In light of its positive contribution to climate change, OFIC looks forward to working with state lawmakers on finding ways to encourage the use of more Oregon wood, not less.

News

Other Resources

 

Protecting Oregon’s Best Source Of Clean Water

By

When foresters get ready to harvest timber out of the woods, there’s a lot of work done before the logging crew goes in, including marking areas of trees not to cut. One of those areas is called a Riparian Management Area (RMA), which is a buffer of trees left standing next to a stream to protect water quality. The Oregon Forest Practices Act dictates how wide those buffers should be, depending on the size of the stream and if it contains sensitive species that require extra protection. This month, new rules go into effect requiring bigger buffers around cold water streams supporting salmon, steelhead or bull trout.

OFIC went out into the woods with a team of two professional foresters, three interns, and a cadre of furry four-legged tag-alongs to measure and mark an RMA on a large fish-bearing stream in a unit of forestland about to be harvested in the Oregon north coast range.

In order to get to the stream, the team hiked into the forest on foot.

We head out into the woods armed with colored tape and tools for measuring the RMA (and me hauling loads of camera gear).

Don’t be fooled by the word “hiking.” This was not an average weekend stroll through manicured trails in a state park. Oregon’s coastal forestland is remote, rough terrain, with steep slopes and dense underbrush. These are 40 to 60-year-old stands of trees that have had little disturbance for decades. I was warned to make sure all my camera gear was tied to my body (I still lost my lens cap) and to take off my wedding ring so I didn’t get my hand snagged on brush. We went early in the morning before the yellow jackets came out, and the dogs were there for more than just companionship. I’m pretty fit, but that day proved to be some of the hardest “hiking” I’ve ever done.

In order to get down to the large stream, we tracked a small, non-fish bearing tributary. While walking in the “stream” wasn’t easy (I had mud over the tops of my hiking boots within 10 minutes), it was certainly easier than trying to stay upright on the steep slope of forestland on either side of the stream. As we went, we tied brightly colored tape on brush every few feet to mark the stream for the logging crew.

Paul tries to assess if it’s better to climb over those downed logs or walk around. I voted for walk around.

We made slow, humid progress climbing (and falling, in my case) over logs. I used the excuse of taking photos to stop for a breather. I’m sure the crew would have been twice as fast without me.

I had to keep my camera tucked in my vest to prevent it from banging into stuff so it got pretty fogged up cause I was sweating all over the place, but if you look closely you can see how the pink ribbon marks the stream for the logging crew.

Eventually, the forest opened up and the tributary lead us to our target: the large stream. I was celebrating the fact that I wouldn’t have to scramble through a wet stream anymore. Surely this part would be easier, right?

Ah, finally, I can actually see where I’m going.

The Oregon Forest Practices Act requires a 100-foot buffer of trees around large fish-bearing streams. That means the team had to measure a 100-foot distance from the edge of the stream and mark that edge (by tying tape on trees) along the whole length of the stream in the unit to be harvested so the logging crew would know to stay out of that buffer. In order to measure 100 feet, Paul climbed up the slope next to the stream and Luke and the crew stood at the edge of the stream. Using a survey grade laser range finder, Paul measured 100 feet by pointing the laser at a reflective sign Luke held at the edge of the stream.

Sometimes it was a clear shot. Other times, stuff was in the way and it took a lot of yelling back and forth to make sure Luke and Paul could determine how far apart they were. I make a good college try of walking along with Paul on the hillside, but there were times when the forest floor vegetation and decaying debris was so dense I just had to step on something and trust that I wouldn’t fall through. Of course I did fall through plenty of times. In fact, I couldn’t wear a skirt to work for two weeks because my legs were so bruised and scratched. At one point, Paul directed me to walk a different route than him because he said it would be “easier” for me to walk through the power line corridor. There are no pictures of that part because I was too busy pushing my way through a tangle of blackberry vines taller than I am and frantically hoping I wasn’t lost. When I finally found Paul he swore he wasn’t trying to ditch me, but I still can’t be sure.

Most entertaining was watching Luke perform stream-side acrobatics to get the reflector in a good spot.

Luke spent lots of time in uncomfortable looking stretches trying to put the reflective sign in a spot where Paul could “see” it with the laser. When it was determined they were 100 feet apart, Paul marked the edge of the buffer with tape and moved on down the stream.

This went on for a long time, slowly marking the edge of the buffer by tying tape every few trees.

The interns and I ate a lot of huckleberries growing alongside the stream while we waited for Paul and Luke to figure out how far apart they were.

As he marked the buffer, Paul was also counting mandated “leave trees,” and he occasionally stopped to write down in a notebook how many he’d counted. The Oregon Forest Practices Act requires foresters leave two standing live trees and two downed trees per acre for wildlife habitat. It also requires snags, which are standing dead trees that have had their tops broken off for wildlife, like woodpeckers.

We also stopped to look for evidence of black bears, identified a number of lobster mushrooms, and removed slugs from Luke’s hard hat. All in all, a pretty good time and a heck of a workout. Eventually, after four or five hours Luke and Paul took pity on me and hiked us all back out, vowing that they would come back and finish marking the rest of the buffer another day.

Not pictured are Paul, Luke and I devouring some much deserved fish and chips after a day of hard work in the woods.

Here’s a video flavor of what it was like in real life!

