Biodiversity & Forests Overheads

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

main habitat: old-growth forest (200+yrs)
nests in old-growth snags
pairs need 4,000+ acres
an Effective (breeding) population of 500 requires several thousand individuals
very low pop. growth rate
young cannot disperse in fragmented landscape
preyed on by Great Horned Owl
Barred Owl competes for habitat

The Endangered Species Act (1973, as amended)

"LISTING" UNDER the Endangered Species Act:

DESIGNATION AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED

SPECIES, SUBSPECIES, OR POPULATIONS

(VERTEBRATES) CAN BE LISTED

SUBMIT PETITION GIVING EVIDENCE OF STATUS
CURRENTLY 950+ SPECIES OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS LISTED
CRITERIA FOR LISTING:

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

ECONOMIC CRITERIA (COST) NOT CONSIDERED
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:
- US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS, DEPT. INTERIOR)
- NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS, DEPT. COMMERCE)
- MAKE RULES TO IMPLEMENT ESA
PROTECTIONS PROVIDED BY ESA:
- USFS or NMFS MAKES RECOVERY PLAN
- CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION
- "TAKING" ILLEGAL (INCLUDES DAMAGE TO HABITAT)
- ENFORCEMENT & PENALTIES
  
  CIVIL: $25,000 FINES
  
  CRIMINAL: $50,000 + ONE YEAR
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION: SPECIES PROTECTION BE CONSIDERED IN ALL FEDERAL ACTIONS
CONSULTATIONS
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species)
PRIVATE LAND-OWNERS:
- SUBSTANTIAL POPULATIONS OF 70% OF LISTED SPECIES
- SECTION 10: "INCIDENTAL TAKE" ALLOWED
- "HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN"
- CLINTON’S "NO SURPRISES"POLICY
PROTECTING ECOSYSTEMS
- ESA NOT DESIGNED TO DO THIS!
- INDICATOR SPECIES
- ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

History of Forest Management:

pre 1890's era: super abundance; steam powered logging
Conservation (1890-1920): efficiency, scientific management
1920-1950: broadened conservation
1950 - 1970: Post war building boom; public lands
Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, 1960
National Forest Management Act, 1976
1980's: peak cut in PNW and USFS nation wide

SOLUTIONS

OLD PROBLEM--NEW FORESTRY SOLUTION

exposure of soil >> analyze slope stability, adjust % of trees cut

loss of shade near streams >> leave buffers

skidding trees through wetlands >> discontinue & restore damage

sidecast road building >> remove extra dirt, restore old roadways

clearcut >> selectively cut smaller areas, or individual trees

cut only larger trees >> multiple sizes cut

Ecosystem management

habitat fragmentation >> landscape planning

monocrop replanting>> manage for biodiversity

single-age stands >> mimic old growth structure

40-60 year cycle >> 200 year cycle

manage by political boundaries >> watersheds as managment units

large areas cut intensively >> 80% of land forested

timber production as primary goal >> multi-species & preserve ecosystem functions

FOREST VALUES (aka ECOSYSTEM SERVICES):

INTRINSIC VALUES OF OTHER SPECIES
GENETIC DIVERSITY
WATER
WATERSHEDS
FISHERIES
CLIMATE STABILIZATION
RECREATION
WILDERNESS
NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS
WOOD PRODUCTION
EXISTENCE VALUE

WHO ARE THE ACTORS?

(Or, Who manages the land?)

Lands of Washington (in acres):
	non-forest	20,627,000	49%
	forest	21,857,000	51%

of the Forest lands:
	"non-productive"	2,244,000	10%
	Reserved NP	889,000	4%
	NF Wilderness	1,885,000	9%
	NF other withheld	50,000	<1%
	Timber producing	16,800,000	77%

of the Timber producing lands:
	USFS	4,859,000	28.8%
	Timber industry	4,588,000	27.2%
	Private nonindustr.	3,609,000	21.4%
	State	2,025,000	12%
	Indian tribes	1,376,000	8.2%
	Other public	392,000	2.3%

WHAT CONSTRAINS THESE DECISION-MAKERS?

Private forests:

Washington State Forest Practices Act

State Environmental Policy Act

ESA

Tribes:

Largely self-governing

State lands:

Department of Natural Resources

Washington State Forest Practices Act

National Forests:

National Envt'l Policy Act (1970)

Endangered Species Act (1973)

National Forest Management Act (1976)

How many trees to cut on USFS land?

1 -Congress tells National Forests how much to sell

2 -Forest Supervisors prepare units for sale

3 -Timber units are put up for sale

4 -Competitive bidding

5 -USFS prepares roads, etc.

6 -Winning bidder tries to make money by cutting and selling timber:

-to large timber companies

-to exporters (until banned)

-to a lumber or pulp mill

TIMBER SUBSIDY

USFS spends more on sales than it takes in (timber receipts don't pay all the costs)

CONSEQUENCES: (CLASS LISTED SEVERAL, INCLUDING:)

ENCOURAGE PRIVATE LOGGERS TO USE PUBLIC LAND
POLITICAL PRESSURE FROM FISCAL CONSERVATIVES & ENVIRONMENTALISTS
LOWER PRICES
BENEFITS TO CONSUMERS
CHEAP WOOD OUT-COMPETES SUSTAINABLY GROWN WOOD
DISCOURAGES SEARCH FOR SUBSTITUTES
MORE CONSUMPTION
ECONOMIC INEFFICIENCY
MORE JOBS - SUPPORT FOR TIMBER COMMUNITIES / TIMBER WELFARE

CAUSES OF BLOCKAGES:

-POLITICAL POWER

-INFLEXIBLE INSTITUTIONS

-TREATING A NEW PROBLEM (ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT) AS IF IT FIT WITHIN AN OLD ONE (TIMBER PRODUCTION)

PRIVATE FOREST MANAGEMENT DECISIONS MUST MAXIMIZE RETURN ON ASSETS - THIS IS THEIR MAJOR CONSTRAINT

DECISION OF HOW LONG THE CUTTING CYCLE SHOULD BE (THUS WHAT PERCENTAGE OF TREES ARE CUT PER YEAR) IS MADE BY WEIGHING POSSIBLE RETURN ON ALTERNATE INVESTMENTS:

RETURN ON ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS

-- VERSUS --

how long to wait before cashing in on investment:

invest $200 in 5% bonds

invest $200 in caring for land and trees

50 years

$2,293

cut 2% per year; a fair bet that the trees will yield more return than the bonds

100 years

$26,300

cut 1% per year; even though this would yields more than 2x more wood, there is great uncertainty over this time period. Not a good bet; cut trees faster than this.

	RETURN ON ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS -- VERSUS --
how long to wait before cashing in on investment:	invest $200 in 5% bonds	invest $200 in caring for land and trees
50 years	$2,293	cut 2% per year; a fair bet that the trees will yield more return than the bonds
100 years	$26,300	cut 1% per year; even though this would yields more than 2x more wood, there is great uncertainty over this time period. Not a good bet; cut trees faster than this.