Winter 2015 - woodlandowners.org2015-01).pdf · Jim Chapin – Southwest Director California [email protected] Linda L. Finley – Mid Atlantic Director Pennsylvania [email protected]

Magazine of the National Woodland Owners Association

AMERICAN

.net

Winter 2015

Invasion of the Invasives

FAMILY LANDOWNERS“INDEPENDENT BY NATURE”

NATIONAL WOODLANDS WINTER 20152

National Woodland Owners Association... Your Friendly Voice in Washington, DC

Join National Woodland Owners AssociationTogether we can promote the ABCs of woodland stewardship.

HOW DO WE DO IT?

We are a reliable and prominent voice in Washington, DC

National Woodlands Magazine, our highly acclaimed quarterly magazine

Wednesday Woodland Word, our weekly E-newsletter

Top rated, low cost liability insurance

Networking with state affiliates

AdvocateBetterCommunication

for fair taxes, good markets, and property rights

knowledge of forest management

with state and federal governments

Please mail this application to: NWOA, 374 Maple Ave E, Suite 310, Vienna, VA 22180, or Fax it to: NWOA at 703-281-9200, or Join over the telephone: 703-255-2700

NAME

ADDRESS

STATE ZIP

PHONE FAX

EMAIL Number of Woodland Acres Owned

Check Enclosed Visa/MC Exp. Date code (not a membership requirement)

Sustaining Membership* Individual Membership

$45.00 $80.00 $35.00 $60.00

1 Year 2 Year

* A sustaining membership provides additional funding to help NWOA grow and do more for you

1 Year 2 Year

WE FLY ON OUR OWN WINGS

You are receiving National Woodlands once a year as a benefit of your mem-bership in one of our affiliated state landowner associations. We have affili-ates in 45 states, and yours is one of them. This Winter issue features forestry in the Southern states.We invite you to join NWOA as a “National” member and receive all four is-sues, or you can continue to receive these annual regional issues once a year as an “Affiliate” member. Every day we promote the common sense ABCs of Woodland Stewardship, in your state and nationwide.

Advocate for fair taxes, good markets, and property rights

Better knowledge of forest management

Communication with landowners and forest agencies

HOW DO WE DO IT? THE OLD FASHIONED WAY• As an experienced and respected voice in Washington D.C. • Through outstanding articles and updates in NATIONAL WOODLANDS

magazine. • In the WEDNESDAY WOODLAND WORD, our weekly E-newsletter.• Offering the Top Rated Woodland Liability, Hunter Liability, and Wildfire Insurance at the lowest price. • Networking with our 50 affiliated state landowner associations.

.net

DO YOU RECEIVE NATIONAL WOODLANDS ONLY ONCE A YEAR?WHY NOT JOIN NWOA AND GET ALL FOUR ISSUES A YEAR?

3 NATIONAL WOODLANDS WINTER 2015

PublisherKeith A. Argow, Ph.D.

Executive EditorEric A. Johnson

Forester & Project Manager Garin M. Peck

Business ManagerConnie Blair

Forest Tax CounselLinda Wang

Contributing WritersRita Hite

Rick HamiltonWilliam M. Ciesla

NATIONAL WOODLANDS is published by the Na-tional Woodland Owners Association to promote the wise use of America’s forest resources. Subscribers include landowners, professionals in the natural resources disciplines, companies and individ uals associated with the forest products industry, librar-ies, government agencies, and other people who have an interest in forestry.

All rights reserved. Contents may be reproduced with proper attribution to National Woodlands (including the address). Opinions expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the policy of the publisher or National Woodland Owners Association.

NATIONAL WOODLANDS (ISSN 0279-9812), Winter 2015, Volume 38, No. 1. Published quar-terly, in Winter, Spring, Summer and Autumn by the National Woodland Owners Association, 374 Maple Ave. E., Suite 310, Vienna, VA 22180-4751; tel. (703) 255-2700. U.S. subscriptions: $35 for one year or $60 for two years, through membership in the National Woodland Owners Association; sustaining member rates are $45 per year, $80 for two years. For delivery to Canada, Europe, and most International addresses, add an additional $10 for postage. Back issues, if available, are $3 each, postage paid. Editorial offices: 41 Fountain St., Clinton, NY 13323.

