Past posts on this blog have covered such topics as the emerging forest carbon market, effects of climate change in the Sierra Nevada, and, most recently, the importance of biomass utilization.  This post aims to combine each of these topics to provide some outlook of the current and future economic status of our timberlands.

The California Climate Change Center recently posted a white paper on the Impact of Climate Change on California Timberlands (August 2009), which presents some staggering facts about California’s failing timber market.  In the paper, researchers develop models that show how timberlands will be affected by different climate change scenarios, provided with an economic analysis of different harvest and landowner adaptation strategies.  Production of timber is decreasing due to an era of global warming, increased wildfires, and changes in land use.  Climate change is impacting timber production already, and will continue to do so if the future warming projections are accurate.  California has already experienced a 24% decline in timber production from 1991 to 1996, and another 24% since then.   Early implementation of climate-smart forest management strategies is imperative to the survival and prosperity of our region’s timber production industry.

Forests of the Sierra Nevada are expected to experience many detrimental changes, due to changes in the climate.  The paper notes that globally, northern softwood forests will most likely see increased productivity because of warmer temperatures.  This increase in global product will further decrease local timber prices, continuing the downward trajectory of value.  Under likely price scenarios, climate change will result in an overall decline in the value of harvested timber, resulting in losses of up to $8.1 billion by the end of this century.  These decreases in timber value will increase the likelihood of changes in land use, resulting from the disparity in land values.  Timber value changes varied across the state, with strong decreasing timber values in high-growth Sierra Nevada areas where market dynamics already favor non-forest uses (most notably Nevada, Placer, and El Dorado County), providing the highest risk of rapid conversion of privately held timber land.

Not only is timberland productivity altered by economic factors, but can also be heavily influenced by environmental factors.   Environmental changes resulting from a changing climate, for example declining snowpack, will increase the occurrence of drought, eventually increasing the outbreak of wildfires, pests, and pathogens.  Temperature changes will also cause species to shift upslope where ranges will shrink due to the smaller amount of area at upper elevations.  Pest ridden trees, catastrophic wildfire, and shrinking populations will greatly threaten the future productivity potential of our forestlands.

Fortunately, the paper provides some hope through adaptation strategies which could be used to mitigate these effects.   Modeling showed that management options significantly influence the degree of loss of productivity.  Lands  in which the forest owners implemented management strategies that anticipate the effects of climate change and internalized those predictions into rotation and species composition decisions fared better than those who took a naïve approach, maintaining current harvest regimes.

The paper also addresses the impact of a carbon market on the effects of climate change on private forestlands, providing an estimate of the degree to which the presence of the carbon market can mitigate the economic impacts of climate change.   Models showed that the presence of a carbon market indeed lessens the impact of climate change on forests state-wide, but does so most significantly in the Sierra Nevada counties.

These findings provide the basis necessary to consider policy tools that lessen the impact of climate change, especially on land use conversion.  Implementation of a carbon market helps generate income in areas suffering the greatest timber value declines, providing an incentive to keep land in forest.  The paper also mentions other tools that favor timberland retention: tax relief or incentives, land conservation strategies, or actions that draw development to other areas.  SBC has already begun implementing several of these tools through programs aimed to help our region adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change in the Sierra Nevada.  SBC is doing this by partnering with the Northern Sierra Partnership, consulting and encouraging communities to consider smart-growth land-use planning strategies, and by developing forest carbon projects through the Sierra Nevada Carbon Cooperative.  SBC’s biomass utilization efforts also fall in line with the necessary mitigation and adaptation strategies, providing a tool for healthy forest management which reduces greenhouse gases in a number of ways.

The first steps that need to be taken include outreach to community leaders, decision makers, and forest land owners about adaptation strategies, implications, and policy needs related to forest management. Initiating these conversations and partnerships today will protect the region’s timber industry of tomorrow.

