Western Forester - Winter 2024

Western Forester

Moving Beyond Anecdotes: How do State Policies Affect Private Forest Management?

By Andrea Watts

In the United States, 58 percent of the nation’s forestland is privately held, and of the timber harvested, 89 percent is sourced from privately owned forests. State-level forestry policies, which by extension often reflect federal policies, such as the Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act, dictate how private landowners manage their land. For many who work in forestry and natural resources, we are either monitoring private landowners to ensure they are in compliance with state policies or ensuring our clients are in compliance.

With a number of the articles in this issue focused on specific forest policies, for the lead article I wanted a 30,000foot view of forest policies in the Pacific Northwest and how they compare to those in other states.

Seven years ago, Mindy Crandall, an associate professor of forest policy

at Oregon State University, and colleague Erin Kelly, professor and department head at Cal Poly Humboldt, found themselves discussing the similarities and differences of state policies regarding private forestland in their respective states. At that time, Crandall taught at the University of Maine while Kelly had been discussing policies with someone in Texas. Crandall recalls them saying, “Wouldn’t it be interesting to really do a deep dive into all 50 states and figure out how they’re similar? What does a private landowner have to do when deciding to harvest their timber and sell it to a mill? How many regulations are there?”

Between teaching and other research projects, Crandall and Kelly persisted in researching this question, and beginning in 2022, they published the first of several papers of their findings.

• “State-level forestry policies across the US: Discourses reflecting the tension between private property rights and public trust resources”— Building upon previous research that identified regulatory and nonregulatory approaches to managing private forestland, they updated these classifications and expanded the approaches to a four category-typology: landowner stewardship, forestry expert stewardship, science-bureaucracy, and participatory conservation. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1389934122000697?via%3Dihub

– Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, along with a handful of other states,

have predominately regulatory programs—“prescriptive programs created and implemented by state authorities that require landowners to take certain actions in order to implement forestry”—as compared to quasi-regulatory or non-regulatory programs that rely more on Best Management Practices.

• “The cost of doing business”: Private rights, public resources, and the resulting diversity of state-level forestry policies in the U.S.”—Through interviewers with policy experts from 12 states, two of which were Oregon and California, the research team found that states employed different policy tools to find a balance between protecting private property rights and public trust resources. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0264837723002582

• “By the Book: Examining California’s Private Forest Regulations from the Perspectives of Family Forest Landowners”—From interviews with 33 family forest landowners, the research team learned that while the participants were supportive of California’s forest policies, the financial burdens and regulatory uncertainty were significant concerns when it came to managing their property. Of note, the participants expressed nuance in how to balance protecting public trust resources and private property rights, suggesting there is common ground between these two seemingly opposed management policies. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419 20.2023.2286652

I spoke with Crandall to discuss what they learned about state-level policies in

Mindy Crandall

Western Forester

Society of American Foresters PO Box 82836

Portland, OR 97282 (503) 224-8046

https://forestry.org/western-forester/

EDITOR: Andrea Watts, wattsa@forestry.org

SAF NWO MANAGER: Nicole Jacobsen, nicole@westernforestry.org

Western Forester is published four times a year by the Oregon, Washington State, and Alaska Societies’ SAF Northwest Office

The mission of the Society of American Foresters is to advance sustainable management of forest resources through science, education, and technology; to enhance the competency of its members; to establish professional excellence; and to use our knowledge, skills, and conservation ethic to ensure the continued health, integrity, and use of forests to benefit society in perpetuity.

STATE SOCIETY CHAIRS

Oregon: Amanda Sullivan-Astor, CF (503) 983-4017, aastor@oregonloggers.org

Washington State: Samantha Chang, NorthPugetSAF@gmail.com

Alaska: Mitch Michaud, mitchmichaudak@ gmail.com

NORTHWEST SAF BOARD MEMBERS

District 1: Ed Morgan (303) 476-1583, edmorgan4@msn.com

District 2: Ron Boldenow (541) 350-5356, rboldenow@cocc.edu

Please send change of address to: Society of American Foresters, 2121 K Street NW, Suite 315, Washington, DC 20037 membership@safnet.org

Anyone is at liberty to make fair use of the material in this publication. To reprint or make multiple reproductions, permission must be obtained from the editor. Proper notice of copyright and credit to the Western Forester must appear on all copies made. Permission is granted to quote from the Western Forester if the customary acknowledgement accompanies the quote.

Other than general editing, the articles appearing in this publication have not been peer reviewed for technical accuracy. The individual authors are primarily responsible for the content and opinions expressed herein.

the Pacific Northwest and what are still unanswered policy questions. What follows is our conversation edited for length and clarity.

Can you set the stage for why this research was needed? Why will

policy makers or private landowners find it valuable?

IMAGE TAKEN FROM “THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS”: PRIVATE RIGHTS, PUBLIC RESOURCES, AND THE RESULTING DIVERSITY OF STATE-LEVEL FORESTRY POLICIES IN THE U.S.”

How state forest policies address private property rights and public trust doctrine varies across the United States. In a sample of 12 states, when experts were asked to rate their state’s approach on a scale of 1 to 7, half of the respondents, one of which included Oregon, said their forest policies emphasized both while California emphasized the public trust doctrine and Louisiana emphasized private property rights.

Whether you’re a landowner or policy maker who is only familiar with the policies in your own state, it’s easy to think that’s the only way to do things. In fact, Next Issue:

there’s a huge variety of approaches to manage private forestland. This becomes a question of how we can achieve good sustainable outcomes for the least cost. Having lived in Oregon, prior to moving to Maine, I thought most other states were super regulatory. In fact, they’re not.

Of the four approaches to managing private forestland that you describe in the discourses paper, Alaska, Oregon and Washington have a science bureaucracy approach, which is more common in the West. Did your research reveal why that is?

We don’t have a full answer to that question yet but that is definitely where we are continuing to go with this research. In our typology, “science-bureaucracy” describes a discourse we observed that positions the state as the source of rule-making of prescriptive standards impacting forest management actions. But we don’t fully know why we’ve chosen this path. A paper we have in review uses a regression model to estimate factors that might influence the number of regulations that states have. We have lots of hypotheses: maybe it’s due to having more environmental damage that occurs following a harvest; maybe we’re just super environmentally minded states and we don’t mind regulations; or maybe because we have so much federal land, the public expects that they’re engaged in forest management decision-making.

This has been fascinating to think about because the approaches tend to cluster. The Midwest tends to really focus on these voluntary programs, which maybe some cultural or settlement legacy. Have you conducted a comparison of the amount of forestland found in a state to its management approach?

In our regression paper, we did look at the proportion of forestland that is in private and private industrial hands as a driver since we have a lot more industrial landowners in Oregon and Washington than many other states. In a lot of the state documents that Erin and I reviewed, we saw so much language around individual small landowner ethic in states where there’s a lot of small forestland owners. As a society, we value

Continued on page 10

The private lands forest policies in the United States fall along a continuum with private property rights emphasized at one end and public trust resources emphasized on the other. An overlay on this continuum is whose authority is prioritized when it comes to implementing forest policies, with landowner autonomy (non-regulatory status) at one end and state assigns authority (regulatory status) on the other.

Oregon’s Private Forest Accord: Providing Environmental Protections and Regulatory Certainty

By Tim Hoffman

New Year’s Day started with the most sweeping changes to Oregon’s Forest Practices Act (FPA) in the last 50 years and impacts all private forestland owners big and small in the state.

The changes are a result of the Private Forest Accord (PFA) agreement that brought together representatives from Oregon’s timber industry, Oregon Small Woodlands Association, and conservation and fishing organizations with the goal of changing Oregon’s forest practices regulations to better protect fish and amphibians.

It is anticipated that these changes will allow the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) to receive federal approval for a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) on private forestlands and the accompany-

deputy division chief for ODF’s Forest Resources Division. “Managing timber stands is unique and can take 40-70 years or more between harvests. These rule changes will allow for a consistent regulatory environment over a long timeframe while also providing long-term protections for the covered fish and other aquatic species.”