NATIONAL WOODLANDS

Ten Predictions for Wood Consuming Industries in 2015 ..................................7 Pete StewartNon-Native Invasive Plants: A Growing & Serious Problem ..............................8Indiana Landowners Spend Millions Battling Invasives ...................................11 Ellen JacquartStrategies for Confronting a Spreading Invader ...............................................12What is the Federal Government Doing to Combat Invasives? .......................14Integrated Vegetation Management ....................................................................18 Peter SmallidgeVanishing Pieces of the Puzzle ............................................................................. 33 Tom MartinThe First Decision: Managing Previously Unmanaged Stands.......................... 36 Charles E. McGeeTimber and Taxes: Questions Answered ............................................................. 40 Linda WangFederal Government Questions Oregon Logging ............................................... 43The Pickaroon ......................................................................................................... 44 Eric Johnson

Washington Woodland Watch ...............................................................................4Family Forestry Commentary ................................................................................5Conservation News Digest ....................................................................................6Quotes of the Quarter ............................................................................................6The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number .....................................................22National Historic Lookout Register ....................................................................24Woodland Report ..................................................................................................28Annual Reports from the Southern Alliance of Landowner Assoc. .................30American Loggers Council/NWOA Working Together ......................................32Women Owning Woodlands ................................................................................34The Readers Respond..........................................................................................46News from the Regions ........................................................................................47

Contents

On the Cover: Cogongrass invading a south-ern pine plantation. Chris Evans, Illinois Wildlife Action Plan, from Bugwood.org.

Volume 38, Number 1 Winter 2015

NWOA Board of DirectorsKeith Argow – President & CEOWashington, DC/[email protected] Courter – Chairman and NW [email protected]

Philip Gramelspacher – Vice Chairand Heartland Region [email protected]

Dale Zaug – Treas. & No. Central [email protected]

Jim Chapin – Southwest [email protected] L. Finley – Mid Atlantic [email protected] Hamilton – Southeast DirectorNorth [email protected] Hubbard – Gulf States Director [email protected]

Lyle Laverty – Rocky Mtn./Great Plains [email protected] McKinley – South Central Driector [email protected] Robertson – Northeast Director [email protected] Sitts – At Large DirectorNorth [email protected]


WashingtonWoodlandWatch

Woodland and Forestry IssuesMoving Forward in the 114th Congress

Given all the political posturing and negative debate in the news media, it is good to see that woodland and forestry issues made progress in the first month of the new 114th Congress. Foremost among these are the important incentives for conser-vation and income tax reductions within the new Conservation Easement Incentive Act of 2015 (H.R. 641). On February 4 the House Ways and Means Committee ap-proved H.R. 641 and at press time it appears likely that the Rules Committee will combine all the proposed charitable incentives, including this one, into a single bill for a floor vote. Committee Democrats oppose the bills because they are not paid for with tax increases. The Democratic leadership is opposing all tax cuts, on the grounds that they are adding to the deficit, and taking away revenue needed to support domestic discretionary programs and tax cuts for lower income Americans. NWOA and others in the forestry community recognize that tax cuts can add up to a big problem, but the easement incentive is small ($1.2 billion over ten years), and the benefits to society from these working forests are estimated at least $2.8 billion over the same period. Donations of permanent conservation easements on woodlands to charitable forestry programs and land trusts help guarantee that working forests remain as working forests. Landowners remain in charge of managing their forests. The House Ways & Means Committee is also beginning work on what could be a complete overhaul of the federal tax code. Too often this means throwing out the good along with the bad. Current provisions in the tax code recognize that timber is real estate and reflect the unique nature of owning and managing private forest land. While this seems to be just plain common sense, it has not always been that way. For instance, it took many years of targeted efforts by NWOA and others to win capital gains treatment for sales of standing timber, as compared to the trees being cut but not sold until they were received and measured at the mill. For the great majority of family woodland owners, many of whom will make only one or two harvests in their lifetimes, selling timber already measured and still standing is much easier than involving multiple parties usually unknown to them (loggers, haulers, and mill buyers). For these reasons, NWOA has always recommended lump sums sales except in unusual markets. The drawback was that landowners doing that could not claim capital gains for timber sold. It made no sense, but it

was the law. The 2015 Tax Law must include the following current provi-sions:

• All timber harvested must receive capital gains treatment (except short-term ownership).

