Longleaf back in Vogue

By Jim Barnett

   When European settlers arrived in the South, longleaf pine forests covered about 90 million acres of the coastal plain from Virginia to East Texas. These forest ecosystems were maintained by fire—longleaf seedlings and saplings are tolerant of wildfires that eliminate other pine and hardwood species.

 Longleaf pine has many unique characteristics that make it very desirable and valuable, but also make it difficult to regenerate and manage. Aggressive harvesting practices used during the late 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in decimated forests and longleaf pine was so difficult to regenerate that other pine species, mostly loblolly and slash pine, were used to reforest the South.
 

Successful longleaf pine establishment results in stands that produce high value products such as poles and pilings, high-quality sawtimber, and now pine-straw mulch for urban landscaping.

Equally important is restoration of the longleaf pine ecosystem—it has the richest species composition outside the tropics. Large numbers of rare and threatened plants and animals occur within the longleaf ecosystem. It is a culturally, ecologically, and economically important tree species across the South.

Why then has the longleaf pine ecosystem become threatened itself—now only 2 to 3 million acres of longleaf forests remain?

The answer relates to the nature of the species. Longleaf pine as a seedling is shade intolerant. Seedlings evolve through a stem-less grass stage where they may remain for years, depending upon the severity of vegetative competition. The lack of frequent fires that reduce competition can delay height growth for years. Frequent prescribed fires are needed to establish and maintain the longleaf ecosystem.

Research initiated at the Forest Service’s Alexandria Forestry Center in the late 1940s emphasized longleaf pine reforestation and management. An early issue was seed quality. Seeds of longleaf pine are large, lack dormancy, and frequent damage during collecting and processing results in poor seed quality and storage capacity. Research has provided technology to produce seeds that retain excellent viability over 20 or more years of storage.

Production of abundant quantities of high quality seeds allowed the development of direct seeding technology that was applied to large acreages of cutover forest land in the 1960s and 1970s. This technology was used effectively on cutover land needing reforestation, but is used infrequently now due to limited sites where it is best applied.

In spite of significant strides in improving seed and seedling technology, success of planting bareroot nursery stock has remained poor. This has been due to competition, poor seedling quality, and difficulty in applying research recommendations on a commercial scale.  

Improved nursery practices where seeds are sown at low seed-bed densities have improved performance, and application of fungicides to roots at lifting in the nursery is effective in reducing storage pathogens that degrade seedlings held in cold storage awaiting planting.

However, many have found that success in establishing bareroot longleaf seedlings is dependent upon a number of interacting factors that are difficult to control: well-prepared, competition free sites; healthy top quality, fresh planting stock; meticulous care of stock from lifting to planting; and proper post-planting care.

In the 1970s, an effort began to evaluate production of southern pine seedlings in small containers. At that time most considered container nursery seedlings too expensive because the costs of production were at least double that of bareroot stock.

Seedling establishment of loblolly and slash pine using bareroot stock was usually successful. However, producing longleaf pine seedlings in containers was found to significantly improve seedling establishment. But, it was not until the late 1990s that interest in longleaf pine restoration reached a point where there was widespread use of container seedling technology.

Incentive programs of the early 2000s that were available primarily in the Southeast dramatically increased production of longleaf pine in containers. Of the 76 million longleaf seedlings planted in 2008, 84 percent were grown in containers. Container nurseries now produce most of the longleaf pine seedlings used in restoration.

As the use of container stock increased, need for seedling standards became obvious. Interim container seedling specifications have been developed that provide both producers and buyers guidelines for evaluating stock.

Restoring the longleaf pine ecosystem requires not only successful seedling establishment, but the species requires a level of competition control much higher than for other southern pines.

To initiate height growth, longleaf seedlings need to be of high quality, but also exposed to high levels of light. Typically, this is obtained by site preparation that limits growth of competition for one to two years.

Use of prescribed burning can be used in the second or third year after planting to release the seedlings if competition develops aggressively. Such fire is not only helpful in facilitating growth of seedlings, but it supports development of herbaceous understory plants that are typical of the longleaf pine ecosystem.

Long thought to be a slow growing species, recent research shows that with use of container stock and good site preparation, longleaf pine will initiate height growth in the second or third year after planting.

Once height growth begins, growth is rapid and productivity equals or exceeds that of loblolly or slash pine. Because the trees are very straight and self-prune well, a large portion can be marketed as poles or pilings. Also, harvest of longleaf pine straw for landscaping uses may equal or exceed the value of the timber.