The PFA was signed in 2021. The accompanying legislation passed in 2022 enacted the agreement and provided ODF direction and resources to change the regulations and apply for the HCP.

“There are expanded buffers in riparian areas and new rules for harvesting on steep slopes,” said Kroon. “In addition, there were changes to building and maintaining forest roads and culverts and other fish passage requirements.”

The rules can quickly get complicated. For example, the type of stream and where in Oregon the stream is located determines the set of rules to follow. (There are different stream rules for west

program. The division only had one parttime training position before the PFA.

“Last year we had our stewardship foresters and field staff go through two one-week courses that included both classroom and training in the field,” said Jennifer Ward, Forest Resources Division training coordinator. In all, many field staff each received more than 100 hours of training, including intensive training in the field on the new stream and road rules.

“The goal is for any private forestland owner to get consistent information, advice, and action on the rules from all ODF staff anywhere in the timber harvest process, from planning all the way through enforcement, no matter where that forest operation is taking place across the state,” said Kroon. “We want the new rules to be as clear as possible and our actions to be consistent for landowners.”

Training was also focused on private landowners, with more than 1,000 people attending classes held in person across the state, from general information sessions to Certified Steep Slopes training.

“We also developed virtual classes,” said Ward. “And several of our in-person and virtual classes are recorded and available on the ODF website to view anytime to help people better understand these changes.” The Certified Steep Slopes training—required for operators—is available online. Factsheets are also on the website explaining each of the major sections of rule changes and new technical guidance documents to help people better understand the rules.

Most private larger landowners have experts and staff to quickly interpret and follow the new rules since they harvest often, but the PFA authors and state legislators were concerned about the disproportionate impact these new rules would have on small forestland owners. A small forestland owner is defined as owning less than 5,000 acres of forestland in Oregon, harvesting an average of less than two million board feet of timber from their Oregon forestland per year over the past three years and expecting to harvest no more than an average of two million

board feet per year for the next 10 years.

To help these landowners, several new programs were funded. Among the most important was the formation of ODF’s Small Forestland Owner (SFO) Office based in Salem and 12 new SFO forester positions located closer to SFOs in field offices around the state.

“Our goal is to help landowners reach their goals—whether economic, ecological, or stewardship,” said Jessie Ebert, Forest Resources Division, small forestland owner implementation support and tracking manager. “We are providing transparent, responsible, and compassionate assistance by connecting small forestland owners to resources, education, and local field support to help them understand and comply with these new rules.”

“These incentive programs combined with the SFO Office and new SFO foresters seek to help small forestland owners minimize the impact of the rule changes,” said Kroon. “All these programs are new,

The AMP Committee (AMPC) guides the overall policy and process, and the Independent Research and Science Team (IRST) coordinates research to support policy decisions. The AMP Committee makes recommendations to the Board of Forestry on proposed rule changes. The Board of Forestry is the approval authority for those proposed changes.

Protecting riparian areas and enhancing wildlife habitat was a key consideration in the Private Forest Accord. To help small forest landowners achieve these goals, the new Small Forestland Investment in Stream Habitat grant program will fund projects that improve fish habitat and mitigate risks to natural resources arising from active or abandoned forest roads.

There are two new incentive programs to help SFOs—the Small Forestland Investment in Stream Habitat (SFISH) grant program and the Forest Conservation Tax Credit (FCTC).

SFISH is a grant program to help SFOs fund projects that improve fish habitat and mitigate risks to natural resources arising from active or abandoned forest roads. The program can fund 100 percent of the cost for eligible projects. FCTC provides a tax credit to small forestland owners who support conservation and habitat protection by choosing to retain a larger than required unharvested area next to streams for protection of wildlife habitat and aquatic species. Owners must apply to get the credit.

and we will continue to seek feedback from the SFO community to better serve them now and in the future.”

For a long-term agreement like the PFA, making new changes to the Forest Practices Act and the HCP be successful means needing a way to make changes to the rules based on science. The way chosen to do that is through ODF’s new Adaptive Management Program (AMP).

The AMP’s mission is to determine if forestry practices are meeting their goals to protect natural resources through a science-based and transparent process. The program provides regulatory certainty by establishing a mechanism for scientific testing of rules, and then changing them if needed. Two committees interact to evaluate rules over time.

With the PFA agreement in the past, the Forest Practices Act rule changes now in effect, and a way to evaluate and change the rules, if necessary, the department’s focus will continue to be on training and outreach on the new rules, helping SFOs, and getting an HCP and the resulting incidental take permit.

“Our ODF staff members deserve a lot of credit for implementing the PFA and the resulting rule changes on a very compressed timeline,” said Kroon. “And we still have a lot of work to do. We are working with the federal services on the draft HCP and, if we stay on track, expect to have a final draft ready for public review in 2025.”

The incidental take permit could be issued by the end of 2027 or possibly sooner.

“The Private Forest Accord is a model for how groups can work together to provide economic, social and environmental benefits to all Oregonians,” said Kroon. WF

Tim Hoffman is the public affairs officer for the Oregon Department of Forestry. He can be reached at Tim.L.HOFFMAN@odf. oregon.gov.

Wanting more information about the Private Forest Accord?

The Oregon Department of Forestry’s Oregon Forest Practices Act webpage provides an overview of the Private Forest Accord and the new small forest landowner incentive programs such as the Small Forestland Investment in Stream Habitat (SFISH) grant program and the Forest Conservation Tax Credit. https://www.oregon.gov/odf/working/pages/fpa.aspx

Oregon Forest Resources Institute created a webpage that outlines the timeline of the Private Forest Accord and provides links to topic sheets and their special report Finding Common Ground. https://oregonforests.org/private-forest-accord

PHOTO COURTESY OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY

Strengthening Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance to Grow the Urban Forest Canopy

By Andrea Watts

This article is based upon a conversation with Patricia Bakker, the urban forestry policy advisor with the Office of Sustainability and Environment, and Chanda Emery, the senior planning and development specialist with the Department of Construction & Inspections.

In 2007, the city of Seattle adopted its first Urban Forest Management Plan, which established the city’s canopy cover goals of reaching a 30 percent canopy cover by 2037. Two years later, the Seattle City Council adopted interim tree regulations until new permanent regulations were adopted. Fast forward to 2019, the council adopted Resolution 31902, “A RESOLUTION declaring the City Council’s and the Mayor’s intent to consider strategies to protect trees and increase Seattle’s tree canopy cover.”

This resolution directed the Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI), in consultation with the Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE), to explore strategies to protect existing trees in the city and increase Seattle’s tree canopy while also balancing city goals to support future growth and density as outlined in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. As part of this resolution, SDCI created two new arborist positions to improve code enforcement and protection of trees on private property, while the City worked to develop the new Tree Protection Ordinance. That new Ordinance was signed by the Mayor and went into effect in July 2023.

A stronger yet flexible ordinance

Seattle has an integrated model for management of the urban forest, which means there’s not one central forestry department. Instead, responsibility for

the care and management of the forest is spread across nine departments. Although the city has been investing in tree planting and maintenance within its urban forestry programs and had interim guidelines in place for trees on private land, it wasn’t until the 2021 canopy assessment, a follow-up to the 2016 assessment, that the City was able to understand whether its tree canopy was increasing or decreasing. (These assessments were conducted using a protocol that combines LiDAR and high-resolution aerial imagery.)

The canopy assessment showed that the canopy declined slightly between 2016 and 2021, with a 1.7 percent relative canopy loss, representing 255 acres of net canopy loss.

From the 2021 canopy assessment, it was determined that 53 percent of the canopy is on private lands. This meant the city needed guidance and regulations around what happens to trees on private lands to be successful in reaching a 30 percent canopy goal.

Under the new ordinance, the city took efforts to protect more trees by reducing the number of trees allowed to be removed on private properties that are not undergoing development and by increasing the replacement requirements for trees removed from properties undergoing redevelopment. Any tree over 12 inches and any hazard tree removed now require tree replacement mitigation.