• The costs of forest management, including prevention mea-sures (fire, pest and disease), thinning, fertilization, interest paid, taxes, protection of wetlands and forestry activities must all be tax deductible.

• Must retain the ability to deduct up to $10,000 per year of reforestation costs, with the reminder credits spread out over a period of seven years.

All of these provisions will be watched closely as the legisla-tion moves forward. Yet another positive boost from Congress is buried in the 2015 Fiscal Year Omnibus Appropriations Act (H.R. 83) passed in December and signed into law by President Obama. While not a direct benefit, woodland owners in Mississippi and Wisconsin may receive a bit more for their trees because log haulers will be able to carry larger loads to the mill. Increasing log weights when it can be done safely and without damage to roads has been a long term goal of the Forest Resources Association, a NWOA partner. When U.S. Highway 41 becomes Interstate 41 in southeast-ern Wisconsin, and when U.S. Highway 78 in northeastern Mississippi becomes Interstate 22, the current vehicle weights for forestry and agriculture products on those routes will be grandfathered in. Being able to use interstate highways saves log truckers both time and money. —KAA

DID YOU RECEIVE TWO COPIES OF THIS ISSUE?IF SO, PLEASE PASS IT ON TO A FRIEND

EACH QUARTER WE MAIL AN INTRODUCTORY COPY OF NATIONAL WOODLANDS TO LANDOWNERS, FORESTERS AND LOGGERS WHO ARE GOOD PROSPECTS FOR JOINING NWOA.

WE TRY HARD TO REMOVE DUPLICATE ADDRESSES, BUT THEY DO SLIP THROUGH

SHARE YOUR ADDITIONAL COPY WITH OUR COMPLIMENTS


Keith A. Argow, PublisherKeith A. Argow, Publisher

Our Biggest Issue Ever!So is The Invasion of the Invasives

Sound like hype? Perhaps a double meaning? Well yes it is. There are 56 pages in this magazine, our largest ever. And Invasive Plant Species, the special focus of this issue, are fast becoming the biggest most widespread manage-ment issue woodland owners are faced with. Look at that Cogon-grass on the cover. If a match is dropped on it when it is in this flowering stage, it will burn like gasoline and kill or degrade the valuable stand it underlies. This landowner should take aggressive precautions now. Last quarter I said with pride that NWOA had just completed our most successful year ever. This didn’t just happen by itself. It is because you, our members, are telling us more about what you want. Some of your many questions can be answered in the Readers Respond column (p. 46). Others require a series of articles about the latest information on current trends throughout the U.S. In this issue, the focus is on the spread and control of invasive plants. Those articles cover 17 pages —our largest presentation ever, made possible by our expanded size. We are now adding a second track of subjects in the magazine. The first you are already familiar with: features about the Top Ten Family Forestry Is-sues. These topics are selected and ranked every year by the leaders of our affiliated state landowner associations. Previously we have featured wild-fire, invasive insect species, woody biomass, forest management, timber and land taxes and more. In the com-ing months, look for stories about alternative income ideas: maple syrup, hunt leases, holiday wreaths, growing

mushrooms and home use of wood. The second area of interest explores the regional differences between woodlands grouped into the four forest eco-zones: north—south—east—west. This structure reflects the four regions