 

 

Measure 97: Bad for Forest Products, Bad for Everyone

By

As the wood products industry and Oregon’s rural communities continue to claw their way out of the Great Recession, a new threat is looming on the horizon. In November, Oregonians will get a chance to vote on Measure 97, the biggest tax increase in Oregon history, a $6 billion gross receipts tax that would affect the forest products industry, their suppliers, and customers. This new tax will put Oregon sawmills at a disadvantage vis-à-vis competitors in Washington and Canada.

The proponents of Measure 97 argue that this “corporate sales tax” is needed so large, out-of-state corporations pay their fair share, but if approved, this tax would reach much further than that. Started in 1942, Hampton Lumber is an Oregon-based, family-owned business but they meet the definition for a corporation that would be taxed if Measure 97 passes.

Hampton's mill in Willamina.

Hampton’s mill in Willamina.

“This tax would increase costs throughout our production process, from timber harvest to wholesale,” said David Hampton, co-owner of Hampton Lumber. “We’d be affected directly and indirectly through increased utility and supply costs. It’s a poorly conceived measure that will hurt our business and consumers throughout the state.”

The kicker about Measure 97 is that it’s a tax on total sales, not profits.  That’s kind of like a waiter being taxed on the total bill of the meal he serves, rather than the tip he receives. For high-volume, low-margin products, there’s very little room to absorb the tax. By taxing sales rather than income, companies would have to pay the tax, even if they don’t make a profit.

“That’s the biggest downside for us – the fact that we’d have to pay the tax even if we were losing money,” Roseburg Forest Products President and CEO Grady Mulbery said. “Our industry is very cyclical – we go through lots of ups and downs. Roseburg has enjoyed some decent years as we’ve emerged from the recent recession, but we still have not recovered the losses we incurred as we kept plants running and kept our employees working as much as possible. Our ability to do the same in a future downturn would be severely hampered by this additional tax.”

To truly understand the compounding effect a gross receipts tax like Measure 97 would have on the timber products industry, and ultimately the consumer, it’s important to follow a product along the complex supply chain from forest to frame. Every time the product changes hands is a new opportunity for a 2.5 percent tax as a result of Measure 97.

loggerThe first step starts in the woods with a logger harvesting timber. Andrew Siegmund is the third-generation owner of Siegmund Excavation and Construction, a road construction & logging contractor that has been operating in northwest Oregon for over 40 years. His company is hired by landowners, like Hampton, to build roads, harvest timber and deliver it to the mills. “We’re not a C corp,” Siegmund said, “but every business we do business with is, from fuel suppliers to parts and services, to equipment dealers and insurance companies – across the board. That’s pretty tough, our costs will be higher, but customers like Hampton are not going to be excited to have a conversation about increasing rates to offset that cost because they’re getting hit too.” Siegmund agreed that the only way his company could deal with the tax would be to freeze wages and benefits, lay-off employees, or pass the cost on. “We can’t move, and we can’t wring any more efficiency out of our operations. We’ve made considerable investments in machinery and technology to be as efficient as possible, we’re operating at the cutting edge.

The challenges facing Siegmund are not uncommon.  The nonpartisan Oregon Legislative Revenue Office issued a report on the potential impacts of Measure 97 and estimated that 38,000 private sector jobs would be lost as a result of Measure 97.

After a logger delivers the logs to the sawmill, Hampton Lumber processes the logs into lumber and residuals.  When they sell these products to their customers, a 2.5 percent sales tax is generated.  Incidentally, Hampton Lumber also has an Oregon wholesale business, so when they sell lumber between their mills and their wholesale business, they’ll pay an additional 2.5 percent tax. You can easily see how the compounded cost from taxes associated with inputs to the logger, the mill, and the wholesale operation (electricity, trucking, repairs, supplies) will pile up.  The wholesaler then sells the lumber to a retailer, then to a home builder, and eventually to a buyer who, as the last stop in the supply chain, will ultimately pay a higher price for a home when the entire supply chain passes the compounded cost down-stream. In that way, Measure 97 is worse than a simple sales tax, which Oregonians have voted down nine times.

Measure 97 would hit business operations but it would also impact families directly through increased prices on everyday items like groceries, utilities, fuel, and clothing. The Oregon Legislative Revenue Office report estimated that the tax would cost Oregon households between $372 and $1,282 per year as a result of higher prices and other impacts.  For example, Measure 97 would cost a family making between $48,000 and $68,000 annually $613 per year.

The very worst part about Measure 97 is that in the end, there’s no guarantee the money raised by the tax would go to education or anything else. Proponents of the measure are trying to convince voters that the money would be dedicated to a few specific things, but that’s just not the case. The money will go into the General Fund and the Legislature could spend the money any way it sees fit. It’s a bad deal for Oregonians all around.

Inside Seneca’s High-Tech Sawmill

By

So you think you know a sawmill? Men dressed in overalls on either side of a big log working a two sided saw back and forth, logs rumbling down rickety tracks, burly guys running lengths of board through a circular saw listening for the sound of the lunch whistle?

Not anymore.

The basic elements of a sawmill are still the same: logs go in on one side and lumber comes out on the other.  That’s pretty much where the similarities end, though. Today’s sawmill is nothing like sawmills of settlement times or even just a decade ago. Modern sawmills are highly mechanized, highly technical, and highly efficient. Lasers guide logs on tracks that whip by at high speed, scanners determine how to customize and optimize cuts on individual logs, high speed digital cameras and sensors increase precision, and metal detectors uncover rogue saw-destroying nails. It’s like one big computerized video game, and the name of the game is efficiency.