However, there is some flexibility in how tree replacement occurs. Builders and homeowners can elect to use a payment-in-lieu option, which wasn’t available under the interim tree regulations. Under this scenario, if SDCI approves a tree removal, the replacement trees can be located on site, or a payment can be made to enable trees to be planted off site. If the applicant chooses the voluntary payment in lieu of on-site tree replanting, the payment must be made to SDCI before the city issues approval of tree removal. The funds from these

payments will go into the One Seattle Tree Fund and will fund tree planting on public property by city departments in underserved low canopy communities citywide.

Tailoring those payment amounts for the payment-in-lieu option was important because the city wanted a balanced approach in shaping and developing the regulations, as well as ensuring that the tree ordinance was planting trees in places where tree canopy was needed while also supporting housing production during a homelessness and housing crisis.

The legislation takes new approaches to site analysis, moving from floor area ratio (FAR) for multifamily and commercial development to a hardscape coverage standard equal to 85 percent, which allows for more flexibility in site requirements if trees are left in place. There are also new requirements to have street trees planted in development projects in the neighborhood residential zones, which is helping areas of the city where there are townhouses and row houses, and those parts of the city that don’t have as many street trees.

As a complement to the new tree ordinance, Mayor Harrell issued an executive

PHOTO COURTESY OF CITY OF SEATTLE

One goal of the city of Seattle’s Tree Protection Ordinance is increasing the planting of street trees in neighborhoods. The ordinance also now requires that tree service providers are registered with the city before performing commercial tree work.

Patricia Bakker

Chanda Emery

order that requires the city to plant three new trees for every tree removed on cityowned land and targets new tree plantings in underserved communities that are most impacted by climate change. Collectively, these efforts will help establish the next generation of Seattle’s urban forest.

Ensuring tree health and survival

Because trees are most vulnerable in the first five years after planting and need to be watered and maintained during this period to ensure their survival, the new ordinance is supportive of industry standards and best practices for tree establishment on public property.

Another new tree protection measure, which was passed by city council in 2022 prior to the rest of the new ordinance, is requiring tree service providers to be registered with the city before perform-

ing commercial tree work.

In shaping the ordinance, they city relied on subject matter experts, such as arborists certified by the International Society of Arboriculturists, to ensure the city included best practices in the ordinance. In addition, SDCI hired new staff during the shaping of the ordinance to compile tree tracking data to inform the plans for regulating and protecting a lot more trees.

Measuring success

Based on the knowledge gained from the 2021 canopy cover assessment, along with ordinance and the executive order, the city will be able to make adjustments regarding future management decisions. By 2026 the next canopy cover assessment will be undertaken, which will be one of the first places looked at for measurable outcomes to confirm whether

canopy growing based on actions being taken now. Additionally, the city is tracking the planting and removal of trees.

The builders and public recognize that a lot of people worked together on this ordinance to reach a balance, and the city will continually evaluate and monitor the ordinance as it’s being implemented and to identify areas that need to be amended in the future. WF

Patricia Bakker is the urban forestry policy advisor with the Office of Sustainability and Environment. She can be reached at Patricia.Bakker@ seattle.gov. Chanda Emery is a senior planning and development specialist with the Department of Construction & Inspections. She can be reached at Chanda.Emery@seattle.gov.

Forest Practices Act 50th Anniversary: Past, Present, and Future

April 3-5, 2024, at Grays Harbor College in Aberdeen, WA

This year marks the anniversary of a significant piece of legislation that dictates current and future forest management practices for private forestland owners. Join us to learn how the legislation was developed, its current implementation, and what the future holds. A field trip will showcase examples of how private landowners are implementing the Forest Practices Act.

April 3

An executive meeting will be held in the afternoon followed by an evening student mentoring event.

Can’t attend the meeting in-person? A virtual option is available.

April 4

A day of speakers and panels that includes a keynote by Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz, an overview of how the Forest Practices Act was developed, and panels on Habitat Conservation Plans and What Our Future Looks Like, and a presentation on geology and our unstable slopes laws.

April 5

Spend the day touring sites in Grays Harbor County to see how industrial and small forest landowners manage under the Forest Practices Act. Prior to the field trip, the Washington Tree Farm Program will host a breakfast for tree farm inspectors.

Other activities include a silent auction, awards banquet dinner, and opportunities to catch up with friends and colleagues.

We are seeking Foresters Fund Silent Auction items. If you are interested in donating an item, please contact Chuck Lorenz at c_4str@yahoo.com. Unable to attend but want to donate an item? Items can be mailed to Chuck.

Registration

Early bird registration is open through March 1. Prices then increase by $50 for members and nonmembers. The field trip is limited to 40 attendees. Online registration closes March 15.

SAF Members*: $200, add-ons banquet dinner $50, field trip $50 Student Members: $75, add-ons banquet dinner $25, field trip $25 Non-SAF Members: $250, add-ons banquet dinner $50, field trip $50 Virtual attendees: $50 *Golden members receive a $50 discount when registering.

To register, visit https://forestry.org/2024-wssaf-annual-meeting/

Managing Smoke Better to Protect Human Health and Improve Forest Health

By Matthew Dehr, Vaughn Cork, and Kate Masterson

The Smoke Management Plan (SMP) for the state of Washington is designed to coordinate and facilitate the regulation of silvicultural burning on state, private, federally managed, and participating Tribal nation’s land pursuant the requirements of the Washington Clean Air Act (RCW 70A.15), Forest Protection Laws (RCW 76.04), and the US Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.).

First published in 1998, the SMP and its guiding regulations give authority to the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to enforce a burn permit and smoke management decision-making system for silvicultural burns throughout the state. The current framework requires that all burns over 100 tons receive individual approval

from a Washington Smoke Management Coordinator before ignition is allowed. Additionally, the SMP outlines how the state takes inventory of smoke emissions for EPA reporting and determines smoke intrusion thresholds to limit unacceptable levels of public exposure to smoke. To foster community input, the DNR also maintains a public smoke complaint system.

Washington has taken the additional step of incorporating the SMP into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Clean Air Act. This means that any changes to the SMP must be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after demonstrating that alterations to the plan will result in equal or greater protection of air quality.

The updated plan was published in coordination with the EPA in September 2023; this was the first major update

since its adoption 25 years ago. Work began on updating the plan in 2019, with three significant changes requiring EPA approval under the Clean Air Act framework.

1. Adding objective smoke intrusion criteria alongside the existing subjective criteria

Public smoke complaints and visible smoke at the surface remain intrusion criteria, but the 2023 update also included a threshold of measured fine particulates (PM2.5) exceeding 20.5 microgram/ cubic meter for three hours. This objective measure was made possible due to the expanding air quality monitoring system in Washington.

2. Lifting the prohibition on weekend burning during the summer months

To maximize the available burn days and successfully treat more forested acres, the DNR works with burners to coordinate burns on days when smoke is least likely to impact communities or public events. Permitting weekend burning allows for more burns to happen on days of favorable atmospheric ventilation.

3. Allowing day-prior smoke management approval for permitted burns

Prior to the adoption of the 2023 plan, all smoke management decisions were required to be made the morning-of permitted burns. This constrained resource flexibility and was changed to maximize the decision space for regulators and burners. The DNR provided proof that day-prior forecasts displayed similar skill and accuracy to morning-of forecasts, a testament to the value of additional dedicated smoke coordination staffing.

Limiting public exposure to PM2.5 is the primary driver of regulations on silvicultural burning. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) specifies particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) as a criteria pollutant due to its known harmful effects on the human body and sets limits on daily and yearly exposure at monitoring sites. Current standards for PM2.5 require 98 percent of 24-hour average readings to be less than 35ug/m^3 and three-year rolling annual averages to remain below 12ug/m^3. The objective smoke intrusion criteria included in the new SMP is designed to give a large buffer to the NAAQS 24-hour average exposure limits by providing burners ample lead time to shut down their operations if smoke is

impacting a community.