represented by our state affiliates. As in the past, we group articles about “Top Ten issues” in the front half of the magazine. In the second part we carry articles of a more regional nature, such as the article in this issue about hardwood management in the southern and central forests. We lead this section with the annual reports of the Southern Alliance of Landowner Associations. The second section will also carry our important regular columns: Timber Taxes, Women Owning Woodlands, and the very poplar Regional Reports, fea-turing breaking news from each of the ten NWOA regions. The other regular columns: Washington Woodland Watch, Conservation News Digest, Woodland Report (both National and State), and my Family Forestry Commentary will remain in their regular positions. Part of the reason we are able to nearly double the size of the magazine is due to the support of our four new advertisers. Staples has long shown support for both sustainable and certi-fied forestry in the retail market. It is easy to thank them just by buying your office supplies next time from one of their stores. We have worked for awhile with the two wildfire suppressant advertisers. Both products are designed for family woodland owners. These products are

both well tested and reasonably priced. Having them takes some of the fear out of wildfire. The pump unit is designed to fit on an ATV or pickup. And, if you like mushrooms and might want to grow them, the Field Forest

Products advertise-ment offers advice and useful material. Finally, I want to draw attention to our extraordinary new

wildfire insurance. There is no insur-ance product like it and it is a truly good buy. You will read on pp. 25-27 that NWOA worked for three years to develop this entirely new insurance, where the risk is spread nationwide, because we are a nationwide organization with 37,000 national and affiliate members. As we do with both the vacant land liability insurance and the hunt club insurance, we service these programs ourselves. You know who you are calling with questions, and have ready answers because more of our members are finding they want it. We launched the wildfire insurance program in last summer’s “wildfire focus” issue with good response, but have fielded many good questions from many of you since then. Because it is an entirely new product with many variables, we have streamlined the process of application and review by the insurance underwriters. We can process these quickly, but folks are advised not to wait until the busy fire season to apply. You may wish you had done it earlier. There you have it. There is a lot to digest here. Questions and letters from you all are always welcome.

—KAA [email protected]

In the coming months look for stories about alternative income ideas: maple syrup, hunt leases, holiday wreaths, growing mushrooms and home use of wood.

Family


Forestry Quotes of the QuarterForestry Quotes is a regular feature highlighting the breadth, diversity, fervor and opposing views surrounding current forestry issues.

“Many of the offspring, grandchildren, are more urbanized and don’t have the interest or the roots in the land. It is a subject people don’t like to talk about, their demise, and they keep putting it off.”

Putnam Blodgett, President, Vermont Woodlands Association Masslive.com. December 12, 2014

”During the first week of September, homeowners in New Hampshire paid about $25, $34 and $45 per million Btu for fuel oil, propane and electricity respectively. Those using bulk-delivered wood pellets and cordwood paid half that amount or less.”

Anna Simet, Biomass Magazine, November 2014

“Researchers at the U.S. Forest Service report that America’s forests—which currently absorb about 15 percent of carbon emissions from all U.S. power plants, industry and transportation—are gradually losing that ability. Within just a few years, our forests are projected to shift from absorbing large amounts of carbon pollution to become a net source of carbon emissions themselves.”

V. Alaric Sample, President’s ReportPinchot Institute for Conservation, November 20, 2014

NAT I O NA L

WOOD L AND OWNE R S

N W O A

The News Service ofTHE NATIONAL WOODLAND OWNERS ASSOCIATION

Keith A. Argow, EditorWashington, D.C.

VOL. 24, NO. 3JUL/AUG/SEP 2005VOL. 34, NO. 3

WINTER 2015SINCE1982

California’s Moonlight Fire is HistoryBut the Legal Battles Continue A judge in Plumas County has found CalFire (the state forestry and wildfire agency) guilty of “egregious and reprehensible conduct” in its ef-forts to collect $8 million in firefighting costs for the Moonlight Fire of 2007. He ordered the state to pay more than $32 million in penalties, legal fees and costs to Sierra Pacific Industries and others accused of causing the fire. As the primary defendant, Sierra Pacific had already spent $10 million to contest the state claims. There followed, as might be expected, a furious round of appeals. One of the most noteworthy is a complaint by Calfire retirees that the Attorney General’s office had botched the investigation and besmirched the reputation of CalFire law enforcement officers, current and retired. To make matters more confusing, Sierra Pacific had already settled its lawsuit with the U.S. Forest Service in 2012 with a protracted payment of $55,000 plus 22,500 acres of company

woodland to be transferred to the Forest Service. For a summary of this burning issue, see story in National Review, Dec. 17, 2014 by Jonathan Kleim.