Stacks of lumber wait their turn in the kiln at Seneca's Eugene sawmill.

Stacks of lumber wait their turn in the kiln at Seneca’s Eugene sawmill.

Seneca’s sawmill in Eugene is a prime example of technological advancement and innovation in the lumber industry. When Aaron Jones founded Seneca Sawmill Company in 1954, it was his insistent commitment to maximizing efficiency that drove the company to secure more than 20 patents on mechanical modernization. Seneca will soon complete a $60 million expansion investment to their sawmill in Eugene that will enable them to further increase efficiency and adaptability with the addition of two new, larger dry kilns and a collection of advanced instruments that would impress most engineers.

The primary driver behind Seneca’s expansion is a change in the marketplace. Demand in the lumber market has shifted to a greater reliance on dry wood over green wood, primarily as building code regulations have been modified to reduce mildew and mold growth. What that means for companies like Seneca is that they’re selling more wood that’s been dried to contain less than 18 percent moisture. That’s done by using kilns to heat the finished lumber for 35 to 60 hours at 180 degrees. Three of Seneca’s five kilns have been added in the last two years as the demand for dry lumber has increased. The new addition allows Seneca to dry approximately 60 percent of its overall lumber production at the Eugene facilities.

Seneca-21

Dave Alford works from the control room at Seneca’s mill. Dave has worked for Seneca for more than 30 years as a headrig operator.

The expansion also provides an opportunity for Seneca to further develop and enhance technology within the mill to increase efficiency. After logs are sorted by size and run through the debarker, each log is scanned by what’s called the merchandizer. The goal of the merchandizer is to evaluate the best use for each log based on its particular qualities. It takes into account slight variances in grain, bend, and knots, and references current sales prices to determine how to get the most value out of each individual log. By holding the log stationary and running the scanner over the log (as opposed to running the log through a stationary scanner) Seneca is able to get a slightly more accurate scan and subsequently slightly better optimization. Multiply that by thousands of logs scanned each day, and the end result is a significant reduction in waste. By cutting what the market demands that day, Seneca increases efficiency and is able to provide on-demand products.

Seneca-13

Lumber heads in to the scanner at Seneca’s Eugene mill.

Seneca also utilizes laser and sensor technology to sort the lumber by grade to ensure quality and meet design expectations. By combining color vision technology with high density geometric scanning, mill operators get a precise three dimensional look at the product and make decisions on grade and ways to trim the product to increase value. The lumber is then stamped with a grade and scanned to guarantee no piece is missed.

An increase in mechanization has also led to an increase in higher wage jobs at the mill. It also means fewer workers are physically moving, sorting, and marking lumber which dramatically increases safety for the mill’s workers. Seneca’s Eugene mill employs a talented staff of controller and programmers along with a skilled group of millwrights and electricians all dedicated to maintaining state-of-the-art equipment and technology.  In the filing room, seasoned saw filers work on repairing and keeping the many saw blades sharp. Every blade gets sharpened twice a day and some are coated with a stellite tip, a hardened alloy designed to keep the saw tooth sharper, longer.

Seneca-16

A hardened alloy called stellite is applied to the saw blade to keep the saw tooth sharper, longer.

Sharp blades are important when efficiency is the name of the game, and running the logs through a metal detector before they enter the mill also helps protect those blades. A nail buried deep in a log can wreak havoc on a system that is driven by speed, efficiency, and optimization.

As further proof that not a scrap of the tree is wasted, the leftover sawdust is blown out of the mill at the end of each shift and used to power, in part, the mill’s on-site biomass energy facility. The heat generated by burning sawdust, bark and shavings in the biomass facility is used to power the kilns that dry the lumber, bringing the whole system into an efficient cycle of optimization.

Never settling for the status quo, Seneca continues to chart a course of automation, optimization and efficiency, all necessary attributes to remain on the cutting edge of wood products innovation.

Advanced Aerial Application Technology Reduces Pesticide Drift

By

More than 40 million tree seedlings are planted in Oregon’s forests each year, but growing a successful forest doesn’t start and end with planting a tree. In the same way a backyard gardener doesn’t just stick a tomato plant in the ground and come back two months later to juicy tomatoes, foresters, just like farmers, do much more to ensure that their seedlings have what they need to grow up healthy, productive and strong.

The Oregon Forest Practices Act, a set of laws that regulates activity on Oregon’s forestlands, not only dictates that landowners must replant new trees within two years of a harvest, it also requires that the young trees must be “free-to-grow” within six years of harvest. That means foresters have to guarantee the new trees are vigorous, well-distributed, and ready to grow successfully into a young forest.

The first few years of weed-free growth are the most important. Wilbur-Ellis demonstrated the difference with an 18-year trial of two sites, one planted with trees after a single treatment of herbicides versus one planted without treatment. After just two years, the difference is visible above (tree from treated plot on right.) After 18 years, the treated site had trees that were 27 percent taller and 39 percent greater in diameter.

The first few years of weed-free growth are the most important. Wilbur-Ellis demonstrated the difference with an 18-year trial of two sites, one planted with trees after a single treatment of herbicide and one planted without treatment. After just two years, the difference is visible above (tree from treated plot on right.) After 18 years, the treated site had trees that were 27 percent taller and 39 percent greater in diameter.