Between 2021-2023, out of 3,300 approved burns the Washington DNR has documented six total events that met smoke intrusion criteria. Of all approved burns, 1,980 burns exceeded 100 tons and required individual smoke management approval from a Smoke Management Coordinator. This burn-by-burn approach to smoke management is the highest level of scrutiny applied to silvicultural burns and has done a remarkable job of mitigating smoke intrusions in the state.

Current forest health policy objectives at both the federal and state levels highlight the need for an increase in fire use, including prescribed burning, that some feel has been curtailed by conservative smoke management rules and decision-making processes. The need to balance forest health objectives while mitigating public PM2.5 exposure is a puzzle that is playing out across most of the western United States, and Washington took a major step toward improving the situation with the passage of House Bill 1578 in the most recent legislative session.

House Bill 1578, also known as the Cascading Effects of Wildfire, touches on numerous hazards that are associated with wildfire, including debris flows, community resilience, and air quality degradation. The bill recognizes that prescribed fire is a necessary tool to reduce the risk of wildfire and wildfire smoke in Washington while acknowledging that communities overburdened by wildfire smoke are often also overburdened by

prescribed fire smoke. The smoke section of the legislation codifies the ongoing collaboration between the DNR, the Department of Ecology, and the Department of Health and creates three new positions at the DNR tasked who are tasked with researching, forecasting, and monitoring wildfire and prescribed fire smoke.

Between September and December 2023, Washington State Department of Natural Resources conducted 807 prescribed fire permit burns across the state, resulting in 213,800 tons burns. Of the 509 prescribed burns that were requested but not conducted, reasons range from no decision issued, or denied by the EPA, or cancelled due to weather conditions.

Helpful Smoke Management Resources

Washington SMP: https:// www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ rp_burn_smoke_mgmt_plan2022. pdf?1703872462665

This multi-agency partnership has previously resulted in an expansion of the low-cost air quality sensor network in vulnerable areas and allied with local organizations to distribute air filtration systems and share knowledge of public health best-practices. The next major hurdle is improving the accuracy and timeliness of smoke forecasting, with the goal of improving lead time for impactful smoke events, allowing for mitigation measures to both planned and implemented, and continuing to reduce the risk of smoke intrusion from prescribed fire. Unlike traditional weather forecasting, smoke forecasting relies on inputs from both the weather and the source of the smoke, increasing the uncertainty inherent in the outlook. With the addition of new smoke management positions at the DNR, great strides in smoke forecasting can be made, as well as improved collaboration with the Department of Ecology and federal partners.

Increasing the pace and scale of prescribed burning is still an intricate issue. Even with more monitors and better public understanding of smoke, it is important to limit smoke intrusions

Washington Burn Portal: https:// burnportal.dnr.wa.gov/

HB1578: https://app.leg.wa.gov/ billsummary?BillNumber=1578&Year=2023

and meet NAAQS limits. Furthermore, burn practitioners face other difficulties that affect increasing the pace and scale of prescribed burning including planning capacity, environmental approval to conduct such burns, and workforce capacity. However, great strides have been made to reduce smoke exposure from prescribed fire, with the goal to increase the magnitude of prescribed burning while maintaining public safety. WF

Matthew Dehr is a wildland fire meteorologist and can be reached at matthew.dehr@dnr.wa.gov. Vaughn Cork is the fire regulation program manager and can be reached at vaughn. cork@dnr.wa.gov. Kate Masterson is the smoke management coordinator for Washington State Department of Natural Resources and can be reached at kate. masterson@dnr.wa.gov.

MAP AND PHOTO COURTESY OF WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Moving Beyond Anecdotes: Elucidating How State Policies

Affect Private Forest Management

Continued from page 3

that small forest landowner ethos and are mistrustful of corporations. Maybe we’re more willing to regulate in Oregon and Washington because we have a lot more corporate activity.

During your policy review, have you found the number of state regulations increasing over years, even for states that use BMPs?

That is the big question to answer because we would have to develop a timeline, which becomes a really onerous task for 50 states, but it is an area that we’re very interested in. You often hear that we only add regulations, never take them away. We know that Oregon has

Back to the Future: Forest Health and Sustainability

April

25-27, 2024, at the

Harrigan Centennial Hall in Sitka, Alaska

The annual meeting agenda will feature general sessions, a field trip, and networking opportunities. General session presentations will include topics important to the health and sustainability of forests and ecosystems in Southeast Alaska such as timber harvest and forest products; insects and disease conditions; continued warming and changing precipitation patterns and how changes are expected to amplify interactions among disturbance agents and alter forest ecosystem structure and function; collaborative efforts to use local wood products for affordable housing in Sitka; carbon credits; forest restoration, and more.

The awards banquet will be held on the evening of April 26 at the Westmark, which is a short walk from Centennial Hall. A small block of rooms is reserved at the Sitka Aspen for $159+tax. Guests can call the hotel at (907) 747-3477 to book reservations using the group code SOAFAK.

The field trip, which will last from 9 a.m.-4 p.m., will either visit a managed young-growth stand and recreational cabin constructed from thinned trees or the Blue Lake Dam and hydroelectric facility in the morning and in the afternoon feature a boat tour of the Sitka Sound area. We will be back in town after the morning portion of the trip for lunch on your own in town from 12-1pm.

A virtual option will be available for attendees who cannot attend in-person.

To view the agenda & register, visit https://forestry.org/2024-aksaf-annual-meeting/

changed its Forest Practices Act dozens of times since 1971 and that we seem to be adding regulations. However, we want to better understand if that is always the case or if there are long periods of few changes. Especially in the wake of the Private Forest Accord, which was this huge shift all at once; that’s not commonly what we’ve seen.

Currently, a student at Cal Poly Humboldt is doing this for Oregon and California, establishing a timeline and interviewing people involved in policy changes to see how they happened.

What I found interesting is that “the goals and objectives of state policies are often aligned along common forestry discourse” of balance, sustainability, and prevention. Yet, at least in Oregon and Washington, there appears to be a disconnect with members of the public who are skeptical that this is the case and want to reduce harvest levels.

This is a reason why we were motivated to look across all the states. At some point regulations are going to disincentivize forest management, and we don’t really know at which point people opt out of active management because it’s just too onerous. In our third paper that was just published, we interviewed California landowners who are actively managing their forestland to see what they think of the policy environment.

I don’t know whether we’re there yet in Oregon, but we don’t want to get to the point where we don’t actively manage because of regulations. This is a lesson that other states can give each other. California has valuable timber, and we have to be cognizant that in different parts of the country, management is either more or less expensive and the value you receive from your product is more or less. So policies that increase cost can have variable impacts.

States in the South and Midwest often have opt-in tax incentive programs, while states in the West don’t. However, at least in Oregon and Washington, forestland owners can receive a reduced property tax rate. How is this different from a tax incentive?

Yes, that’s a really important point. In states we classified as having tax incentive programs, forestland owners get a tax break if they take particular

management actions. What’s interesting in Oregon or Washington is forestland owners get a tax break automatically. The state doesn’t require landowners to show that they’re actively managing their land. I think we should reward all forest landowners because no matter what ecosystem services they’re providing, they’re not getting rewarded for much of it in the marketplace. And we know that these tax programs help stave off development.

How will this research inform policy makers or policy discussions?

I hope this puts more options on the table for policy makers to consider and think more broadly about how we can mix more incentive tools into the policy landscape in Oregon. What can we learn from other states? Thinking about the impact of the Private Forest Accord on small landowners versus large landowners, should we move to an even more tiered system of forest policies?

