Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

California’s concerning embrace of a new forest biomass industry

News Feed
Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Gloria Alonso Cruz had only just started working on environmental justice issues at a community organization in Stockton, California when she learned about a proposal to sell wood pellets from the town’s port to overseas energy markets.  Golden State Natural Resources plans to construct two wood pellet plants in Lassen and Tuolumne counties, about 250 miles north of Stockton, with the goal of exporting a million tons a year. While forest-based biomass may sound innocuous, every part of the pellet production chain bears an environmental justice or pollution risk, says Rita Vaughan Frost, forest advocate at Natural Resources Defense Council.  First, trees are logged and stacked on trucks to be driven to processing facilities. There, the wood is turned into small pellets, similar to rabbit food. Then, diesel trucks transport the material hundreds of miles to a shipping facility and export terminal, like the Port of Stockton—where storage poses a fire risk. The pellets are later shipped to markets in Europe and Asia, where they’re burned to create electricity, generating carbon emissions.  Golden State Natural Resource’s proposal would allow it to harvest trees from forests within 100 miles of the two processing plants. This radius includes sixteen national forests in a region known for its critical biodiversity. A 20-year master stewardship agreement established with the U.S. Forest Service will allow the company to harvest from public lands through 2045, when the state is slated to achieve carbon neutrality.  Many might be surprised to learn that burning wood pellets causes more pollution per unit of electricity than coal does, says Dr. Shaye Wolf, the climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s worsening the climate emergency at a time when we’ve got to be rapidly cutting those carbon emissions,” Wolf says.  In Stockton, the threat of logging exports compounds environmental injustices that already exist. State laws don’t prevent companies from building polluting facilities in already-overburdened areas, nor is there any statute or legal framework that forces corporations to consider federal goals of transitioning toward renewable energy sources.   This means there are no federal or state guardrails to protect against the fact that “developers are not accounting for cumulative impacts, [or] the fact that these natural resources are finite,” Cruz says. In fact, Stockton already has a lot of pollution: It ranks in the 90th percentile statewide, according to CalEnviroScreen, an environmental hazard mapping tool. Compared with other cities across California, Stockton’s has some of the highest overall exposure to toxins like ozone, particulate matter, and groundwater threats.  Cruz says that is intentional, noting the communities of color and farmworkers who live and work in the state’s Central Valley have always shouldered the public health consequences that industries leave in their wake. In fact, California funneled public funds to the biomass industry in the 1980s and 1990s to support the construction of factories in low-income communities. Now, the wood pellet biomass industry and Golden State Natural Resources are poised to make the situation worse. In 2015, the state approved a new law that requires polluting corporations, like the wood pellet industry, to pay for environmental justice projects in disadvantaged cities like Stockon, but advocates like Cruz argue that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to pollute in the first place. Across the state, at least four active biomass plants are in census tracts that face the worst pollution burden.  Looking at how the biomass industry currently operates in the Southeastern United States heightens residents’ worries. Companies there have a track record of preying on overburdened, under-resourced communities, says Vaughan Frost. In the South, pellet mills are 50% more likely to be placed in communities of color that fall below the state poverty line. Although the industry likes to talk about providing jobs, in one North Carolina community, the poverty rate actually increased after a wood pellet production plant began operations.  Wherever pellet mills take root, pollution soon follows. A powerful odor, akin to plastic burning in a campfire, often emanates from these processing facilities. Heather Hillaker, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, says that processing the wood creates volatile organic compounds, which mix with other pollutants to create ground level ozone and smog. Processing facilities also release toxins like formaldehyde, methanol, and acrolein, substances that can cause cancer even in small doses.  Hillaker warns that federal standards established by the Clean Air Act don’t take into consideration the multiple forms of pollution that overburdened communities face, she says.  “I’ve not really seen the pellet industry directly address, in any kind of meaningful way, the environmental justice impacts of their operations in the South,” Hillaker says. She explains they often argue “We are complying with our permits and therefore we’re not causing any harm.” But she says, “That’s not an accurate representation of what’s actually happening in these local communities.”  Vaughan Frost is concerned that Golden State Natural Resources will similarly undermine the health and wellbeing of California communities.  Vaughan Frost believes the industry is “exploiting the state’s traumatic experience of catastrophic wildfires to sell their plan.” The company claims that cutting down forests will provide less fuel for wildfires—a claim that the state of California has historically parroted. Many scientists disagree. One recent study found that in fire-prone western states, emissions related to broad-scale thinning biomass harvest were five times greater than those related to wildfire. California also has a history of lumping in wood pellet biomass as a “renewable” energy source, which critics say obfuscates the compounding climate threats of the industry. She says these claims—that logging can prevent wildfires and create renewable energy— are a distraction from legitimate wildfire prevention strategies, like home hardening and vegetation management.  Advocates worry that once the forest is gone, recovery will be difficult. The wood pellet industry will soon be making incursions throughout the Sierra Nevadas, a much-loved mountain range that regularly draws outdoor tourists. Though the industry pledges to replant what they log, as climate change intensifies, there’s no guarantee monoculture saplings will be able to provide the same ecosystem services that the logged forest once did.  With abundant wind and solar energy available, Vaughan Frost says, “We do not need to sacrifice California forests and communities for this.” NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 3 million members and online activists. Established in 1970, NRDC uses science, policy, law, and people power to confront the climate crisis, protect public health, and safeguard nature. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Bozeman, MT, Beijing and Delhi (an office of NRDC India Pvt. Ltd). Learn more at http://www.nrdc.org and follow on Twitter @NRDC. LEARN MORE This story was originally published by Grist with the headline California’s concerning embrace of a new forest biomass industry on Mar 20, 2024.