The Sierra Nevada Conservancy is sponsoring a “Webposium”- a region-wide web-based symposium- that gathers local, state, and national experts, policy-makers, environmental, industry and community representatives to discuss how to create cohesive and collaborative working groups and projects.  The focus of these projects will be to improve watershed/forest resiliency and health by reducing the threat of wildfire where sustainably using forest “fuels” to create local jobs and economic resilience.

During the event, speakers will discuss the economic hardships Sierra communities are facing in dealing with mill closures, declines in forest health, increasing wildfire intensity and frequency, and other environmental and economic pressures.  Current projects which show how the environment can be protected while stimulating sustainable economic benefits for surrounding communities will also be showcased.  Policy-makers, researchers, academics and funding experts will discuss what they see today, what we might expect tomorrow, funding opportunities and priorities, and what policies might be needed to successfully protect our resources, reduce fire threat and build resiliency into our environment and local economies.   Each regional group will also be asked to weigh in on all information presented, identify common goals, and participate in a moderated discussion.

For more information, including program information, the agenda, regional locations, and participating panel members, click here.  Moderated webposium locations include:

• Visalia
• Quincy
• Bishop
• Oroville
• Susanville
• Cameron Park
• Sutter Creek
• Grass Valley
• And Oakhurst

SBC’s Steve Frisch will be presenting as a panel member during the morning session, and several other SBC representatives will be present to participate in the discussions at the Quincy and Grass Valley locations.  Don’t miss out on this exciting opportunity to join leaders in your community and take part in these imperative discussions.

Carbon “Czar”, Christina Prestella, project manager of the Sierra Nevada Carbon Cooperative, recently answered a question posed by a reader of the Sierra County Prospect on carbon, biomass, and the future of our Sierra Nevada forests.  Her response:

Woody Biomass Utilization and the Sierra Nevada: A Compromise

By Christina Prestella – Sierra Business Council

So often in America, we find ourselves in dispute over the best way to manage our resources. Shall we protect them and endanger the economy? Or shall we use them and put our environment at risk? Either way, we jeopardize a form of capital, whether it is natural, social, or financial. At the Sierra Business Council, our mission is to pioneer approaches which foster all three of these types of capital, without compromising any of the three. The woody biomass utilization argument mentioned in last week’s edition of the Sierra Prospect is a great illustration of a lack of agreement in response to providing energy to our Sierra Nevada communities. Instead of utilizing the massive overgrowth of woody materials in our own backyards for energy, we depend on foreign sources which poison our air and our economy.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports that for every megawatt of woody biomass power produced, 4.9 jobs are created. Additionally, by increasing use of renewable and alternative fuels, we reduce the use of petroleum-based fuels. The USEPA has presented a lifecycle analysis which shows that the use of woody biomass results in a 90.1% reduction of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, relative to the petroleum fuel that is being displaced. Local timber milling and utilization of woody biomass is clearly a less polluting form of energy, and provides good, local jobs, so why is the industry failing?…

Click here to continue reading the article

You’ve heard the buzz words: carbon credits, carbon sequestration, sustainable forestry and forest products, biomass utilization, cogeneration …the list goes on and on.  But while each of these initiatives are important on their own, it’s interesting to step back and look at how they fit together to create the forest carbon cycle.  Balanced in the correct way, there is the potential for a sustainable cycle of carbon sequestration by forests, storage of carbon in sustainably-harvested wood products, and substitution of biomass for fossil fuels in energy production.  The following picture created by Sierra Pacific Industries provides a good visual:

Here’s how it works (in an ideal world):  Let’s start with atmospheric carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas.  Forests, through the process of photosynthesis, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in their trees’ biomass.  The carbon is continuously stored in wood products made from certified sustainably harvested timber, revitalizing the timber industry that is currently struggling in the Sierra (see our post about the mill closing near Sonora for proof).  Sustainable fuels management operations also produce biomass that is used instead of fossil fuels for energy production.  By removing these fuels, not only are we creating a renewable source of energy, we are also reducing risk of catastrophic wildfire (check out the US Forest Service’s upcoming “Forests With  a Future” that focuses on fuels reduction to prevent forest fires in the Sierra Nevada).  Biomass-fired power plants use combined heat and power technologies to efficiently produce reliable carbon-neutral heat and electricity for surrounding communities while simultaneously creating green jobs.   At the end of their useful life, wood products are recycled for bio-energy, doubling their carbon benefit.  When trees die or their biomass is burned for energy, their stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere, and the cycle begins again as new trees absorb the CO2.  Take a look at this poster from The Forest Foundation for another depiction of the system.