And you can’t answer those questions until you document and quantify the effects of these policies. Exactly. We hear a lot of anecdotes, and as researchers we’re like, ‘Oh, that’s interesting. Maybe we should find out how much of this is true.’ We started this project seven years ago, and every single time we get a new question, it just raises more questions. We have a paper in review where we tallied up the number of regulations but just having a regulation doesn’t tell you anything about how onerous the regulation is, so the magnitude of each policy is still a question. There’s the question of the timeline that I mentioned earlier. How do policies change over time? Is it always a oneway street of adding regulations, or is it steady, or is it punctuated or big shifts? Those questions will also help us understand our options in the policy arena. If we have regulations, are we more likely to keep these regulations or are there ways to think critically about walking some of them back and going with other techniques? And if we take this approach, can we get public buy-in? WF

Mindy Crandall is an associate professor of forest policy at Oregon State University, and the faculty representative for the OSU SAF Student Club. An OSAF member, she can be reached at mindy.crandall@ oregonstate.edu.

What Influences the Number of State Regulations?

By Kamana Poudel

State level regulations across the United States are very diverse. Previous studies have been key in understanding the extent of forest policies impacting private landowners; however, that doesn’t fully capture the economic or social reality of managing forestland. In the regression paper mentioned earlier, we wanted to take a quantitative approach to understand the intensity of forest policies impacting private landowners. We ask two main questions: a) how many forests practices are regulated by each state; and b) what factors might influence some states to regulate more forest practices versus regulate less and opt for voluntary approaches.

For this we asked specific questions to identify the presence of regulations across 12 forest practices for all 50 states. For example, is there a clear-cut regulation on private forestland? We use some of the common forest regulations focused on issues that include water quality, reforestation, and harvesting, but also added some emerging ones such as carbon and aesthetics. We tallied the number of regulated forest practices for each state, which we called regulatory intensity

Using an econometric model, we compared the regulatory intensity with a state’s forestry characteristics such as presence of private forestland, corporate forestland, gross domestic product from the forest product industry, and measures of the environmental mindedness of the state. We proposed multiple hypotheses on how these factors might influence regulatory intensity. Is it a higher proportion of private forestland or corporate forestland? Do states want to maintain the dominance in certain forest sector and minimize the regulation? Do certain states allow citizens to participate in decision-making directly and higher environmentally minded people might influence the regulatory intensity?

This study is completed and currently in the peer-review process, and hopefully will be out soon. With these results, we can improve our understanding of which states regulate more of its forest practices versus which states uses voluntary approaches for sustainable forest management. And it provides some understanding of which factors are associated with states that regulate more of their forest practices.

Another outcome is helping both foresters and landowners understand how states are similar and dissimilar in regulating their forest practices to achieve sustainable forest management goals and provides what could be the influencing factors behind them. It also provides policy makers with the information to better understand motivations between landowners’ rights and state-level environmental outcomes. WF

Kamana Poudel is a PhD Candidate at Oregon State University and is a team member of Mindy Crandall’s Forests, Industries, and Communities Lab. She can be reached at kamana.poudel@oregonstate.edu.

Shifting the Management Paradigm on the O&C Lands of Western Oregon

By Denise Barrett

Founded in Roseburg in 2015 on the basis of trust, Forest Bridges is a grassroots, charitable nonprofit collaborative that brings together people of different perspectives on forest management to foster sustainable forest health and habitats through active management and restoration solutions on the 2.9 million acres of Oregon and California Railroad Revested Lands (O&C) in western Oregon. O&C

Lands are managed by the Bureau of Land Management in accordance with the O&C Act of 1937’s sustained yield priority.

The Forest Bridges collaborative structure includes a Board of Directors (the core decision-making body with a balance of conservation/recreation and forest industry representation), a Council of Advisors, an Independent Scientific and Ecocultural Reviewers Group and a small paid staff.

The organization, which became a 501(c)3 in 2019, sees itself as ‘attempting to fill a void’ as the only all-inclusive, consensus-based grassroots collaborative

Forest Bridges’ Active Conservation Approaches: A Snapshot

All of the O&C Lands are included in Forest Bridges long-term proposals for the O&C Lands without predesignated reserve locations, which replicates the Tribal ways. This approach would require a shift from the current BLM 2016 Resource Management Plan for western Oregon’s land designations, which leave 80 percent of the O&C forests in reserves with little or no management. Forest Bridges views the BLM’s current forest management approach as unsustainable in the fire-adapted O&C forests that are overstocked, low in heterogeneity, and facing unprecedented disease and stand-replacing fires. As we see it, agency staff must be entrusted to evaluate stands across the O&C Lands for treatment or “let grow as is” based on each stand’s potential to become or remain a contributor to the diversity of wildlife, plant kingdoms or other biological habitats, as well as to store carbon and resist wildfire.

On the O&C Lands’ over-stocked dry forests, Forest Bridges aim is to restore historical widely spaced, fire-resistant stands and forest structure for multiple and sensitive species. Toward our consensus goal of reducing the occurrence of stand-replacement fires from the current rate of about 36 percent to just 5 percent, we propose an aggressive fuels reduction program using variable retention thinning and carefully applied prescribed fire and pile burning. Using this dry forest restoration approach on 3 percent of the total 1.4 million O&C dry forest annually over a 30-year timeframe will develop and sustain multi-species habitats, while retaining legacy and generating early seral communities, and increase wood output over current levels.

On the 1.5 million acres of coastal and inland moist O&C Lands, Forest Bridges recommends a metered use of Variable Retention Regeneration Harvests (VRRH), a combination of continuing active and let-grow management, to double the current stock of structurally complex old-growth forests from their current composition of less than 25 percent in moist forests to 50 percent over time, while regularly creating early seral habitats. VRRH and/or thinning overly dense and younger stands, particularly those surrounding structurally complex old growth in a section, we see as important to reduce the fire risk to these stands, especially given current science showing that moist forests are less drought-adaptive in this era of climate change. Active Conservation management on all of our forests centers on enhancing complex forest structure, ecosystem functionality, fire resilience, and the presence of diverse, endemic species, as needed.

working to shift the management paradigm on the whole of the western Oregon O&C Lands and move beyond decades of polarization, an entrenched culture of litigation, and land allocations that have impinged the scale of active management and restoration efforts needed to address more than 100 years of fire suppression. These and other issues have contributed to exacerbating detrimental conditions on the O&C Lands, which include increasing high-severity wildfire (six to seven times higher than precolonial times in southwest Oregon dry forests according to The Nature Conservancy); increased climate change-driven drought and invasive species; protracted seasonal wildfire smoke impacting public health; declining rural economies; and reduced public access for recreation.

Over the years, the Forest Bridges collaborative has risen to the challenge of developing management principles and approaches that are constructive and viewed as reasonable from the perspective of all our partners and interest areas: Tribal Nations, ecological and climate resilience, legacy forests, plant, wildlife and other biological habitats, timber and wood products production, county revenue expectations, recreation, and other material and non-material values important to the community at large.

How to shift a paradigm

Based on cutting-edge science, time-honored Indigenous Knowledge and practices, and field practitioner experience, Forest Bridges’ collaboratively developed Principles of Agreement (https://www.forestbridges.org/) provide direction for key areas of management–as well as barriers to management–that need to be addressed to help reverse the negative trends on the O&C Lands. These are buttressed by Forest Bridges detailed Active Conservation Forestry proposals of viable active forest ecosystem management approaches that:

• address climate change impacts head on, adding biomass and sequestering more carbon over time;

• build fire-resilient forests and lower annual public health smoke threats;

• improve and sustains forest health and multi-species habitats;

• protect legacy old-growth trees, while supporting the progression of forest aging over time; and

• support revenue to the O&C counties and improve rural economies.

The organization looks to Cultural Burning practices, partnering and comanagement opportunities with Indigenous Tribes, on their terms, as integral to its proposals. We see our proposed outcome of multi-species habitats across the O&C Lands, accomplished through restorative fuels reduction treatments over the next 30 years on the dry forests, along with light touch Variable Retention Regeneration Harvest management in the moist forests over the longer term, as harmonizing well with a dependable sustained yield.

Our Active Conservation Forestry proposals are contained in “living” forest management policy/technical papers–currently for the dry and moist O&C forests (in summary or adapted forms, available https://www.forestbridges.org/our-project). In addition to these two technical papers, Forest Bridges intends to produce one on O&C transitional forests, which occupy a large portion of the O&C lands and are characterized by historic fire intervals intermediate between classic moist and dry forests.