Questions about environmental safety and community health loom over the greenwashed industry and proposed export scheme.

Gloria Alonso Cruz had only just started working on environmental justice issues at a community organization in Stockton, California when she learned about a proposal to sell wood pellets from the town’s port to overseas energy markets. 

Golden State Natural Resources plans to construct two wood pellet plants in Lassen and Tuolumne counties, about 250 miles north of Stockton, with the goal of exporting a million tons a year. While forest-based biomass may sound innocuous, every part of the pellet production chain bears an environmental justice or pollution risk, says Rita Vaughan Frost, forest advocate at Natural Resources Defense Council. 

First, trees are logged and stacked on trucks to be driven to processing facilities. There, the wood is turned into small pellets, similar to rabbit food. Then, diesel trucks transport the material hundreds of miles to a shipping facility and export terminal, like the Port of Stockton—where storage poses a fire risk. The pellets are later shipped to markets in Europe and Asia, where they’re burned to create electricity, generating carbon emissions. 

Golden State Natural Resource’s proposal would allow it to harvest trees from forests within 100 miles of the two processing plants. This radius includes sixteen national forests in a region known for its critical biodiversity. A 20-year master stewardship agreement established with the U.S. Forest Service will allow the company to harvest from public lands through 2045, when the state is slated to achieve carbon neutrality. 

Many might be surprised to learn that burning wood pellets causes more pollution per unit of electricity than coal does, says Dr. Shaye Wolf, the climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s worsening the climate emergency at a time when we’ve got to be rapidly cutting those carbon emissions,” Wolf says. 

In Stockton, the threat of logging exports compounds environmental injustices that already exist. State laws don’t prevent companies from building polluting facilities in already-overburdened areas, nor is there any statute or legal framework that forces corporations to consider federal goals of transitioning toward renewable energy sources.  

This means there are no federal or state guardrails to protect against the fact that “developers are not accounting for cumulative impacts, [or] the fact that these natural resources are finite,” Cruz says. In fact, Stockton already has a lot of pollution: It ranks in the 90th percentile statewide, according to CalEnviroScreen, an environmental hazard mapping tool. Compared with other cities across California, Stockton’s has some of the highest overall exposure to toxins like ozone, particulate matter, and groundwater threats. 

Cruz says that is intentional, noting the communities of color and farmworkers who live and work in the state’s Central Valley have always shouldered the public health consequences that industries leave in their wake. In fact, California funneled public funds to the biomass industry in the 1980s and 1990s to support the construction of factories in low-income communities. Now, the wood pellet biomass industry and Golden State Natural Resources are poised to make the situation worse.

