Timber Reform II Flashcards
current USFS policy towards carbon, and new policy proposals
Current: The Forest Service currently does not factor in the capacity of old growth to sequester and store carbon in its management plans, but it is under increasing pressure to do so
Resistance / Resilience to wildfire – 2010’s → Adapting to Climate Change
New Policy:
Sequester / Store carbon as possible – 2024 → Mitigating Climate Change
Describe long-standing conventional wisdom concerning the relationship between the timber growth curve and carbon sequestration/storage
Initiation & young forests: low storage & sequestration
Middle-aged forests: medium storage, maximum sequestration
Mature forests: high storage, low sequestration
Explain USFS’s long-standing argument that its current management approach already inherently addresses carbon storage goals
Pull the most carbon possible out of the atmosphere
because they have reached their maximum sequestration level and the carbon the mature forests have stored stays stored in building material after harvest
Describe new carbon science, and how that undermines USFS’s argument
CMAI ≠ Forest Carbon Storage
Forest carbon sequestration rates remain high past CMAI (trees keep sequestering at high rates after they reach maximum growth)
Describe the challenge that the USFS will face if charged to add carbon storage as a priority in its management plans
New Responsibilities: would now be a storage facility for carbon.
Revenue Loss: Prioritizing carbon storage would reduce timber harvests, leading to a loss of revenue that the USFS depends on for its operations.
Economic Impact: Local communities and industries that rely on timber would face economic difficulties,
Market Challenges: The USFS would need to address the lack of markets for young trees resulting from thinning practices and find ways to support its operations and financial health while transitioning to a focus on carbon storage and amenity-based economies.
Explain private industry’s long-standing argument that its current management approach already inherently addresses carbon sequestration goals
Private Industry’s position: We do sequestration
Our short rotations are good because we are cutting at a point where the trees are still in a high sequestration stage.
We pull a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere and then it gets harvested and bound up in wood material (ex: those used in construction)
Describe new carbon science, how that undermines Private Industry’s argument, and why they face pressure to adopt longer rotations
Older growth can store more carbon than younger growth.
Older growth has such a high value of timber, that it is able to do more carbon sequestration and carbon storage
financial challenges that private industry faces in adopting longer rotations
With longer rotations, industries are performing more thinnings. Thinnings are happening for decades and produce low revenue.
We’ve made it to the old growth rotations.Now we have to switch from small mill manufacturing (bc of small logs from thinning) to large mill manufacturing (adjust for old growth cuts)
financial challenges that private industry faces in adopting longer rotations
Short term vs long term profit
rising overhead costs
Longer rotation periods often necessitate multiple thinning operations to maintain forest health, Older forests can be more susceptible to diseases and pests, managing biomass from thinning can become a significant cost.
delays in recovering investments
Longer rotation periods delay the time it takes for a company to harvest and sell timber, which in turn delays the recovery of the initial investment.
Explain why private landowners consider the ESA a barrier to long rotations, and identify the remedy that they typically seek
Longer rotations can increase the risk of encountering endangered species or their habitats, leading to additional regulatory requirements for habitat protection
restrict the areas available for harvesting, potentially making it difficult to implement longer rotations
Remedy they seek:
Incidental Take Permits (ITPs) legal protection against penalties for incidental take of endangered species that may occur as a result of land use activities