These papers are intended for land management agency planning, as well as legislative concept development, as needed. Between 2011 and 2013, two attempts at federal legislative fixes for the O&C lands were drafted. Proposed and led by US Congressional leaders and formulated by individual experts rather than through collaboration, these proposals failed to gain traction due to multiple group opposition. Forest Bridges believes that federal laws and regulations should guide management. However, in the event that they prevent management activities that will promote and sustain in the long-term plant and wildlife habitat diversity to support the range of endemic species on the checkerboard O&C Lands, Forest Bridges will seek to change these federal laws and regulations, along with how O&C forestry is funded.

Achieving goals through public participation

While Forest Bridges considers developing legislative solutions, we have leaned forward in utilizing our proposals to influence the BLM’s resource management planning on the O&C Lands. For example, in August 2023, Forest Bridges submitted to the BLM Medford District’s Cascade Siskiyou National Monument planning process an adapted version of its O&C Dry Forest management strategies as a Forest Bridges proposed ‘Active Conservation Management Alternative.’ The monument contains around 114,000 acres of O&C and other BLM-managed lands that are mostly dry forests with some moist refugia. Due to the risk of high-intensity, stand-replacing fires on these lands, we found it particularly important to submit our adapted dry forest proposals geared toward building struc-

THE OREGON AND CALIFORNIA RAILROAD

O&C Lands lie in a checkerboard of ownership together with private, state, local and other federal lands in 18 counties of western Oregon. Forest Bridges includes in its definition of the O&C Lands around 2.1 million acres of O&C BLM lands, 75,000 acres of Coos Bay Wagon Road Lands, 239,000 acres of the BLM public domain lands in western Oregon, and around 500,000 acres of O&C controverted lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. These lands are governed by the O&C Act of 1937 and other federal laws and regulations.

Cedar Spruce Double Seedlings for Sale

Western red cedar and Sitka spruce seedlings growing in the same plug

An e ective way to reduce animal browse on cedar.

For pricing, to order and for pick-up and payment details, call 360-460-4928 or email abies@olypen.com

SOURCE:

LANDS (O&C LANDS): IN BRIEF

We Remember

Mike Barton 1939-2023

Mike Barton passed away Nov. 21 after a long illness. He was a longtime resident of Juneau.

Born in Lincoln, Nebraska, Barton’s professional career began in 1959 when he joined the U.S. Forest Service as a research technician while pursuing his education at the University of Michigan.

In 1961, he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in forestry, followed by military service in the U.S. Army. His dedication to the field of forestry led him to complete a master’s in forest hydrology in 1965, also at the University of Michigan.

Barton’s career with the U.S. Forest Service included work as a watershed scientist on the Superior National Forest for three years before advancing to the role of chief of the Water Quality Section in the Eastern Region. From 1971 to 1974, he served as the Deputy Forest Supervisor of the Ottawa National Forest in Minnesota.

In 1974, Mike Barton moved to Washington, D.C., where he held various critical roles within the U.S. Forest Service. He served as a water rights and water quality specialist, a program evaluation and system development specialist, and eventually became the director of watershed management.

In 1979, Barton’s work took him to Juneau,

where he served as the deputy regional forester for the Alaska Region. He rose to the position of regional forester in 1984, overseeing the vast Tongass and Chugach National Forests, which spanned 22 million acres.

Throughout his career, Barton received numerous awards for his exceptional natural resource management skills. His role as team leader on the National Fisheries Task Force was instrumental in revitalizing and strengthening the Forest Service fisheries program.

Barton played a vital role in the restoration of Prince William Sound following the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. As a founding member of the Oil Spill Trustee Council, he represented the Secretary of Agriculture in efforts to mitigate environmental damage. He also served on the Federal Subsistence Board, which established the subsistence program for federal lands in Alaska.

Beyond his government roles, Barton was deeply involved in other organizations. He actively participated in the Society of American Foresters, the Soil and Water Conservation Society of America, the American Forestry Association, the American Fisheries Society, the National Woodland Owners Association, Ducks Unlimited, the Rotary Club, and the Little League Baseball Program.

He served on the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority for five years and chaired the group from 2013 to 2015.

In 1994, Mike Barton retired from the U.S. Forest Service. He later served twice as the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Transportation during the administrations of Gov. Walter J. Hickel and Gov. Frank Murkowski. His guiding motto throughout his career was, “Never pass up an opportunity to take on more responsibility.”

Michael “Mike” Grover Ablutz

1952-2023

Michael Grover Ablutz, “Mike,” was a silviculturist and forest ecologist during his 34-year career with the U.S. Forest Service working in southern Wyoming, southwest Colorado, northwest Montana, the Eastern Region (Minnesota to Missouri to Maryland to Maine), and after retirement with international forestry in Lebanon and Jordan. He was very committed to nurturing the health, growth, and stewardship of forests. Mike joined the Society of American Foresters as an undergraduate at Colorado State University in the early 1970s and was a faithful member throughout his lifetime. Mike died of gallbladder cancer on August 18, 2023, at his home in Camas, Washington.

Vernon “Jim” J. La Bau

1935-2023

Jim La Bau passed peacefully surround-

ed by family on November 29, in Loveland, Colorado.

At a very young age, Jim decided to be a forest ranger and received his Bachelor of Science in forestry to begin his career. While attending Colorado A&M, he met and married Kay (Thayer) La Bau. Later, he acquired his master’s degree in 1965 from Oregon State University.

Jim became very interested in forest research, particularly forest inventory. He began his forest inventory career at the Ogden, Utah Forest and Range Experiment Station but soon moved to the Forestry Sciences Lab in Juneau, Alaska, where he became the lead inventory forester for Southeast Alaska, helping to establish the Forest Service Region 10 forest inventory program.

In 1976 Jim moved to Fort Collins, Colorado, to pursue his PhD. There he became involved in a multi-agency resource evaluation techniques program and helped establish a nationwide forest inventory protocol.

He moved back to Alaska in the early 1980s and became the program leader for the forest inventory program for all of Alaska at the Forest Sciences Laboratory in Anchorage before finally retiring.

After retirement, Jim worked as a forestry consultant at the University of Alaska, Anchorage as a forestry consultant. He was very committed to his work and the goals of U.S. Forest Service.

Many hours were spent involved with groups such as Farmhouse Fraternity, United Methodist Church, Toastmasters international, Lions Club, and Society of American Foresters to name a few. In later years he arranged travel to Indonesian, Italy, and Russia to collaborate with overseas foresters. Jim wrote numerous forestry publications as well. Jim always looked forward to hunting and fishing season, as well as ski season. He hunted dahl sheep, mountain. goat, moose, and caribou. Fishing the Kenai or dip netting were big treats too. He always preferred any outdoor experience: Whether hiking the Chilkoot Trail with son, Ken, and friends, canoeing on a lake, cross-country skiing into a peaceful meadow, or snorkeling in Hawaii, outdoor time was his preference.

David Michael “Dave” Jay 1936-2022

David Michael Jay passed away April 10, 2022, peacefully of natural causes. Dave leaves behind his wife Elva, who lovingly spent many great years together traveling and enjoying retirement.

Dave grew up on ranger stations in the Midwest and attended Southern Illinois University and the University of Michigan with a BS in forestry in 1959. In 1973, Dave received an MS in wildland fire science from

the University of Washington. Dave’s Forest Service career started at age 16 on a forest fire crew. After college, his first assignments were on national forests in the Pacific Northwest. Later assignments included the management of large wildfires, fire detail overseas, and increasing responsible administrative positions across the country. He retired as a senior executive in California in December 1991.

Dave had many hobbies and volunteer activities during his 30-year retirement. He first joined Rotary in Susanville, California, in 1980. He held many positions including District Governor in 2007-2008. Dave and Elva were Paul Harris Fellows and Benefactors. They participated in Friendship Exchanges and hosted numerous Rotarians and visitors from other countries.