In 2015, the state approved a new law that requires polluting corporations, like the wood pellet industry, to pay for environmental justice projects in disadvantaged cities like Stockon, but advocates like Cruz argue that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to pollute in the first place. Across the state, at least four active biomass plants are in census tracts that face the worst pollution burden. 

Looking at how the biomass industry currently operates in the Southeastern United States heightens residents’ worries. Companies there have a track record of preying on overburdened, under-resourced communities, says Vaughan Frost.

In the South, pellet mills are 50% more likely to be placed in communities of color that fall below the state poverty line. Although the industry likes to talk about providing jobs, in one North Carolina community, the poverty rate actually increased after a wood pellet production plant began operations. 

Wherever pellet mills take root, pollution soon follows. A powerful odor, akin to plastic burning in a campfire, often emanates from these processing facilities. Heather Hillaker, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, says that processing the wood creates volatile organic compounds, which mix with other pollutants to create ground level ozone and smog. Processing facilities also release toxins like formaldehyde, methanol, and acrolein, substances that can cause cancer even in small doses. 

Hillaker warns that federal standards established by the Clean Air Act don’t take into consideration the multiple forms of pollution that overburdened communities face, she says. 

“I’ve not really seen the pellet industry directly address, in any kind of meaningful way, the environmental justice impacts of their operations in the South,” Hillaker says. She explains they often argue “We are complying with our permits and therefore we’re not causing any harm.” But she says, “That’s not an accurate representation of what’s actually happening in these local communities.” 

Vaughan Frost is concerned that Golden State Natural Resources will similarly undermine the health and wellbeing of California communities. 

Vaughan Frost believes the industry is “exploiting the state’s traumatic experience of catastrophic wildfires to sell their plan.” The company claims that cutting down forests will provide less fuel for wildfires—a claim that the state of California has historically parroted. Many scientists disagree. One recent study found that in fire-prone western states, emissions related to broad-scale thinning biomass harvest were five times greater than those related to wildfire. California also has a history of lumping in wood pellet biomass as a “renewable” energy source, which critics say obfuscates the compounding climate threats of the industry. She says these claims—that logging can prevent wildfires and create renewable energy— are a distraction from legitimate wildfire prevention strategies, like home hardening and vegetation management

Advocates worry that once the forest is gone, recovery will be difficult. The wood pellet industry will soon be making incursions throughout the Sierra Nevadas, a much-loved mountain range that regularly draws outdoor tourists. Though the industry pledges to replant what they log, as climate change intensifies, there’s no guarantee monoculture saplings will be able to provide the same ecosystem services that the logged forest once did. 

With abundant wind and solar energy available, Vaughan Frost says, “We do not need to sacrifice California forests and communities for this.”


NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 3 million members and online activists. Established in 1970, NRDC uses science, policy, law, and people power to confront the climate crisis, protect public health, and safeguard nature. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Bozeman, MT, Beijing and Delhi (an office of NRDC India Pvt. Ltd). Learn more at http://www.nrdc.org and follow on Twitter @NRDC.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline California’s concerning embrace of a new forest biomass industry on Mar 20, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Fires in Brazil's Amazon Rainforest Region Surge for Third Month

By Stefanie EschenbacherSANTAREM, Brazil (Reuters) - Fires in Brazil's Amazon rainforest region surged to the highest number for September in...