Climate Change Leaving LoggersStuck in the Mud The number of weeks that the ground remains frozen in the northern forests has significantly decreased over the last 65 years, shortening harvest seasons and causing difficulty for both loggers and mill procurement foresters. Having the ground stay frozen from the winter through early spring is essential for loggers to be able to bring in their har-vesting equipment and trucks without compacting the soil and tearing up the ground. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in one of the states hardest hit by the occurrence of earlier spring break up, looked at temperature records dating back to 1950 and docu-mented an obvious trend. The impact of early thaw has received more atten-tion since the widespread acceptance

by loggers and landowners of Best Management Practices as a soil and water quality concern. Global warming has also manifested in more intense “winter thaws” when even short-term warm weather events cause normally solid woods and county roads to turn to mud.

Timberland Now a Better InvestmentThan Farmland in the U.S. For the first time in four years timber-land has proved a better investment for Americans than farmland. The appar-ent reason is that the improved world economy brought increased demands for American wood for both construc-tion and energy (especially woody biomass). According to the National Council of Real Estate Investment, in the third quarter (July-September), timberland returned 1.47 percent, narrowly outpac-ing farmland returns of 1.45 percent. Most of this increase came from land value appreciation, which was 0.74 per-cent for timberland and 0.48 percent for farmland. The driving factor continues to be real estate value. One of the causes for this increase is the cyclical increase of woodland prices which had declined during the recent recession. Another is the stronger than expected increase in world softwood trade which rose seven percent in the first half of 2014 and by year end is expected to be 36 percent higher than in 2009. Bottom line: your woodland remains one of the safest, profitable, and hopefully the happiest investments you and your family ever made.

LEED v4 Delayed for One Year,Green Builders “Not Ready” The U.S. Green Building Council, which sets the most widely adopted standard of environmentally friendly certificates for construction of public and private buildings, has delayed the full implementation of the latest periodic revision (v4) of the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification, saying that 61 percent of builders are “not ready.” NWOA


1. The sleeping giant will awake to biomass demand. For years, the pulp and paper indus-try’s attitude toward bioenergy demand has shifted between head-in-the-sand and wait-and-see. In 2015, this sleep-ing giant will awaken as pockets of the U.S. South experience significant price appreciation, the result of increased competition.

2. Pine fiber supply will be tight and get tighter. There will be no easy way out of tight pine fiber markets in 2015. Pine fiber demand from pulp/paper mills, OSB mills, small log sawmills and pellet manufacturers will ratchet higher. It will be at least a decade, when trees planted after years of delayed sawtimber har-vests will be ready for a first thinning, before supply restrictions abate.

3. Conflict between new entrants and old will come to a head. New entrants are likely to face stiffer resistance to plans as forest products companies take a more active role in protecting their supply.

4. The pellet industry will grow be-cause demand is tied to regulation, not economics. The industrial wood pellet industry will

continue to grow despite the availability of much cheaper oil and natural gas because demand is tied not to these economic harbingers but to regulation. The extent of this growth will be deter-mined once UK and EU requirements for sustainable biomass are clarified. Based on missed deadlines for previous announcements on matters of sustain-ability, I have no prediction about when that might happen.

5. The strong U.S. dollar will inhibit exports. Despite the feeling of many econo-mists that the U.S. dollar might be in trouble in 2014, the dollar is actually in a strong position as the year closes. This will continue throughout 2015 and most of 2016. The downside, of course, is the crimp the strong dollar puts in the competitive position of U.S. manufactured goods around the world.

6. Weakening world economies will mean increased imports of wood and paper products to the U.S. Most other economies around the world are experiencing slower growth or contractions, and that means their manufactured goods will be good buys in the U.S.