The need for prescribed burning continues as longleaf pine stands develop. Restoration of the ecosystem requires more than successfully planting seedlings, it also requires control of woody and non-native competition.

Restoring the longleaf pine ecosystem requires significant commitment, but the result is definitely worth the effort.

(Dr. Jim Barnett is an Emeritus Scientist with the U.S. Forest Service.)

(For information on a cost-share program to plant longleaf pine, contact your local Natural Resources Conservation  Service or consult the NRCS website at www.la.nrcs.usda.gov.)

Volatile signs in uncertain times

  By Dr. Mike Dunn
  As a forest economist for the LSU AgCenter, I spend a good portion of my time reading about our economy – both the local forest economy as well as the national economy – and trying to relate what’s going on nationally and locally to our forest landowners here in Louisiana.  There are certain things that go on in the general economy that can provide us with clues about what might happen in our forest economy.  Here I will provide you with some of the data I follow, how these statistics interact with the forest economy, and, given the current state of these indicators and trends, what we forest landowners might expect over the next couple of years.

Housing
There is no single indicator that influences our forest products sector in isolation.  Most economic indicators interact in very complex ways.  It is this complex, dynamic interaction that makes forecasting so difficult (and why the most frequent response given by economists to questions is it depends).  However, one indicator that has enormous impact on the forest economy is the housing market.

 Single family home construction accounts for approximately 70% of domestic solid wood production in the United States.  In other words, of all the sawtimber harvested in the United States and used here at home (not exported), 70% of that harvest goes toward the construction of single family homes.

 In 2008, the housing market crashed after over 15 years of unprecedented growth. The reasons for this crash are numerous and too lengthy to detail here. The result of poorly defined federal policies combined with years of very low interest rates was a speculative bubble that arose in housing markets all across our country.

 When the housing market collapsed, it took the entire economy down with it.  Single family housing starts in the United States fell from nearly 2 million units per year to fewer than 450,000 units per year.  The collapse of the general economy meant that people lost jobs, and lost jobs meant no money for mortgages.  Housing prices plummeted.  Millions of homes were foreclosed.  All of those homes were now on the market for sale.  There is little need for new homes to be constructed when the market is dramatically oversupplied with cheap homes that already exist. 

It is now almost three years later since the housing market originally collapsed.  What do things look like now?  Not so good for the short term, unfortunately.

The federal government’s subsidy programs to assist with the purchase of new homes and help those in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure had some positive effect and that was reflected in the numbers throughout part of 2009 and 2010.  However, those programs have now expired and the housing numbers have more or less stabilized at a very low rate (still at or below a half million single family units per year).

 How long will it take to recover and what exactly will the new recovery level be? Will housing starts bounce back to figures well above one million starts per year or will they return to levels that are arguably more sustainable (say, 800,000 to one million units per year)?  At this point it is hard to say because the results depend on other variables, which are mentioned next.
Unemployment
The unemployment rate has been at a very high level for a very long time.  The official rate has held at above 9% for two years now.

The unofficial rate (the rate that includes “discouraged workers” or those that have stopped looking for work plus those that have settled for part time work because they can’t find full time work) has stubbornly remained above 17%.  This is critical.  More entities take more signals from unemployment than any other metric.
 
High unemployment rates mean large segments of the population have almost no purchasing power.  Since consumers account for about 70% of all economic activity in the United States, reducing that purchasing power by 17% has a big impact.

The good news is that employment rates are rising.  Companies are starting to hire again, albeit slowly and cautiously.  Just-released employment numbers show employment rates up about 150,000 at the end of January. 

Although this is good news, it does not necessarily mean that unemployment rates are falling (the rate of employment must be higher than the rate of unemployment for that to happen).  When employment rates reach 300,000 to 400,000 net additions the unemployment rate will start to significantly decline.  This is important to the economy’s health and to the health of our forest economy.  In terms of construction, more people will demand expensive durable goods like homes when they feel more secure about the long term viability of their jobs and their futures.

 When unemployment gets down to 5% or lower, most sectors of the economy should be in full bloom and confidence should return to high levels.  This could start to happen this year if all goes well and no systemic shocks occur.

Inflation and Interest Rates
In a normal economy interest rates exert a big influence on housing.  A one percent increase in mortgage interest rates can dramatically decrease the number of people in the mortgage market.  However, we are not in normal times.  We have experienced unprecedented low mortgage rates and the takers have mainly been re-financers.  However, higher rates will have a chilling effect on home sales.  One big factor that can influence interest rates is inflation.  When inflation rises, interest rates rise.  Our government has been printing a lot of money to stimulate our recessed economy.  Will this lead to increased inflation?