What role do carbon offsets play in this cycle?  A carbon offset is an incentive for forest landowners to take the additional steps to create and maintain the sustainable cycle described above.  By putting a monetary value on the services forests provide, they are creating a new source of revenue for communities that participate and work to make this sustainable vision a reality.  Many barriers exist to creating this idealized system, and there is still a long way to go, but it is something to keep in mind as we work towards mitigating climate change and creating strong, localized communities in the Sierra Nevada.

After a year and a half of thorough workgroup involvement and numerous public workshops, the Climate Action Reserve will put  version 3.0 of the Forest Project Protocols before their Board of Directors for approval on September 1st.  The meeting is open to the public and will be held in Sacramento.  More info below:

Title: Special Climate Action Reserve Board Meeting RE Forest Project Protocol adoption
Location: Room 550 of the California Environmental Protection Agency building at 1001 I St. in Sacramento, CA or webinar
Date: September 1, 2009
Start Time: 10:00 AM PDT
End Time: 1:00 PM PDT
Registration:https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/621892897

The following is a timeline for protocol development moving forward:

• Prior to Sept 1 meeting (around Aug 25^th) – addendum to protocols released with minor technical changes from August 2009 draft
• Sept 1^st – special CAR Board Meeting to approve protocols
• Sept 24-25^th – ARB Board Meeting to endorse protocols
• (tentative) Oct 5-6 – verifier training course held in Los Angeles for Forest Project Protocols and Urban Forest Protocols

For the most recent updates regarding CAR’s Forest Project Protocols, visit their website.

The Sierra Pacific Industries sawmill near Sonora closed last week, the third SPI sawmill to close in the Sierra Foothills this summer.  What are the implications of this closure?

Listen to Capital Public Radio’s Insight program, which aired on Wednesday, August 12, 2009, to hear from Sierra Business Council’s President, Steve Frisch, Mark Pawlicki from Sierra Pacific Industries,  David Edelson from The Wilderness Society, and District 2 Supervisor, Ray Nutting, as they describe the reactions to the mill closure, the cascading implications the closure will have in the community, and discuss what can replace the work of the mills in the future.

For audio of the program, click here.

The Sierra Nevada Carbon Cooperative was recently featured in the July 2009 volume of the REDD and Biodiversity e-Newsletter!

Here is what they had to say about the program:

“Carbon offset projects within the Sierra Nevada region of California-
The Sierra Business Council (SBC) is currently developing forest carbon offset projects, located within the Sierra Nevada region of California, using recently nationalized Climate Action Reserve standards. The SBC has developed the first avoided conversion project to be listed under these protocols. Projects are intended to create a reliable funding stream dedicated to conservation and restoration of our carbon-rich forestlands. More: http://www.sbcouncil.org/Projects/SNCC/.”

The REDD and Biodiversity e-Newsletter is published by the Convention on Biological Diversity, an international treaty to sustain the diversity of life on Earth.  For more information on REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), the CBD and their eNewsletter, visit here.

This graphic from Sac Bee journalist, Tom Knudson’s “Sierra Summit” blog was posted in August 2008, but is still a great illustration of the early warning signs of climate change in the Sierra Nevada.   From retreating glaciers and ice caves to scorched forests, this map highlights some captivating images and graphics linking the past to the present and the present to the future.

Click this link to access the Flash player interactive map on the Sac Bee website.  (Note: You need flash player version 8 to interact with the content.)

With these changes already occurring, it is critical to both adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change now.  What is being done to inform communities?  Thanks to Mary’s question from the last posting, we were inspired to share some links and information on climate change in the Sierra Nevada.  There is a litany of information on climate change available on the web, but the following links are targeted specifically to California and should be a good starting place for any research.