SANTAREM, Brazil (Reuters) - Fires in Brazil's Amazon rainforest region surged to the highest number for September in almost a decade and a half, preliminary government data showed on Tuesday, after reaching similar highs in the two preceding months.A prolonged drought across much of South America, linked to climate change, means the fires in Brazil's Amazon have burned more intensely this year and at times smoke has covered more than half of the continent.Satellites detected 41,463 fire hot spots in Brazil's Amazon in September, the largest number for that month since 2010, data from the National Institute for Space Research (Inpe) showed.Fires in the first nine months of the year are also the worst for that period since 2007.A Reuters reporter traveling on Monday on a flight to Santarem in the Amazonian state of Para saw hundreds of miles of haze. Para also recorded the highest number of fire hot spots for the month of September since 2007, the data showed.The state is home to the mouth of the Amazon river and will also host the United Nations COP30 climate change summit next year.Extremely low water levels in the Amazon basin were also clearly visible from the air, with large swathes of sandy river banks left dry.Fires usually do not occur naturally in the lush Amazon but are set by people to clear land for farming or ranching.In many cases, criminals have no intention of farming themselves, instead seeking to lay claim to the land to sell for a profit later, said Andre Guimaraes, an executive director at the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (Imazon)."People are taking advantage of the fact that the forests are more flammable now, to burn them down, and then grab the land later on," he said.Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has called the fires "criminal," and the federal police has said it was expanding its efforts to combat environmental crimes in the Amazon and elsewhere.From January through August, 62,268 square kilometers have burned in Brazil's Amazon, Inpe data showed.Fires typically peak in the Amazon in August and September when the region is driest, with blazes likely improving in coming weeks as the rainy season arrives.(Reporting by Stefanie Eschenbacher in Santarem, Brazil; Editing by Jake Spring and Chizu Nomiyama)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.

Takeaways on AP's Story About Challenges to Forest Recovery and Replanting After Wildfires

The U.S. is struggling to replant forests destroyed by increasingly destructive wildfires, with many areas unlikely to recover on their own

Researchers are studying which species are likely to survive — and where — as climate change makes it difficult or impossible for many forests to regrow. But they say the U.S. also lacks enough seed collection, seedling production and workers trained to replant trees on a scale needed to offset accelerating losses. The Forest Service says the biggest roadblock is the yearslong task of completing environmental and cultural assessments and preparing severely burned land for replanting. Larger and more intense fires stoked by climate change destroy seed trees that normally allow regeneration or leave burn scars too large for trees to naturally bridge the gap. Climate has changed so markedly trees often can’t regrow. Even when seedlings take hold, drought and repeat fires often kill them.Especially hot fires also can harden the ground and leave barren slopes susceptible to washing away in rainstorms, polluting waterways. Researchers say some once-forested areas in the Southwest and West may never recover and instead will convert to grassland or shrubland.Nineteen of the 20 largest wildfires ever recorded in the contiguous U.S. have occurred in Western states since 2000, according to Sean Parks, a Forest Service research ecologist. That’s when the region slipped into an ongoing megadrought.The U.S. once was able to reliably replant burned forests. But now the gap between areas that need replanting and the ability to do so has grown to at least 3.8 million acres (1.5 million hectares) — and that could triple by 2050, said Solomon Z. Dobrowski, a University of Montana forest management expert.Researchers say the odds of forests growing back will worsen regardless of fire intensity because of hotter, drier weather.Researchers are trying to find which seedling species survive and where. Survival generally is worse at