For forest landowners, higher interest rates mean the potential for alternative investments, and this means incentives to harvest timber to take the cash and invest in alternatives.

These are but a few of the important factors that help determine the direction of our forest economy.  There are others, such as demographics (an aging population and a slowdown in immigration are projected to be negative factors for the home construction industry), research and development, and household incomes, that bear on forest products markets.

These factors are important to follow but impossible to control.  Knowing what’s happening at the national level can help forest landowners make wise decisions about harvesting and management.
However, the most critical factors still remain those we can control.  Active management combined with good knowledge will provide us with the keys to a successful stand of timber and a vibrant local forest economy in the long run.

(Dr. Mike Dunn is leader of the Extension Natural Resources Program at the LSU AgCenter.)

Cleco biomass project offers new potential market

By Melanie Torbett

A new market for wood may be on the horizon in Louisiana if all goes well with a pilot project of Cleco Power LLC.

The central Louisiana-based energy company  will experiment this year with using  forest biomass as a supplemental fuel source for a new power generating unit located at its Brame Energy Center  near Boyce.  Cleco is gathering information this spring from wood suppliers, and hopes to conduct a “test burn” as early as May using biomass as part of the fuel mix.

Knowledge gleaned from the co-firing test, coupled with other research, will help Cleco  develop a request for proposals the utility expects to issue to potential suppliers later this year. 
  

Cleco designed  the  Madison Unit 3 — which began commercial operation in February 2010 —  so that it could use multiple solid fuels to generate power.  Its primary fuel  is petroleum  coke (pet coke), a byproduct of the oil refining industry, but the 600-megawatt unit’s boiler can also burn coal or biomass, a renewable fuel source, as part of its fuel mix.

“Co-firing” is the operative word here — it means simultaneous  combustion of different fuels in the same boiler.  If testing goes well, biomass  feedstock could  theoretically provide from five to 30 percent of the future fuel supply needed to produce electricity at the new M3 unit.

“We are trying to determine what the capabilities are of this new boiler,” explained Jody Bordelon,  director of renewable energy development for Cleco Power.  The technology that allows for diverse fuel sources at the unit is relatively new, and is used at very few plants in the country; none in Louisiana have this capability. It is more commonly used in European power plants.

Called “circulating fluidized- bed technology,”  the  methodology has the advantage of not only permitting the use of different fuels, but also lowering emissions. Using biomass — a carbon-neutral fuel — is a way to advance the company’s goal of reducing its carbon footprint. 

The pilot project is in response to urging from the  La. Public Service Commission that Louisiana utility companies actively look at adding renewable fuel sources to their portfolios. The PSC wants the companies to do research about costs and challenges of using these new fuel sources and report this information to the regulatory agency later this year.

Through the PSC’s renewable energy  pilot program, “Louisiana is trying to work toward determining whether to go down that road,”  said Bordelon.  “It’s somewhat of a first step.”

Cleco issued a “Request for Information” late in 2010 to wood suppliers to help get a picture of  the types and availability of potential wood fuel within a 100-mile radius of their Boyce power plant.  In particular, the utility is looking at using harvesting residues (branches and tops), rough cull material, small diameter trees from pre-commercial thinning and other low-value woody material.

Bordelon noted that the fuel needed “does not have to be a clean wood chip product,”  like that used by paper mills. Rather, he said, “We should be able to target lower cost, lower quality material” from the forest.

 This should be an advantage to loggers and timberland owners looking for new markets.

“I would think that having another outlet for woody biomass would be helpful to landowners, loggers and processors,” said Bordelon.  Thus far, he said, the response has been good. “Companies seem to be excited about having another market for wood products.” The Cleco plant’s location in the timber-rich, central part of the state heightens the practicality of trying to use wood biomass as a fuel source.

Practical aspects of the biomass supply chain — such as material delivery, handling and storage — must also be properly studied in the coming months, said Bordelon.  “The test burn is only one part of the process.”   The limitations and capabilities of many different systems within the plant will have to be  tested and evaluated, he said.

The co-firing test will be performed in conjunction with the regular operation of the M3 plant, Bordelon explained, and will likely take a week or two to complete. 

Though projections of how much biomass Cleco will require are difficult to estimate, the company indicated in its “Request for Information” document that “anticipated biomass fuel requirements could range from approximately 250,000 green tons per year to as much as 1.5 million green tons per year.”