Small tree seedlings need light, water and nutrients to survive and grow. The biggest threat to the survival of baby trees is faster-growing weeds that steal these resources away from the tree. One way foresters give newly planted seedlings a jump on weed pressure is to apply herbicides to the site before the seedlings are put in the ground. One or two applications of herbicides is all that is needed to hold back the weeds long enough for a new forest to establish.  Following establishment, the new forest won’t need further herbicide treatments for an entire generational rotation of 40-60 years.

“Nature abhors a vacuum,” says Bruce Alber, certified forester and sales representative for Wilbur-Ellis Company. “After a harvest, seeds from non-native invasive species like Scotch broom, Japanese knotweed, and blackberries get blown in or are carried in by animals.” Those, combined with grasses and other brush, grow quickly and develop vigorous root systems that out-compete and choke out conifer species. “Seedlings need at least 20 percent or less ground cover around them to grow and succeed,” Alber said, “The first few years of weed-free growth are the most important to their survival.” After the first few years, seedlings are tall enough to shade out competing weeds.

Western Helicopter applying herbicides on unit of land owned by Starker Forests.

Western Helicopter applying herbicides on unit of land owned by Starker Forests.

While sometimes it makes sense to apply herbicides with a hand crew on the ground, application by aircraft (usually from a helicopter) provides a number of advantages.  “Aerial application is extremely efficient in treating a large number of acres in the limited time available when the weeds and brush are susceptible and the crop trees won’t be damaged,” Alber said.  “This window of opportunity can be a matter of a week or ten days for a specific unit and weed species.  For a treatment project of 1500 acres, it might take a helicopter crew four to ten days, compared to about 300 man days for a hand crew.”

Western Helicopter president Rick Krohn, left, with Director of Maintenance Karson Branham. Western Helicopter owns eight helicopters (ranging in cost from $300,000 to $1.2 million) that costs about $1,200 per hour to fly. Branham is in charge of monitoring and repairing the multitude of parts and pieces of the aircraft that are regulated by the FAA. He estimates the helicopters take about an hour of maintenance per hour of flight.

Western Helicopter president Rick Krohn, left, with Director of Maintenance Karson Branham. Western Helicopter owns eight helicopters (ranging in cost from $300,000 to $1.2 million) that costs about $1,200 per hour to fly. Branham is in charge of monitoring and repairing the multitude of parts and pieces of the aircraft that are regulated by the FAA. He estimates the helicopters take about an hour of maintenance per hour of flight.

Rick Krohn is the president of Western Helicopter Services, which has operated in the Pacific Northwest since 1966 and is one of the only aerial application services that specializes in forestry. In addition to increased efficiency, he explained that aerial application also reduces cost, the amount of chemical used, and risk to the applicator. “There’s no way a ground crew could cover all the acres for a forestry company, so they’d suffer more tree mortality and have to re-plant more,” Krohn said. “It would cost at least three times as much. Ground applicators also tend to put on more chemical per acre and there’s much more potential for applicators to suffer physical injury just from walking through all that brush.”

Technological developments in aerial application for forestry have considerably increased application precision in the last 30 years. “When aerial application in forestry first started in the late 1960s,” Krohn said, “the technology was nowhere close to where it is today.” Both Krohn and Alber agree that the most impactful innovation for the industry has been research on spray nozzle size and angle that results in increased droplet size for the product coming out of the spray booms (the arm of the aircraft that releases the herbicide).

“A lot of people thought that we needed to have small droplets to get good control,” Alber said. “We have shown that to be untrue, so we get more precise deposition onto the target and have virtually no off-target drift.” Larger droplets are heavier and reach the target area without being blown around. “The good thing about herbicide use in forestry is you usually only need a few drops to be effective,” Krohn said.

Western Helicopter-4

Advancements in research on how nozzle size and angle mitigate drift have been real game changers for the industry. There are more than 50 different nozzles for use in aerial application.

One of the key areas of research focus for the USDA Aerial Application Tech Research Unit (AATRU) in College Station, Texas is spray drift mitigation. Using a wind tunnel to simulate real conditions, scientists have created Aerial Spray Nozzle Models that allow applicators to determine the best nozzle size, nozzle angle and droplet size to greatly reduce the amount of small, driftable droplets. “New herbicide labels are now setting the requirements for droplet sizes and usually require medium or larger droplet sizes,” Alber said. “This allows us to cut a hard line between vegetation control and no damage to vegetation, protecting buffered areas such as waterways, neighbor boundaries, and other no-spray areas.”

Mobile apps allow applicators to check nozzle size, angle and droplet size on site.

Mobile apps allow applicators to check nozzle size, angle and droplet size on site.

While on site, applicators can use a mobile app to look at how changing the parameters of the spray set up impacts droplet characteristics.  “Small changes can make a big difference,” Alber said.

A key piece of knowledge that came out of the AATRU was discovering that “flying low doesn’t always mean less drift,” said Krohn.  “Because we’re using such large droplets, it was actually found that flying ten feet or lower increases the amount of driftable droplets because the wind vortices from the wings or blades of the aircraft push the droplets further than flying at 18 feet.” Krohn explained that flying higher actually allows the droplets to mix with the air and separate for better efficacy.