lower elevations, where it’s hotter, drier and more open — so replanting the same trees in the same areas is likely to fail.Scientists are replanting at higher elevations and also studying whether seedlings survive better when planted in clusters or near trees that might provide shade and aid water uptake. Some researchers are even asking whether different species should replace trees wiped out by fire.University of New Mexico forest ecologist Matthew Hurteau said the 2011 Los Conchas fire decimated a huge swath of Ponderosa pine forest, and most replanting efforts failed.So he planted seedlings of different species at various elevations and on slopes facing different directions, then monitored soil moisture, temperature and humidity. A resulting computer model can predict the probability a seedling will survive in a particular spot with about 63% accuracy, and will be used for planting this fall.“Let’s not do the old plant-and-pray” method, said Hurteau. “Let’s plant where we know that their chance of survival is quite high."Forest Service rules generally require planting the same species at the same elevations as before a fire, but the agency will “need to be flexible moving forward,” said Jason Sieg, acting supervisor of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests & Pawnee National Grassland.For now, that might mean replanting at different elevations or collecting seeds from another location. Eventually, researchers say it could require planting species not found in an area originally — an option many have resisted.“I’ve seen people go from saying, ‘Absolutely, we cannot move trees around’ to, ‘Well, maybe let’s try it at least, and do a few experiments to see if this will work,’” said Camille Stevens-Rumann, interim director at the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute.“We need to start being creative if we want trees on our landscapes,” she said. “We’re in a place of such drastic climate change that we are not talking about whether or not some of these places will be a different kind of forest, but whether or not they will be forests at all.”Hurteau, the University of New Mexico researcher, said ecologists and the state realized there would not be enough seedlings to reforest millions of acres burned in wildfires. So several New Mexico universities and the state’s forestry division started the New Mexico Reforestation Center to build a nursery that could produce 5 million seedlings per year for government, tribal and private lands. The first seedlings will be planted this year.The number of Forest Service nurseries — once financed by deposits on timber sales — dropped from 14 to six in the 1990s as timber harvests declined and habitat protections were enacted, according to a Forest Service report on the nurseries’ history. Most Western seedling production is private and occurs in Oregon, California and Washington, said Solomon Dobrowski, a University of Montana forest management expert.In places like New Mexico and the Rocky Mountains, “we don’t really have a base of facilities to support widespread reforestation,” Dobrowski said. “We’re (asking) ‘What’s going to fill the gap?’”The Forest Service is modernizing nurseries and seeking ways to expand internal capacity and work with private industry, states and groups like the New Mexico Reforestation Center. But officials say the biggest challenge is that the number of intense wildfires is outpacing the ability to prepare sites for replanting.Experts say more seed collection and trained workers are needed to make even modest progress in closing the reforestation gap. And they say public and private cooperation is essential.Seed collection is expensive and labor-intensive. It takes a few years for a typical Western conifer to develop cones before contractors harvest them. Growing, planting and monitoring seedlings amid frequent droughts adds uncertainty, time and money.Experts say there will be areas where trees never return but it’s critical that the U.S. does as much possible in a thoughtful way.“Trees live for hundreds of years so we need to be thinking about what’s right as we plant trees today,” Hurteau said. “Are we putting the right species and densities on the landscape given what the next 100, 200 and 300 years will look like?”___ AP data reporter Mary Katherine Wildeman contributed from Hartford, Connecticut. ___The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