 It is expected that the biomass materials will be delivered by truck, in chipped form.  “If the biomass co-firing project is approved, Cleco will establish and maintain an on-site bulk storage operation at its M3 facility,” the company document further states.

For the purposes of power generation, the moisture content of biomass fuel is critical. The less moisture, the better for the combustion process to work most efficiently.  Therefore, Cleco says it “intends to purchase biomass fuel based on the feedstock’s energy content.  Since woody biomass has relatively constant energy content (BTU/pound), on a practical basis this means that Cleco’s woody biomass pricing structure will be adjusted on the basis of the moisture content of the fuel as delivered.” (Cleco Request for Information for Biomass Fuels)

In addition, Cleco plans to give details about wood particle size and limitations regarding contaminants in its Request for Proposals that will be issued later this year. Potential suppliers will also be asked to provide information about their sustainable management practices, supply reliability, experience and qualifications.

The Madison Unit 3 generating unit is Cleco’s largest, and employs nearly 80 new employees in permanent positions. It is the company’s first regulated generation project in more than 20 years. Cleco Power LLC serves approximately 277,000 customers in Louisiana.

Potential biomass fuel suppliers who wish more information about the Cleco biomass project may email Jody Bordelon at Jody.Bordelon@Cleco.com.    

Problems in the state timber theft law

Opinion by Paul Spillers

According to Greek mythology, Pandora, acting contrary to instructions, opened a jar given to her that contained all the evils of the world. When the jar was opened all the evils were released unto the world, but for one thing trapped there.  Pandora managed to retain hope.  Much like Pandora, our Louisiana Supreme Court recently released an interpretation of timber piracy laws that will, if left unchanged, do great damage to our forests.  However, we have hope that legislative action will reinstate strong timber piracy laws for the protection of our forests. 

The case involves Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan, who while married,  purchased 120 acres of timberland in Claiborne Parish.  The land was owned as community property.  Each spouse owned an undivided 50% interest. The parties then obtained a divorce, but they continued to co-own the land. 
  
While co-owning the land, without any notice to Mrs. Sullivan and without her consent, Mr. Sullivan cut and sold the timber and directed the purchaser to pay the proceeds to his girlfriend.  Mrs. Sullivan finally discovered that her ex-husband had cut the timber. She brought suit, proved the stumpage value of her half interest was $52,596, and obtained a judgment from the court against Mr. Sullivan in the amount of three times the stumpage value ($157,788.00), plus attorney fees in the amount of $63,000. 
 
The court found Mr. Sullivan to be in willful violation of our timber theft statute and awarded Mrs. Sullivan three times (penalty damages) the stumpage value, plus attorney fees.  But, that’s not the end of the story.  The parties appealed to higher courts.  

The Louisiana Supreme Court finally held that the timber theft statute could not be applied to penalize Mr. Sullivan. The Supreme Court decided that he owed only the stumpage value even though he willfully pirated his co-owner’s timber. He owed no attorney fees or penalties.

 Specifically, the court held that the timber theft penalty “does not apply to a co-owner of timberland who cuts and then sells the timber from a tract he owns in indivision with another co-owner without the co-owner’s consent."   Six of the seven Justices joined in that decision.

 Justice Knoll refused to join the majority and filed a vigorous dissenting opinion.  She was, justifiably, alarmed by the majority’s failure to find that Mr. Sullivan was not “any person” as defined by the statute.  Mr. Sullivan certainly qualified as “any person”.   Because the majority found Mr. Sullivan was not “any person” he could not be subjected to penalties for a clear and willful violation of the law.  Justice Knoll said that our timber theft statute does not exempt co-owners who willfully cut and remove timber.  The statute, according to Justice Knoll,  was intended to cover “any person,”including co-owners who willfully cut timber on co-owned tracts. .  Justice Knoll “got it” and is to be commended for her courageous dissenting opinion.   Unfortunately, the other six Justices disagreed, let Mr. Sullivan off the hook, and watered down our timber theft statute.  The statute no longer has any bite.

Our timber theft law, as currently interpreted by our Supreme Court, does not penalize theft among co-owners.  In fact, the law as currently interpreted by our Supreme Court may actually encourage theft.  A co-owner who owns as little as an undivided 1% interest may cut co-owned timber and, if caught, be required to pay only the pro rata share owned by his co-owners. 

This result is described by Justice Knoll as a “catch me if you can” policy that thwarts the  intention of our legislature to preserve and protect our valuable timber resources when adapting the timber theft law.  A timber pirate today, once he owns any undivided interest, however minimal, is insulated from any penalties for pirating his co-owners’ timber.  If caught, the pirate pays only the pro rata value of the timber he obtained by illicit means.