Another recent improvement in aerial application is the incorporation of Global Positioning Systems for alignment and guidance from the cockpit. By keeping a mounted tablet in the pilot’s peripheral vision, the pilot can watch the spray path in real time, reducing overlap and increasing accuracy and precision. “GPS guidance systems also offer a very good record,” Krohn said. “Before GPS we were still doing a good job, but the technology gives a level of comfort – it gives a record of where and when the boom has been turned on.” The use of shorter booms also reduces the chance of droplets getting pulled upward by the vortices created by the rotor blade, and half-boom capability (literally turning half the boom off) allows for better precision around stream buffers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85xlgRehZiQ

The above video is a sped-up version of the spray path the pilot sees in real-time from a tablet in the cockpit (the actual application took 45 minutes). A sensor on the boom is triggered when the spray is switched on. Stream buffers are sprayed first with the half boom setup, the blue lines indicate when the half boom is on, while the red lines are when full boom is in use.

Krohn also noted that the introduction of new pesticides or formulations of pesticides that are more environmentally friendly and require less product to be applied has made a big impact in the industry. “Thirty or 40 years ago we used the same herbicide to treat everything,” Krohn said, “But now we can assess the weed pressure on a given site and tailor applications for specific treatments so we’re not putting on any more than needed.” Drift reduction technology products that are added to the spray mix can also be useful in some applications to further reduce the fine, driftable droplets and focus more herbicide on the intended target.

The future of aerial application promises even more innovation as technology advances. Drones and unmanned aircrafts are being tested for potential use in certain instances of pesticide application and have shown to be useful in small areas in Japanese agriculture. The technology isn’t quite there yet for commercial use in the U.S., though. “The problem with small aircraft is that they can’t carry enough spray mix to spray more than a small fraction of an acre, much less a 70-acre patch of Scotch broom,” said Alber.  They may have other uses though. “Drones or multirotor unmanned aircraft could be useful in scouting forest sites for weed density and possible weed identification,” said Alber.  “Agriculture is using them now for remote sensing on crops.”

Reducing drift is a the primary driver of innovation in aerial application for a number of reasons, only one of which is the simple fact that the cost of the chemical applied is the single most expensive part of aerial application and every drop that ends up outside the target area is money wasted.  Aerial application is a vital tool for sustainable forest management, and while foresters take tremendous care to ensure that weather conditions are right and all rules, regulations and best management practices are followed, technological advancements have revolutionized the accuracy and precision of this industry.

Preparing for Oregon Wildfire: Three Million Acres Burned Since 2012

By

The last few summers in Oregon have been hot and dry. In fact, for some parts of the state, 2015 was the third consecutive year of drought. In March, the National Weather Service announced that everything west of the Cascade Mountains is clear of drought for the first time since 2013. Those hot and dry conditions have resulted in staggering statistics for the past four fire seasons: wildfires have burned over three million acres in Oregon since 2012. Those are devastating numbers – wildfires threaten lives, destroy homes and damage forests and wildlife habitat.

A worsening “new normal” for fire season begs the question of whether climate change is contributing to an increase in wildfires and how wildfires contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Both of those questions are extremely difficult for scientists to answer, but we do know that wildfires emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide. As trees grow, they absorb carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, releasing the oxygen while locking the carbon away in the body of the tree – about half of a tree’s weight is stored carbon. Wildfires release that stored carbon through combustion.

One large wildfire can release twice as much carbon as all the cars in the Portland metro region produce in a yearThe amount released varies considerably from year to year and fire to fire depending on geography, tree species, and myriad other factors. One study found that one large Oregon wildfire released twice as much carbon as all the cars in the Portland metro region produce in a year. It’s estimated that the recent Fort McMurray fire in Canada– which has to-date burned about one-third the acreage burned in Oregon in the last four years — has emitted between 35 and 85 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. That’s equivalent to emissions from 10 to 25 million homes’ energy use for one year.

Over their life-times, trees growing in sustainably managed forests absorb carbon while providing habitat for wildlife, recreational opportunities, clean drinking water, and, when harvested, shelter for humanity. Much of that carbon in then stored in long-lived forest products while remaining wood residuals can be utilized to generate renewable energy. When the forest is replanted, this virtuous cycle begins anew. That cycle doesn’t happen when trees go up in flames. While wildfires may serve an important ecological role, proper forest management can often mimic that role while also capturing maximum value from that carbon storage.

Wildfire season is quickly approaching and while this season isn’t expected to be as bad as previous years, Oregon and Washington have already seen some fire activity, and preparation is top-of-mind for landowners right now.

Image credit: Keep Oregon Green

Image credit: Keep Oregon Green

May is Oregon Wildfire Awareness Month, and Keep Oregon Green, a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation that has been educating the public on how to prevent wildfires for 75 years, estimates that people burned over 140,000 acres of state and federally protected lands in 2015. Throughout the month of May, Keep Oregon Green is reminding Oregonians to stop fires before they start by planning ahead, preparing for fire season, and preventing open fires and equipment from sparking a wildfire. “Simple prevention strategies will make the strongest impact on your home, family and community safety,” said Kristin Babbs, Keep Oregon Green president. Babbs recommends homeowners create “defensible space” around their homes by removing dead, flammable vegetation and limbing up trees. While weather-related wildfires (such as those started by lightening) are a major cause of natural wildfires, backyard debris burning is the leading human cause of wildfire issues in Oregon. Using common sense and following simple safety rules can prevent most debris burn-caused wildfires. Campfires are also a major cause of wildfires, in fact, 4000 acres of Oregon forest burned as a result of unattended campfires last year.