7. No rebound in solid wood, on top of increasing imports, will degrade the economics for lumber mills. The housing market has stalled at 1 to

10 Predictions for Wood Consuming Industries in 2015

by Pete Stewart*

*President and CEO of Forest2Market

1.1 million starts (SAAR) annually. And we don’t see this getting significantly better in 2015 or 2016. Profitability at lumber mills will come under pressure as a result.

8. China still drives the train, but the train will have fewer cars. China’s economy continues to dominate world markets, but growth has slowed. It will continue to slow in 2015, leading to lower demand for pulp, logs, lumber and recovered fiber from suppliers across the world. With Euro-pean economies in the doldrums, these suppliers will look to the US markets as a place to off-load these commodities.

9. The Brazilian economy will weaken further in 2015. Along with a weaker Real and slack domestic markets, Brazilian solid wood producers will look to the U.S. to move product. New hardwood kraft pulp pro-duction coming on line will seek a home in the U.S., putting further pressure of the U.S. hardwood pulp producers.

10. Wood-based biofuels and bio-chemicals markets will begin to toddle in 2015. These markets are currently in their infancy, equivalent to the size and shape of the pellet market in 2008. The fundamentals are favorable, however, so they may just find their feet in 2015.

NWOA


Only recently has the extent of inva-sive plant occupation in the southern United States and elsewhere in the world been realized. There are currently 56 recognized plants that have invaded forests, natural areas, pastures, rights-of-way, orchards, grasslands, and wetlands of the Eastern United States. Coming rather quickly in the past 10 to 50 years, the extent and spread of nonnative plant species has taken many people by surprise, and it is still not comprehended by most citizens and policy makers. One thing is starkly apparent, how-

ever: Forest preserve, right-of-way managers and landowners need to act fast to stop the rapid encroachment of nonnative invasive plants, eradicate infestations, and restore native com-munities. It was only in 1999 that President Clinton issued the executive order defining an “invasive species” and mandating specific federal actions. The definition of an invasive species in that order is: (1) a species that is non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration, such as the Southeast; and (2) whose introduction causes or

is likely to cause economic or environ-mental harm or harm to human health. Thus, a plant invader is any plant species that occurs outside its area of origin and that has become established, can reproduce, and can spread without cultivation, and causes harm. The dam-ages and impacts of nonnative invasive plants have not been completely deter-mined, but the following are generally recognized:• Limit or stop productive land manage-

ment and regeneration of forests and grasslands.

• Displace and permanently decrease biodiversity and wildlife habitat.

• Alter vital ecological processes such as soil formation, watershed function, and pollination of native plants.

• Limit land access for recreation such as hiking, fishing, hunting, and bird watching.

• Produce overabundant pollen that causes widespread allergic reactions in humans.

• Present extreme fire hazards to forests, preserves, and homes.

• Can be poisonous to humans and livestock.

• Harbor plant diseases.• Cause psychological anxiety through

a sense of the inability to control our surroundings.

Non-Native Forest Invasive PlantsAre a Growing & Serious Landowner Concern

Bermudagrass can rapidly take over the forest understory.

Tall Fescue Spread


Not all nonnative plants are invasive, and a few are among our most valued crops, e.g., wheat, barley, oats, and a Na-tive American introduction from Mesoamerica—corn. Other nonnative grasses are the mainstay forage species, although most of these are invasive in forests or forest openings, such as Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L_) Pers.], bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flueggé), and tall fescue [Schedonorus phoenix (Scop.). Plant breeding programs over the past 100 years have yielded numerous varieties of each crop and forage species that give landowners plants with increased productivity, usable yields, and tolerance to a wider range of growing conditions and predators. Over the past 50 years, the explosion in the number of ornamental and horticultural species and abundant variet-ies has yielded benefits to many aspects of modern society, such as landscape beautification and rapid-growing shade trees and shrubs, but have taken their toll on our natural ecosystems. The social costs of annual maintenance control of these

introduced invasive species have skyrocketed in our yards, parks, green spaces, and along rights-of-way as well as forests, grasslands, and wildlands. Nonnative plants become invasive for many reasons. The following are among the traits that help non-native species establish and spread:

• Early introduction in the 1700s and 1800s as ornamentals or forages, resulting in a long period of spread, hybrid-ization, and adaptation (Hundreds of thousands of small farmers planted ornamentals around their houses, and the plants remained alter the great exodus in the late 1800s and early 1900s to cities).