As an accomplished woodworker, Dave made many furniture pieces for himself and Elva, Rotary auctions, friends and family. In his last few years, he shared many annual salmon fishing trips with his three sons in Campbell River, British Columbia. Fortunately, Dave was able to spend many years with Elva hosting their children and many grandchildren in their beautiful home they built on the ridge in La Center, Washington.

Stephen E. Armitage, Jr.

Steve Armitage passed on June 16, 2023. He had glioblastoma, a fast and deadly brain tumor. He loved his work with forestry and led many field trips for students through the woods to explain what trees were being cut and why! He worked hard to do good things for the forests in the Bureau of Land Management’s Medford District.

Jeremy Norby 1976-2023

While Jeremy’s life was cut short after a seven-month, hard-fought battle with leukemia, he had lived his life to the fullest. He married his college sweetheart, fathered three wonderful sons, and stayed true to the company that gave him a forest internship during college, and he proved himself time and time again to advance through its ranks.

A California native, Jeremy was born December 18, 1976, into a fourth-generation forestry family. He attended Fresno State University in Fresno, California, where he was a member of Lambda Chi Alpha. It was also where he would meet his future wife, Cher. After transferring to Oregon State University, he graduated from its College of Forestry in 2000 with a degree in forest engineering. Jeremy and Cher married after college and made their home in Springfield, Oregon where they welcomed sons Nik, Trent, and Jake.

With Giustina Resources, Jeremy found the family-owned company to be the perfect place to flourish in his career. He would go on

to earn his MBA in 2016 through the University of Oregon’s Executive MBA program. His continued leadership and contributions to Giustina found him ultimately promoted to Chief Operating Officer of both Giustina and the company’s family real estate division, G Group, which made him responsible for overseeing real estate holdings in Oregon, Washington, and Colorado. He felt a deep kinship to his work family and was so grateful for the invaluable mentoring Giustina’s leadership afforded him.

Jeremy had a personal passion and commitment to the protection of forests and communities. During the Holiday Farm Fire of 2020, he worked tirelessly as a private resource coordinator to secure crews and equipment that would be instrumental in protecting communities and forests in the McKenzie River drainage.

Jeremy loved the great outdoors, and he enjoyed hunting and fishing trips to some of the most beautiful areas of the country.

Calendar of Events

86th Annual Oregon Logging Conference, Feb. 22-24, Eugene, OR. Contact: oregonloggingconference.com.

43rd Annual Inland Empire Reforestation Council Meeting, March 5, Coeur d’Alene, ID. Contact: WFCA.

50th Annual Inland Empire Tree Improvement Cooperative Meeting, March 6, Coeur d’Alene, ID. Contact: WFCA.

2024 American Tree Farm System

National Conference, March 12-14, Vancouver, WA. Contact: https://www. treefarmsystem.org/2024nlc.

Environmental Forensics—Site Characterization and Remediation, March 18-19, Live Remote Attendance. Contact: NWETC.

He and his family loved traveling. They also appreciated time spent together on the Oregon coast at Ten Mile Lake and on the rivers and forests in Lane County. He was an avid fan of his sons’ athletic endeavors whether it be basketball, baseball, or his own personal favorite—soccer.

Jeremy was not inclined to waste words, but when he did speak, it was thoughtful, honest, and to the point. He was a man of deep faith and integrity. He always kept his word. In his personal and professional life, he was generous, kind, and supportive.

A scholarship fund has been set up in Jeremy’s name and honor to support students pursuing careers in forestry. Tax-deductible contributions can be made to: Jeremy Norby Scholarship c/o Oregon Logging Conference Foundation, PO Box 10669, Eugene, OR 97440. WF

International Mass Timber Conference, March 26-28, Oregon Convention Center, Portland, OR. Contact: masstimberconference.com.

Comprehensive Environmental Sampling; Methodology, Practice, and Analysis, March 28-29, Live Remote Attendance. Contact: NWETC.

Washington State SAF 2024 Annual Meeting, April 3-5, hybrid, Aberdeen, WA. Contact: forestry.org.

Alaska SAF 2024 Annual Meeting, April 25-27, hybrid, Sitka, AK. Contact: forestry.org.

Oregon SAF 2024 Annual Meeting, May 8-10, Ashland, OR. Contact: forestry.org.

2024 Northwest Scientific Association Annual Meeting, May 20-23, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA. Contact: www. northwestscience.org.

2024 SAF National Convention, Sept. 17-20, Loveland, CO. Contact: www. eforester.org/SAFConvention.

Contact Information

NWETC: Northwest Environmental Training Center, 1445 NW Mall St., Suite 4, Issaquah, WA 98027, 425-270-3274, nwetc.org.

WFCA: Western Forestry and Conservation Association, 4033 SW Canyon Rd., Portland, OR 97221, 503-226-4562, nicole@westernforestry.org, westernforestry.org.

Send calendar items to the editor at wattsa@forestry.org

Recognize the Accomplishments of SAF Members

Do you know of a SAF member who should be recognized for their accomplishments last year or over the course of their career? Then nominate them for a state award! The awardees will be recognized at the 2024 state society annual meetings.

Alaska Society of American Foresters State Awards—Nomination Deadline: March 15, 2024

• Alaska Field Forester of the Year

• Young Forester of the Year

• Service to Forestry Award

SAF Awards Portal Now Open for Nominations

Through our National, Fellow, and Presidential Field Forester awards, SAF honors both individual and organizational achievements for significant contributions to the profession. Help recognize excellence. Explore the different award categories and nominate a deserving colleague or peer today. Visit https:// www.eforester.org/Main/Community/Awards___Fellows/Awards.aspx.

National Award nominations are due by March 1, 2024, and the Outstanding SAF Student Chapter Award nominations are due by May 15, 2024. For assistance or questions regarding nominations please email awards@safnet.org. WF

• Chapter of the Year Award

• Forester of the Year Award

Nomination materials are available at https://forestry.org/alaska-awards/ and may be submitted to Clay Hoyt at ClayH@chugachmiut.org.

Oregon Society of American Foresters State Awards—Nomination Deadline: March 15, 2024

• Forester of the Year

• Young Forester Leadership

• Forestry Appreciation Award

• Tough Tree Award

• Chapter Achievement Award

• Research Award

• OSAF Heritage Award

• OSAF State University Student Award

• Community College Student Award

• Bob Kintigh Lifetime Achievement Award

• OSAF Honorary Membership

Nomination materials are available at https://forestry.org/oregon-awards/ and may be submitted to cochairs Jeremy Felty at jeremy.felty@gmail.com or Julie Woodward woodward@ofri.org.

Washington State Society of American Foresters—Nomination Deadline: March 5, 2024

• Forester of the Year

• Chapter of the Year

Nomination materials are available at https://forestry.org/washington-awards/ and may be submitted to Bill Horn (hornbill66@msn.com). WF

Shifting the Management Paradigm on the O&C Lands of Western Oregon

Continued from page 13

turally complex old growth, fire resilient forests, as well as sustaining younger age classes on this senstive, bio-diverse wonder. We also urged the BLM to prioritize the application of our restoration approaches on an accelerated timeline of 3-5 years following plan approval.

In late 2023, we released a summary of our full-length Forest Bridges’ Moist Forest Active Management Proposal for the O&C Lands of Western Oregon. We intend to submit a proposed Dry-Moist-Transitional Active Conservation Management alternative to BLM once the Oregon/ Washington State Office formally invites the public to contribute comments to its process for updating the Resource Management Plan (RMP) for Western Oregon. We anticipate the process opening to the public during the first half of 2024.

In addition to these efforts, Forest Bridges is also working with other organizations to help remove barriers to the use of prescribed fire as an essential wildfire mitigation/fire resilience-building tool (combined with thinning and other treatments) in fire-adapted forests such as the O&C dry forests. As a member of a national prescribed fire coalition, Forest Bridges has advocated to Congress and the EPA for the EPA to ease the burden of the current exceptional events rule governing precribed fire use, as well as to develop a system for differentiating precribed fire smoke from other pollutants (known as speciation) under the PM2.5 regulation, which is currently being updated. We see allowances for the smoke generated by prescribed fire, and in more well-timed, controlled ways in accodance to Tribal practices, as a shortterm risk for a long-term gain: dramatic reductions in both the current frequency of high-severity wildfires and protracted periods of wildfire smoke.