Miami-Hampton fire training_5_13_16-14

At a contractor fire training in Willamina, crews geared up for the coming fire season while competing to put out mock fires.

Wildfires started by workers and the equipment they operate in the forests and on farms pales in comparison to wildfires started at home and through recreation. In fact, less than a quarter of last year’s human-caused wildfires were started on the job. Many landowners host annual training events to help contract loggers and others get prepared for operating during fire season through equipment inspection, drills, and an overview of best practices. At a training event earlier this month, Allan Foutch, forest manager for Miami Corporation, addressed a crowd of loggers and trained fire-fighters. “This is where you live and the goal is to protect it and prevent fires in your own backyard,” Foutch said. “If there were a fire, you are the people we’d rely on to put it out. We don’t want to have to respond to a fire, but if we do, we need to know when to attack and when to retreat, and how to use our equipment quickly and efficiently so everyone is safe.”

In addition to reviewing fundamentals, the training offered an opportunity to talk about lessons from last year’s fire season. David Hampton, forester and owner of Hampton Affiliates, shared stories from the Willamina Creek Fire that occurred on Hampton, BLM and Hancock land last summer. Hampton noted that it’s not always as straight forward as, “putting the wet stuff on the red stuff” because logistics often get in the way. Access to the Willamina Creek fire was limited by a one-lane road and responders got bottlenecked trying to get fire trucks to the fire before proper traffic control was in place. Hampton also stressed taking time to get familiar with the landscape. “You have to assess what the fire is doing first,” Hampton said. “Safety is key. So are headlamps, though, you can’t see anything in the dark.”

Miami-Hampton fire training_5_13_16-3

Oregon Department of Forestry tests for adequate water pressure on contractor fire trucks in anticipation of the coming fire season.

Oregon Department of Forestry was also on hand for courtesy fire truck inspections and to stress that recent years have seen earlier and more severe fire seasons. “I’ve been doing this for 22 years,” said Jason Rayburn, Wildland Fire Supervisor, “and it keeps getting worse and worse.” He said fire season used to start after Fourth of July and would start at low to moderate danger, and only get to high danger in August. Last year the fire season started off early in high danger, before the crews even came on board, and saw ten days of extreme danger. “That was off the charts and was a first in my career,” Rayburn said, “we have to up our game.”

The training wrapped up with hose and nozzle competitions, offering about $1,500 in cash prizes for winners who could quickly and properly operate their equipment under pressure. Foutch explained it was more than just a chance to shine, though. “It’s a real-time demonstration of what can go wrong if your hose isn’t rolled properly and your adrenaline is pumping.” All those who participated got a chance to re-roll their hoses under the watchful eye of experts so they’ll be prepared for the real deal.

“We’re here, and we’re ready to go,” said Hampton.

Every Day is Arbor Day For Oregon Foresters

By

On the last Friday of April, people all around the country take a moment to recognize the importance of planting trees. While this official Arbor Day only comes around once a year, Oregon foresters recognize the importance of planting trees every day. More than 40 million tree seedlings are planted in Oregon’s forests each year to reforest areas that have been harvested, burned by wildfire, or are otherwise understocked, thereby renewing a sustainable source of locally grown timber and ensuring that each acre of forest land is productively growing beautiful, healthy, Oregon trees.

Reforestation is serious business, not only because Oregon’s strict forest practices laws require it, but also because ensuring those seedlings get a good start sets the stage in that young forest for the next 45 to 60 years. For forest landowners, it’s one of very few opportunities to help steer how this land performs for decades to come.

tree planting-1

Tree planting crews unpack Douglas-fir and Hemlock tree seedlings and load them into carrying bags on Hampton’s Big Creek Tree Farm.

Tree planting in Oregon typically gets underway around February when trees are still in winter dormancy and the hard freezes are over, but the process actually starts two years before that when the seeds started growing in the nursery. Foresters plant tree seedlings (or two-year-old baby trees) even though they cost almost ten times as much as the seeds. Starting the seeds in a nursery dramatically increases the likelihood that the seedlings will survive and reestablish the forest, so it’s worth the extra cost. Douglas-fir seedlings presently cost about 36 to 38 cents each, or about $380 for 1,000. Hemlock, Western Red Cedar, Grand Fir and Noble Fir costs more, at about $420 for 1,000. Foresters make individual decisions based on many factors (elevation, health, soil condition, etc.) about which species and how many trees to plant in a given area, but at roughly 400 trees per acre, landowners are paying about $150 per acre for seedlings alone.  The average area being reforested in Oregon is about 50 acres, thus bringing the cost of seedlings for each unit to about $7,500. That number increases substantially as labor, transportation and storage costs are factored in.

Because those seedlings are so precious, considerable care is taken when transporting them from the nursery to the ground. Seedlings are transported in specially lined paper bags or boxes of about 120 in a covered, well ventilated vehicle, and they aren’t stacked too high. In order to prevent damage from drying out, it’s important that the seedlings stay out of direct sunlight and remain in a cool environment. Foresters are careful not to open the bags until right before planting to keep the seedlings in the best possible condition while they’re out of the ground.

tree planting-7

Forest manager Beth Fitch verifies proper planting technique, looking for straight roots and correct depth.