 There is no longer any penalty for his wrongful act.  The Court’s decision now provides evildoers an opportunity to commit theft with impunity.  This result exposes our many co-owned forests to further degradation.  Co-owners now have one additional reason to not reforest after a harvest or otherwise properly manage their forests.  The risk associated with timber investing in Louisiana has increased due to our Court’s decision.  Our state will be harmed.

The Supreme Court did hear, but rejected, these concerns.  These concerns were set forth by the Louisiana Forestry Association in its “friend of the Court” brief. The Court suggested the LFA and its members bring their grievance to the legislature to consider a “change in the law."

We must follow the law as set forth by the Supreme Court, until that law is  changed.  The legislature can, and should, change it. Our legislature should make it abundantly clear that stealing timber, even by a  co-owner family member, is wrong and the penalty that must be paid is three times the stumpage value, plus attorney fees. 
 

  The Supreme Court has opened this Pandora’s Box and unleashed the evil of timber piracy into the forests of this state.  Citizens retain “hope” that our legislators fast come to appreciate the ill-effects of the Court’s decision and return the imposition of penalties to all who commit the wrongful act of timber theft.   Our forests are depending on our legislators.  If you agree, make a copy and send this to your legislator.  In the meantime, keep a watchful eye on your forest.

(Paul Spillers is an attorney in the firm of Theus, Grisham, Davis and Leigh,LLP in Monroe.)


 

Save our Office of Forestry!

By C.A. “Buck” Vandersteen

Who would ever have thought that this slogan would be applied to our Office of Forestry? We would expect to see it when saving whales, grizzlies, or some other threatened species, but our Office of Forestry (OOF)?

The Office of Forestry within the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry is facing serious budget and personnel cuts. Since 2008, the Office of Forestry has seen state appropriations drop $6.5 million, forcing a reduction in personnel some 58%. Each firefighter now must protect 185,000 acres of your forestland while his counterparts in other states protect less than 70,000 acres each.

Commissioner Mike Strain of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry is searching for ways to keep the Office of Forestry funded so it can remain effective and functional.

The financial crisis the state is in has made it very difficult for the Commissioner to get much support from the administration when state budgets look so dire.

We can certainly support budget cuts when they make the operations of state government more efficient. But when the cuts start to make the agency dysfunctional and ineffective, enough is enough.
 

The Office of Forestry has seen its state funding cut 28% since 2008. Over the same time period the Office of Forestry has reduced personnel by 52 firefighters. The OOF protects some 18 million acres of productive forests and forestlands. Their primary function is to keep these lands safe from wildfire, primarily caused by careless burning or more intentional arson.

When a wildfire begins, there are no property boundaries. Homes, personal property, and human as well as wildlife are all at risk. When you add the value of forests to the value of homes and property it quickly adds up to over $26 billion that these remaining 102 firefighters are protecting. It is almost impossible for these men and women to protect so much if there is a major conflagration. There is no backup and there is no safety net.

The travel time to get to fires is increasing as the remaining fire crews are strategically placed in parishes across the state to be sure to cover all areas. The OOF has prided itself in getting to fires within 20 minutes of a call. As that response time increases to 45 minutes or longer, the fires get better established and the risk of putting it out with minimal loss of assets increases.

We need to urge the administration and our legislators to stop further budget cuts. Any additional cuts will make the Office of Forestry ineffective and unable to perform its duty of protecting rural property and forest land from destruction.

Our firefighters serve the public in protecting valuable resources while exposing themselves to dangers and risks. They should be designated as Public Safety Personnel, a title that shields them from future job losses.

The Office of Forestry needs 40 additional firefighters to adequately protect the forest land across the state. Forest landowners pay 8 cents per acre for fire protection in most areas but there are some areas that pay nothing.

The Fire Protection Tax goes to purchasing and maintaining fire suppression and detection equipment. Additional money from the forestlands not currently paying the 8 cent tax could offset some of the maintenance costs and reallocate money to support more firefighters.

Commissioner Strain, State Forester Wade Dubea, and all the Office of Forestry personnel should be complemented for doing what they can to continue providing the best fire protection service to forest landowners and rural areas of Louisiana.

They have a difficult task and our support is critical in helping the Office of Forestry remain a viable and effective organization in Louisiana. You can help by letting your legislator know of the serious personnel and financial crisis facing our forestry agency.

Save Our Office of Forestry!