As a new member of the Oregon Prescibed Fire Council in 2023, we advocated for new legislation to address training and capacity issues, as well as liability constraints, for prescribed fire users (e.g., ‘burn bosses’) on private and public lands. With both state and federal advocacy, we have promoted inclusion and financial support of the Tribes as

As part of the collaborative process, Forest Bridges staff and volunteers have engaged BLM staff in the field to discuss management approaches and see the results of earlier treatments.

critical partners in advancing the use of beneficial fire on their homelands, which include the O&C Lands.

Looking ahead, and in addition to its core policy work as described, Forest Bridges seeks to expand its public base of support, known as Friends of Forest Bridges, who can support our Principles of Agreement and our collaborative efforts to shift the management paradigm on the O&C Lands. They believe, as we do, that future generations deserve O&C Lands that are biodiverse, wildfire-resilient, climate change-adapted, and supportive of vibrant rural economies, both in the forest and in the utilization of wood. WF

Denise Barrett is the executive director of Forest Bridges. She can be reached at denise@forestbridges.org.

2024 OREGON SAF ANNUAL MEETING

Forestry’s Changing Landscape: How Do We Meet the Challenge? May 8-10, 2024, Ashland Hills Hotel, Ashland, OR

The Oregon Society of American Foresters and the Siskiyou Chapter invite you to attend the 2024 Annual Meeting, May 8-10, at the Ashland Hills Hotel in Ashland. The last time the Siskiyou Chapter has hosted the annual meeting was 20 years ago, they look forward to hosting foresters and other resource professionals for the meeting!

This year’s theme is “Forestry’s Changing Landscape: How Do We Meet the Challenge.” Forests are dynamic; shifts in the social, ecological, and the economic landscape provide unique challenges put new opportunities and solutions. Join us as we provide general and concurrent technical sessions, field tours to the Douglas-fir mortality in Southern Oregon, and celebrate the many accomplishments of the members!

Final schedule and agenda will be coming shortly as will the registration prices.

Visit https://forestry.org/2024-osaf-annual-meeting/

PHOTO COURTESY OF FOREST BRIDGES

WSSAF’s Foundation Scholarship

Washington State Society of American Foresters (WSSAF) is accepting scholarship applications from students pursuing a degree in forestry. The scholarship is available to individuals who attend full time during the 2024–25 school year in a forestry program at one of the following schools:

• University of Washington, Seattle

• Washington State University, Pullman

• Green River College

• Spokane Community College

• Grays Harbor College

• Washington State residents attending an SAF-accredited program in pro-

Northwest Office Update

By Andrea Watts

This year brings change to the SAF Northwest Office. In November, the SAF Northwest Committee voted to contract with Western Forestry Conservation Association to provide managerial support for the office and I would remain as editor of the Western Forester. We had already contracted with WFCA for Melinda to provide administrative support for the office so nothing will change in terms of the customer service that the NWO provides. If anything, this partnership offers new and exciting opportunities for collaboration that include continuing to produce bilingual issues of the Western Forester and leveraging the expertise of SAF members with other natural resource organizations that WFCA provides support for.

Later this quarter, a survey will be sent to SAF membership seeking feedback on the preferred method of receiving the Western Forester and suggestions for how it can be improved. Looking ahead to future issues, the themes for the year are “The Latest on Carbon,” “Forest Health Update,” and “Restoration and Vegetation Management.” If you have any suggestions for articles or would like to contribute an article, please reach out to me, wattsa@forestry.org.

As always, don’t hesitate to reach out to myself, Melinda, or Nicole Jacobsen, the executive director of WFCA, if you have any questions. WF

fessional forestry or forest technology outside of Washington State

The application must be sponsored by a member of SAF.

The successful applicant(s) will be awarded a minimum of $1,000, receive complimentary registration to the 2024 WSSAF Annual Meeting and a complimentary one-year student membership to SAF. To receive payment, the successful applicant will be required to submit an enrollment verification form to WSSAF.

Requirements: Complete the application form along with the additional requested documents and email the scholarship package to: Chuck Lorenz cwlsaf@yahoo.com. The application form is available at: https://forestry.org/ wssaf-foundation-scholarship/.

The documents should be received no later than March 1, 2024. A receipt of application will be sent by March 11, 2024. The successful applicant(s) will be announced at the 2024 WSSAF Annual Meeting. WF

Society of American Foresters Year-End Review

By Ron Boldenow, CF

Iam wishing all a peaceful, productive, and prosperous year. The past year has been a busy one for national SAF, and I will highlight some of the accomplishments and activities. As of the beginning of January 2024, there were 9,209 SAF members. The good news is that over 500 of these members are new to SAF, and there are over 750 student members.

The attendance at the national convention in Sacramento was strong at 1,780 attendees. The atmosphere was close to that of a pre-Covid convention, with an enthusiasm and excitement of being together in-person to learn, listen, meet new people, and renew old friendships. There was a good representation of students and young professionals in attendance. The silent auction raised over $8,300, which was split between the Foresters Fund and the Kurt Gottschalk Science Fund. An “SAF2023 On Demand” website is now live and provides access to convention presentations. Convention attendees have free access while non-convention attendees will need to pay to access the recordings. This is a second chance to catch some of the excellent presentations at the Convention.

Start planning to attend the 2024 SAF National Convention, which will be held in Loveland, Colorado from September 17 to 20. The theme will be “The Resources We Manage.”

The incorporation of the 30 SAF state societies is nearly complete; just a few state societies are finishing the required legal tasks. The completion of the incorporation and the ongoing maintenance will mitigate the legal and financial risks to SAF and its volunteers. Don’t forget that national SAF does provide general liability insurance for local units and their directors and officers.

If you have not yet used the SAF Leadership Central website, check it out. As the name implies, it’s a central location for the materials and advice that SAF leadership at all levels will find useful. Two new features of the website are a State Society Compliance Checklist

and a Business Operations Handbook for Local Leaders. Also new last year is The Taproot, a newsletter for local leaders that is published every other month. Leadership Central is a source for other resources such as the SAF Action Calendar.

One thing I have learned during my first year on the SAF Board is how involved national SAF is in developing new and refining existing programs and cooperating with other forestry and conservation groups to promote responsible and sound forest management. Here are just a few of last year’s examples.

1) SAF’s transition to increased sponsorship with the Forest Service of the U.S. Capitol Christmas Tree.

2) The Urban and Community Forestry Certification program launched, and applications are now being accepted. We will soon have SAF-certified urban and community foresters.

3) SAF offered quarterly FIA Tech Transfer Sessions on how to effectively use FIA tools and resources. These sessions will continue to be held this year too.

4) The SAF cohosted the Forests and Climate Learning Exchange Series with Michigan State University.

5) SAF responded to the Mature and Old-Growth Forest Report.

6) The Policy Committee and Board completed six reviews of position statements and developed a new statement “Regenerating America’s Forests.”

7) SAF helped organize and moderate an educational session for congressional staff on wildland fire.

8) SAF commented on Forest Service’s proposed rulemaking on Climate Resilience and the BLM’s proposed rule on conservation.

I would be remiss without thanking Inland Empire SAF’s Chris Schenpf of Idaho for his service in representing District 1 on the Board of Directors for the past three years. To this year’s board, I wish to welcome Alaska SAF’s Ed Morgan who is the new District 1 representative, Oregon SAF’s Quinn Kawamoto as the new Young Professional Board Member, and Oregon SAF’s Dr. John Bailey as the new chair of the SAF Committee on Policy. Our region will be well represented on the SAF Board of Directors in 2024. WF

Ron Boldenow, CF, is the District 2 representative on the SAF Board of Directors.