When the time comes to put the seedlings in the ground, forest managers hire crews of tree planters who have been trained in the proper technique. It’s not as easy as just sticking the tree in the soil and hoping for the best – the roots need to be straight, the depth and spacing needs to be just right, and the seedlings need to be planted in soil that will provide the nutrients they need, not the remnants of a decomposing stump or other plant material (called duff.) To ensure the seedlings are planted properly, forest managers routinely walk behind the crew and double check their work by counting the number of planted trees in a measured radius and digging up trees to look for proper planting.

tree planting-4

Tree planting crews work quickly, alternating between planting Douglas-fir and Hemlock seedlings at Hampton’s Big Creek Tree Farm.

The crew is paid by the number of trees they plant (with mechanisms in place to guarantee quality), which is about 1,200 trees per worker per day.  At about ten workers per crew, the team plants roughly 12,000 seedlings in a day.  Each bag carries about 155 seedlings and as long as the weather stays cool enough throughout the day, the crew refills their bags about seven times in a shift. Staggering each other by about ten feet, the crew follows the lead planter and puts a seedling in the ground around every three steps. It’s quick and impressive work – the average person might have to jog to keep up.

tree planting-8

This two-year-old Douglas-fir seedling will establish and spend the next 45-60 years providing clean air, water and wildlife habitat near the Oregon coast.

The end result is a young forest that will provide wildlife habitat and clean water and air for decades. When they reach maturity they’ll be harvested to create lumber for houses or pulp for paper, and then the re-planting cycle starts all over again.  The Oregon Forest Practices Act requires that harvested areas are not just replanted, but that those trees are evenly distributed and free from competing vegetation within six years. This high standard creates a sustainable source of locally-grown timber, and favors management styles that implement clear-cuts followed by even-aged plantations, mimicking the natural cycle of these forest ecosystems. Douglas-fir trees, which are native to the Pacific Northwest and are one of the most important conifers to softwood lumber production in the United States, require abundant sunlight and naturally regenerate following disturbances such as fire, and windstorms. Reforestation after harvest creates ideal growing conditions for sun-loving species like the Douglas-fir and enhances the forest’s ability to sequester carbon as younger and faster growing forests have higher annual sequestration rates.

Refuting the CZARA Disapproval

By

Daily Quotes (1)On March 9, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Oregon’s Natural Resources Policy Director, sent a letter to Richard Whitman formally announcing that the agencies will not release the withheld portion of the 2015 grant funding ($1.2 million) intended for coastal communities and water quality improvement and nonpoint source pollution projects, and that they will continue to withhold funds until Oregon’s coastal nonpoint pollution control program under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) is approved.  This makes Oregon the only state of 33 to be disapproved for funding in spite of the fact that Oregon has some of the strictest forest protection laws in the country and the Board of Forestry is currently in rulemaking to expand riparian protection for small and medium fish-bearing streams in western Oregon.

The coastal nonpoint pollution control program was established in 1990 and is jointly administered by NOAA and EPA. The program is designed to help protect and restore coastal waters in coastal states and territories by assisting states in establishing management programs that protect such waters from nonpoint source pollution. Once a state has an approved program, the federal agencies distribute grant funding to support implementation of that program.

In 1998 Oregon was granted conditional approval, a status initially given to all 33 states and territories that have submitted coastal nonpoint pollution control programs. Conditional approvals are intended primarily to provide states and territories additional time to address issues NOAA and the EPA identify as needing further progress before they will fully approve the program. Today, nearly one-third of those states continue to have conditional approvals, many of which have considerably less restrictive forest management laws than Oregon.

In 2009, the Northwest Environmental Advocates, an environmental group based in Portland and led by Nina Bell, filed the only lawsuit in the country against the EPA and NOAA over the conditional status of a state’s program. As a result of the settlement agreement from that case, the EPA and NOAA agreed to either approve or disapprove Oregon’s program.

Arbitrary and CapriciousIn January 2015, the EPA and NOAA formally disapproved Oregon’s coastal nonpoint pollution control program.  The agencies pointed exclusively to forestry, focusing on protection of non-fish bearing streams, management of forest roads, landslides, and the application of herbicides around streams.  Interestingly, the agencies gave a pass to onsite sewage disposal systems for implementing voluntary measures (something they are unwilling to accept in the context of forestry) and chose not to address “concerns with the State’s agriculture program.”

While the disapproval was supposed to trigger an immediate one-third decrease in nonpoint source grant funding, Oregon continued to negotiate with the agencies in an effort to secure the 2015 funding, emphasizing Oregon’s strict forest protection laws which are based in science and adaptive to growing scientific knowledge. In February 2016, Richard Whitman sent a short letter to the agencies indicating, again, that Oregon believes its program is fully approvable.  With remarkable efficiency for federal agencies, the EPA and NOAA replied jointly on March 9, 2016 that they would not release the withheld portion of the 2015 funding.

The position of the federal agencies is perplexing.  Their objective seems to be the implementation of prescriptive regulations rather than achieving positive environmental outcomes based on rigorous science.  Oregon has a sound and thorough defense of its regulation and outcomes around all issues raised by the EPA and NOAA – a defense that is backed by extensive research and monitoring. To this end, Oregon is already addressing the issues raised by the federal agencies:

Riparian protection: The Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA) is adaptive and rules have been modified with the inpDaily Quotes (3)ut of research. Over the years, the FPA has been changed to require the retention of trees and vegetation during harvest which must be left along fish streams as a buffer for shade and large wood recruitment. Last November, the Board of Forestry voted to adopt new steam protection rules and is currently in rulemaking to expand riparian protection for small and medium streams in western Oregon where salmon, steelhead, or bull trout are present. Oregon has also conducted three separate paired watershed studies to measure the harvest effect on conditions in streams that have shown no measureable downstream effect on stream temperatures.