As Many Forests Fail to Recover From Wildfires, Replanting Efforts Face Huge Odds -- and Obstacles

The U.S. is struggling to replant forests destroyed by increasingly destructive wildfires, with some areas unlikely to recover

BELLVUE, Colo. (AP) — Camille Stevens-Rumann crouched in the dirt and leaned over evergreen seedlings, measuring how much each had grown in seven months."That's two to three inches of growth on the spruce,” said Stevens-Rumann, interim director at the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute.Her research team is monitoring several species planted two years ago on a slope burned during the devastating 2020 Cameron Peak fire, which charred 326 square miles (844 square kilometers) in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado.They want to determine which species are likely to survive at various elevations, because climate change makes it difficult or impossible for many forests to regrow even decades after wildfires.As the gap between burned areas and replanting widens year after year, scientists see big challenges beyond where to put seedlings.The U.S. currently lacks the ability to collect enough seeds from living trees and the nursery capacity to grow seedlings for replanting on a scale anywhere close to stemming accelerating losses, researchers say. It also doesn’t have enough trained workers to plant and monitor trees.The Forest Service said the biggest roadblock to replanting on public land is completing environmental and cultural assessments and preparing severely burned areas so they're safe to plant. That can take years — while more forests are lost to fire. “If we have the seedlings but we don’t have the sites prepped ... we can’t put the seedlings out there,” said Stephanie Miller, assistant director of a reforestation program.Scientists, private industry and environmental agencies are acutely aware of the challenges as they consider how to restore forested landscapes in an increasingly arid region.“We need to start being creative if we want trees on our landscapes,” Stevens-Rumann said. “We’re in a place of such drastic climate change that we are not talking about whether or not some of these places will be a different kind of forest, but whether or not they will be forests at all.”Four years after the Cameron Peak fire — the largest in recorded Colorado history — a smattering of wild raspberry bushes and seedlings has taken root. But the mountainside mostly is dotted with charred trees.In burn scars across the West and Southwest, areas of forests may never grow back on their own.Larger and more intense fires destroy trees that normally provide seeds for regeneration or leave burn scars so large trees can't naturally bridge the gap. The climate also has changed so markedly that many forests can’t regrow in the same places. Even when seedlings take hold, drought and new fires often kill them.Nineteen of the 20 largest wildfires ever recorded in the contiguous U.S. have occurred in Western states since 2000, according to Sean Parks, a Forest Service research ecologist. That's when the region slipped into an ongoing megadrought.The U.S. once was able to reliably replant burned forests. But now the gap between areas in the West that need replanting after fire and the ability to do so has grown to at least 3.8 million acres (1.5 million hectares) — and that could triple by 2050, said Solomon Z. Dobrowski, a University of Montana forest management expert and a study lead author.Forests are burning more often and especially intense and hot, which can destroy seeds that normally survive fire, harden the ground like concrete and leave barren slopes susceptible to washing away in rainstorms, polluting waterways.In 22 years since the Hayman fire on Colorado’s front range burned 182 square miles (471 square kilometers) of forest, there has been almost no tree regeneration in the most severely burned areas, researchers and the Forest Service said. In California's Sierra Nevada, where up to 20% of the world's mature giant sequoias and their seeds have been killed by fire in recent years, there are massive openings without seedlings. A U.S. Geological Survey study concluded some groves will never recover without replanting.But researchers say the odds of forests growing back will worsen regardless of fire intensity because of more heat and drought.That means burned forest could convert to shrubland and grassland, leading to loss of snowpack that provides drinking water and helps irrigate crops.“Over 70% of our water in the western U.S. comes from our forested ecosystems and our mountains,” Stevens-Rumann said. “And for that water to come the way we want it ... at the right time throughout the year, we need to have forests, not just grasslands.”When forest ecologist Matthew Hurteau joined the University of New Mexico nine years ago, he took in the aftermath of the 2011 Los Conchas fire that decimated a huge swath of Ponderosa pine forest. Though the area had been replanted several times, most seedlings died, Hurteau said. While the average survival in the Southwest is about 25%, he said only about 13% of trees planted most recently in the Los Conchas burn scar have survived.So he planted seedlings of different species at various elevations and on slopes facing different directions, then monitored the soil moisture, temperature and humidity.A resulting computer model can predict the probability a seedling will survive in a particular spot with about 63% accuracy. It will be used to inform planting this fall.