At the state level there is a Climate Action Team that released its Draft Biennial Report in March 2009.  The report outlines the possible effects of climate change under multiple emissions scenarios.  And look for the California Climate Adaptation Strategy sometime in the near future, drafted by multiple stakeholder workgroups.    At the local government level, a recent report by the Public Policy Institute of California found that roughly 75% of city and county governments are working on climate change issues, with strategies like addressing emissions in their general plans and CEQA reviews, conducting emissions inventories, and creating climate action plans.  To prepare communities and the public, the Sierra Nevada Alliance developed a Climate Change Toolkit to inform Sierra communities about climate change and adaptation strategies specific to the Sierra Nevada.

The first step to mitigating and adapting to global warming is to be educated and knowledgeable about what climate change is and possible impacts.  Hopefully these resources help you and your community to better understand how climate change will affect the Sierra Nevada.

Over a month since passing the Energy and Commerce Committee, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act last Friday June 26^th.  With a 219-212 majority vote, the bill now goes before the Senate where it faces tough opposition.  In order to pass into President Obama’s hands, the bill must get 60 of the 100 Senate votes in favor of the bill and not a simple majority as in the House.  The vote in the House squeaked by largely along party lines with 8 Republicans breaking ranks and voting for the bill and 44 Democrats voting against it.

We at Sierra Business Council’s Forest Carbon Blog will be staying on top of the developments of this landmark bill that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions and transform how energy is produced and used in the US.  Stay tuned for more updates on climate policy and forests in the Sierra Nevada.

It’s an exciting time to be involved in the carbon world.  Historic legislation that would create a mandatory cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide emissions in the US has passed the House Committee of Energy and Commerce, and just yesterday was filed with the Rules Committee by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, dubbed ACES or Waxman-Markey after the bill’s sponsors, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), would regulate CO₂ emissions for the first time in US history.  If the details of the 946-page beast escape you, check out this quick Grist summary.

The bill has been supported by many as a first step, but also criticized as an expensive compromise that is too watered down in its emission and renewable energy targets to be significant in halting climate change.  The CO₂ emission reduction targets in Waxman-Markey of 80% below 2005 emission levels are well below the IPCC recommendation of a reduction to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.  The difference between the two emissions scenarios is largely a question of political and economic feasibility, not just the best science, as explained in this article.

If ACES won’t fully mitigate climate change, then the key to the success of the bill hinges on what adaptation strategies it lays out.  And here there is room for optimism.  The bill establishes a National Climate Change Adaptation Council and National Climate Change Adaptation Program that will distribute periodic assessment reports, chaired through NOAA.  Funding for these adaptation measures would come from the sale of emission permits, with 2-8% of the total revenue going to domestic and international adaptation.

The question of adaptation is particularly salient in the Sierra Nevada, where climate impacts are predicted to be significant.  The latest science from the California Climate Change Center predicts a 25-40% reduction in snowpack by mid century, earlier spring melt and increased risk of flooding, and a 12-52% increase in the number of large wildfires by the end of the century.  Our Sierra Nevada forest ecosystems have survived for thousands of years.  But are they resilient enough to weather the 3-10.5°F of predicted warming?  Forest carbon projects are unique in that they both mitigate and adapt to a changing climate - making them an appealing form of offsets.  They mitigate climate change by trapping and storing CO₂ long-term, and they adapt to climate change by promoting healthy, sustainably managed, old-growth structure forests that reduce fire risk and promote a wealth of other environmental co-benefits.  The more resilient our forests, the better they can weather a changing climate.

So yes, ACES is a compromise, but what legislation isn’t?  Perhaps the issue of compromise was best stated by New York Times writer Paul Krugman in a May 2009 Op-Ed column, “Waxman-Markey is imperfect, it’s disappointing in some respects, but it’s action we can take now. And the planet won’t wait.”  Well said, Mr. Krugman.  The forests of the Sierra Nevada won’t wait either.