Legacy forest roads: Oregon’s forest practice rules are some of the most rigorous in the nation.  From new road construction, to maintenance, to water diversions, to culvert placement, to road upgrades; the Oregon FPA is a rigorous body of laws that ensure forest roads are not compromising water quality.  Additionally, landowners, through The Oregon Plan, have spent over $96 million through 2011 making improvements to outdated culverts and stream-side care to help protect water quality and improve fish habitat. Many of these improvements divert water from road surfaces and protect roads from degradation.

Landslide-prone areas: The state has extensive research in western Oregon as it applies to age of tree stands, slope steepness, soil density and other factors.  Upon its review of existing information and additional research, the state found that the federal agencies’ Daily Quotes (2)concerns were unfounded. The FPA already dictates a rigorous process for both screening areas of potential instability and adding protective measures in areas that are deemed as having higher landslide risk.

Aerial application of pesticides: Oregon relies on regulations set by the Oregon Department of Agriculture and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for protection of streams during pesticide applications. In addition to the strength of the herbicide regulations is the fact that no scientific evidence exists that applications impair water quality.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  According to the Oregon Water Quality Index, forestland sites have the highest water quality of all sites statewide, including range, agricultural and urban areas.  And every extensive study of western watersheds conducted by state or municipal agencies has found no evidence that herbicides exist at a level harmful to public health.  Applying more prescriptive buffers is simply a solution in search of a problem. 

The federal agencies are in error, and their continued focus on forestry is puzzling.  Through all of this, they have failed to produce any evidence that Oregon forest practices are actually contributing to exceedances of water quality standards.  It’s akin to focusing the bulk of our law enforcement resources in our lowest crime neighborhoods.  Surely, there are better ways to allocate precious resources. The state shouldn’t throw away the foundation of its forest management for the minimal grant funding federal agencies are offering. Science is at the center of Oregon’s forest management; it is the foundation of policies that protect our water and wildlife, while providing for the sustainable use of natural resources.

National Links

Associations

National Alliance of Forest Owners
The National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) was formed in 2007 to protect and enhance the economic and environmental values of privately-owned forests in the United States through targeted policy advocacy at the national level.

American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA)
National trade association advocating for legislative, regulatory, administrative and trade actions favorable to the forest products industry. Site includes comprehensive information on the industry and its issues.

American Wood Cuncil
The American Wood Council (AWC) is the voice of North American traditional and engineered wood products, representing over 60% of the industry. From a renewable resource that absorbs and sequesters carbon, the wood products industry makes products that are essential to everyday life and employs 360,000 men and women in well-paying jobs.

Biomass Power Association
BPA is actively involved in the legislative process, promoting biopower as an important addition to America�s energy portfolio, and helping to shape government policies that encourage the development and use of biomass energy.

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI)
National trade group producing research to meet the environmental information needs of the forest products industry.

Forest Resources Association
The Forest Resources Association (FRA) represents diverse segments of the wood fiber supply chain, promoting forest products industry members’ ability to compete successfully in the global marketplace

Association of Consulting Foresters (ACF)
National association serving consulting foresters with professional support, standards setting and advocacy.

 

Public Agencies

National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC)
Joint federal and state government program providing the national support center for wildland firefighting.

National Timber Tax Website
This is a “one stop shop” for forest property, income, and estate tax information. It is a cooperative effort sponsored by Purdue University, the US Forest Service, Indiana DNR, the American Tree Farm System, and the National Woodland Owners Association.

Healthy Forest Initiative
The Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) was launched in 2002 with the intent to reduce the risks severe wildfires pose to people, communities, and the environment.

National Marine Fisheries Sevice (NOAA Fisheries)
Federal agency responsible for the stewardship of living marine resources and their habitat.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats.

 

Other Organizations

American Tree Farm System (ATFS)
A program of the nonprofit American Forest Foundation that sets standards and guidelines for property owners to meet to become a certified Tree Farm, and educational programs to support forest landowners.

Abundant Forest Alliance
An alliance of North American forest and paper products firms whose mission is to communicate to the public that, thanks to today�s environmentally balanced sustainable forest management practices, there will always be plenty of forests.

Evergreen Foundation
Nonprofit forestry research and educational organization committed to science-based forestry and forest policy. Publishers of Evergreen Magazine.

Forestry USA
Privately funded web site (not supported by government or industry) providing comprehensive information on forests and forestry in America.

Forest History Society (FHS)
A nonprofit educational institution that links the past to the future by identifying, collecting, preserving, interpreting, and disseminating information on the history of interactions between people, forests, and their related resources — timber, water, soil, forage, fish and wildlife, recreation, and scenic or spiritual values.

Temperate Forest Foundation
National nonprofit gathering, analyzing and communicating scientifically credible information on social, economic and environmental issues affecting forestlands.

Greenspirit
Site reflects Greenpeace founding member Patrick Moore�s �environmentalism of the 21st century,� the key to a sustainable future.

Menu