“Let's not do the old plant-and-pray” method, said Hurteau. “Let's plant where we know that their chance of survival is quite high, and in places where the chance ... is quite low, let’s just forego planting there.”Researchers say seedling survival is worst at lower elevations, where it’s hotter, drier and more open — so replanting the same trees in the same areas is likely to fail.They're experimenting with planting near surviving trees that might provide shade for seedlings and aid water uptake and with planting in clusters that leave gaps in the landscape. Some are even asking whether different species should replace trees wiped out by fire.Environmental groups working on private land burned by the Cameron Peak fire are replanting Ponderosa pines 500 feet (152 meters) higher because of climate change and near fallen trees that can provide shade, said Megan Maiolo-Heath, spokeswoman for the Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed. So far, 84% of trees planted last year remain alive, though long-term survival is uncertain. “Any work in the environmental world at this point can feel daunting and overwhelming,” Maiolo-Heath said. “So I think just taking small bites ... and trying not to get too overwhelmed is the way to go about it.”Forest Service rules generally require planting the same species at the same elevations as before a fire, but it's increasingly clear the agency will “need to be flexible moving forward,” said Jason Sieg, acting supervisor of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests & Pawnee National Grassland.Relying on research data, Sieg said, “We'll be able to plan a strategy around how we set this landscape up for the greatest chance of success ... long term.”For now, that might mean replanting at different elevations or collecting seeds from another location. Eventually, researchers say it could require the controversial option of planting trees not found in an area originally.Additional research and caution are necessary, researchers and the Forest Service said. But more people are warming up to the idea.“I've seen people go from saying, ‘Absolutely, we cannot move trees around’ to, ‘Well, let’s maybe let’s try it at least, and do a few experiments to see if this will work,’” said Stevens-Rumann, the Colorado scientist.Four years ago, researchers and New Mexico's state forester wrote a reforestation plan for the state, where 4,500 square miles (11,655 square kilometers) of forest were charred between 2011 and 2021, leaving up to 2.6 million acres (1.5 million hectares) in need of replanting.That was before the 2022 Calf Canyon-Hermits Peak Fire — the most destructive in state history — burned another 534 square miles (1,383 square kilometers). They soon discovered a big problem.“We realized that we were never going to have enough seedlings to meet the objectives,” said Hurteau, the University of New Mexico researcher.The number of Forest Service nurseries — once financed by deposits on timber sales — dropped from 14 to six in the 1990s as timber harvests declined and habitat protections were enacted, according to a Forest Service report on the nurseries' history. Most Western seedling production is private and occurs in Oregon, California and Washington, Dobrowski said.In places like New Mexico and the Rocky Mountains, “we don’t really have a base of facilities to support widespread reforestation,” the researcher said. “We’re (asking) ‘What’s going to fill the gap?’”In New Mexico, several universities and the state's forestry division started the New Mexico Reforestation Center with a goal of building a nursery that can produce 5 million seedlings per year for government, tribal and private lands. The first seedlings will be planted this year.But experts say much more nursery capacity, seed collection and trained workers are needed to make even modest progress in closing the reforestation gap. And they say public and private sector cooperation will be essential.“There’s all these bottlenecks," Hurteau said. "We’ve just underinvested in reforestation for decades in the U.S. There’s a lot of investment in human capital that’s going to have to happen." Seed collection, for example, requires the right weather and is expensive and labor-intensive. It takes a few years for a typical Western conifer to develop cones. Then contractors must harvest them, typically by climbing trees. Growing, planting and monitoring seedlings amid more frequent droughts adds to the uncertainty, time and money.The Forest Service said its biggest challenge is simply that the number of intense wildfires is outpacing the ability to prepare sites for replanting.But the agency is also modernizing nurseries and seeking ways to either expand internal capacity or work with private industry, states and groups like the New Mexico Reforestation Center. “This is an all-hands-on effort,” said Miller, from the reforestation program.Researchers say the challenges complicate a Biden administration goal to plant a billion trees over 10 years in national forests, where it identified a nearly 4 million-acre (1.6 million-hectare) backlog.But money provided for reforestation in the 2021 infrastructure bill enabled the agency to clear 15% of the backlog, Miller said. “If we can get more site preparation done, that would be excellent so that we can move forward a little bit faster.”Experts say there clearly will be areas where trees never return but it's critical that the U.S. does as much possible in a thoughtful way.“Trees live for hundreds of years so we need to be thinking about what’s right as we plant trees today," Hurteau said. “Are we putting the right species and densities on the landscape given what the next 100, 200 and 300 years will look like?”AP data reporter Mary Katherine Wildeman contributed to this story from Hartford, Connecticut. Webber reported from Fenton, Michigan, and Fassett from San Francisco.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Alpenrose redevelopment prospects murky as Portland city planners say proposal too vague

A city hearings officer will soon decide whether to approve a subdivision proposal that calls for 263 homes.

A city hearings officer will soon decide whether to approve a subdivision proposal that calls for 263 homes at the former Alpenrose Dairy in Southwest Portland.Developers are seeking to subdivide the 51-acre property into 133 lots of detached homes and 130 for attached homes.City staff suggested putting the brakes on the more than two-year old effort to redevelop the former dairy farm, as Bike Portland first reported earlier this week. But on Wednesday, staff signaled they may still be open to recommending approval after project representatives offered tweaks to their plans.Project officials, neighbors and city officials attended a land-use hearing Wednesday to help decide whether the proposal for 6149 S.W. Shattuck Road can move ahead.One technical issue hinges on environmental concerns, including the potential effect of utilities on so-called environmental zones. Timothy Novak, a city environmental planner, said in the hearing that the proposal failed to meet criteria in part because of insufficient information, which is one reason behind the recommended denial.Project representatives said in the land-use hearing that they believe they can address the issues raised by city staff.“We’re going to get to a point of approval,” said Steven Hultberg, a lawyer for Raleigh Crest LLC. “We have taken their concerns to heart.”Mimi Doukas, principal of AKS Engineering & Forestry, said environmental impacts are difficult to avoid but project officials were trying to do so and willing to add in some of Novak’s recommended suggestions. Doukas said project officials “hope to get to a positive recommendation.”Environmental zones are “critical for wildlife,” said Marita Ingalsbe, chair of the Hayhurst Neighborhood Association. While she thanked staff and the applicant for their work, Ingalsbe also said the neighborhood group opposed the plans as currently written, citing pedestrian safety and traffic as major concerns. Local traffic has increased since the pandemic, including along Southwest Vermont Street and Oleson Road, she said.No neighbors testified in favor of the plans.Once the record closes, likely Oct. 23, hearings officer David Doughman has 17 days to issue a decision on the plans. His decision can be appealed to the Portland City Council.-- Jonathan Bach covers housing and real estate. Reach him by email at jbach@oregonian.com or by phone at 503-221-4303.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today.

Albanese urged to ditch Howard-era native forest logging exemptions

Exclusive: Independent MPs and Lidia Thorpe tell PM that environment law reforms under negotiation must remove exemptions for native forest loggingGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastIndependent MPs and a crossbench senator are trying to increase the pressure on the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, to remove Howard-era exemptions that allow native forest logging to operate outside national environment laws.The government has been negotiating over reforms to the laws in the Senate, where Greens and crossbenchers David Pocock and Lidia Thorpe have been pushing for an end to the exemptions for logging covered by regional forest agreements.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

Independent MPs and a crossbench senator are trying to increase the pressure on the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, to remove Howard-era exemptions that allow native forest logging to operate outside national environment laws.The government has been negotiating over reforms to the laws in the Senate, where Greens and crossbenchers David Pocock and Lidia Thorpe have been pushing for an end to the exemptions for logging covered by regional forest agreements.The independent MP for Mackellar in New South Wales, Dr Sophie Scamps, wrote to Albanese on Thursday urging him to remove the exemptions, saying without that step it would be “difficult to credibly say that your government has kept your promise” to fix broken environment laws.Co-signatories to the letter, seen by Guardian Australia, were Allegra Spender, Zali Steggall, Zoe Daniel, Monique Ryan, Kylea Tink, Kate Chaney and Thorpe.Two years ago the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, said it was “time to change” laws that did not protect the environment and said new legislation could be introduced in 2023.The independent member for North Sydney, Kylea Tink, the independent member for Mackellar, Sophie Scamps, and the independent member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAPThe government has since ruled out introducing the new laws in this term of government, but is trying to bring in legislation to create an independent environment agency. The powers and role of the agency are under negotiation in the Senate.Scamps said: “It’s a critical time in these negotiations and we have been putting pressure on from the House and have moved amendments to have these RFAs abolished and we continue to apply pressure.”She said the RFAs were signed by John Howard, adding: “The problem is we have a completely different context nearly 25 years later. We’re facing a climate crisis, an extinction crisis and an environment crisis. This needs to be addressed.”Logging under the agreements is not assessed under environment laws geared to protect threatened species such as the koala and greater glider.Scamps said forests were being logged for low-level products such as palettes and garden stakes while damaging critical habitat for threatened species.In NSW, the state’s land court this year said the Forestry Corporation of NSW had a “pattern of environmental offending” with a “significant history of unlawfully carrying out forestry operations”.Victoria and Western Australia ended native forest logging in January. Native forest logging will end across 70,000 hectares of state forest in south-east Queensland at the end of this year.Questions to Albanese’s office were sent to the office of Plibersek, who said in a statement the government was “doing more than ever to protect our country’s natural treasures and iconic native plants and animals”.She did not comment on the forestry agreements but encouraged the crossbench to support the government’s legislation before the Senate.She said this would establish an independent environment protection agency that could “issue ‘stop-work’ orders to prevent serious environmental damage and proactively audit business to ensure they’re doing the right thing”.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.