• Rapid early growth rates that outpace native cohorts. • Few native predators and a resiliency to predation by

insects, pathogens, and mammals. • Production of abundant fruit and seed at a young age. • Seed that is readily spread by wind, water, birds, and

mammals. • Seed that can remain viable in the soil for one year and

U.S. Forest Service research and funding have led to the development of a free software application that will help people identify and control destructive invasive plants in Southern forests and grasslands. Development of the application is part of the Forest Ser-vice’s multi-faceted strategy to reduce the impact of nonnative species—animals, pathogens and plants. These foreign invaders deplete water supplies, poison wildlife and livestock, and damage property in urban and rural areas at a cost of about $138 billion an-nually. Cogongrass, nonnative privets, autumn olive and tallowtree are among the most common plants plaguing the South. “Invasive plants are one of the greatest threats to our forests and grasslands,” said Leslie Weldon, deputy chief of the National Forest System. “They dam-age our environment and economy by destroying native trees and plants and limiting access to recreation areas. This new application provides an opportunity for more landowners, land managers and concerned citizens to join the fight in protecting our lands.” The Invasive Plants in Southern Forests: Identification and Management application is currently only compatible with Apple products—iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch—and available through iTunes. The software provides photos and information that allow users to identify the 56 nonnative plants and plant groups currently invading the forests of the 13 southern states. Versions for other operating systems are being explored. A grant from the Southern Research Station funded the application, which was developed by the University

of Georgia Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. The software is based on Southern Research Station field and management invasive plant guides. Like the guides, the app divides invasive plants into trees, shrubs, vines, grasses, ferns and forbs and provides

identification keys, photos and manage-ment recommendations. App users also get simple, on-the-spot options for treating invasive plants. Since their release, more than 200,000 copies of the Southern Research Station guides have been distributed. The plant app is expected to inform many more people about the impact of invasive plants and get them involved in eradication ef-forts. “Ultimately we hope this app will give people a new tool to go out and identify invasive plants and map their occur-rence,” said Southern Research Station Research Ecologist James Miller, who co-authored the application’s source guides. “Effective control relies on understanding of species including their biology, their preferred habitats, and how they spread across the landscape. Those are impor-tant first steps in stopping and containing the invasions of harmful nonnative plants.”

Future versions of the application will include the ability to directly report new sightings of select species into the Georgia Center’s Early Detection and Distribution Map-ping System, which provides a quick way to submit photos and report new sightings of invasive plants on the spot throughout the United States. For more information on the threat of invasive species, go to the Forest Service’s Invasive Species Program page at http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/.

Forest Service Develops Smartphone App For Identifying Invasive Plant Species


even up to decades. • Roots or rhizomes that persist and resprout after topkill

following herbicide applications, cutting, or burning and that glow outward to yield intensified and dense infestations.

• Capability to establish and spread in sites of periodic disturbance, such as along ever expanding forest edges, on rights-of-way, along stream and river banks, and in abandoned crop and pasture lands.

• Capability to adapt and spread in a new site through a “set-and-wait” strategy until conditions are suitable.

• Wide tolerance to shade, drought, soil conditions, and flooding that gives a decided advantage over native plants.

• Capability of forming exclusive (or limited species) dense infestations through their high amount of leaf area that is often evergreen or appears earlier in spring and sheds later in fall compared to native species.

• Capability of suppressing other plant seed germination and growth by releasing allelopathic chemicals (through the invasive plant’s foliage and roots).

• Alter biogeochemical cycles and soil microbial communi-ties that favor invaders over native plants. The more of NWOA

these traits a nonnative species might have, the greater its likelihood of success in establishing itself and spreading, as well as resisting control and eradication.

Recently escaped plants can remain at low levels of scat-tered occurrence known as the “lag phase” but then come into an era of rapid increasing spread. Invasive traits can be enhanced through hybridization with native or non-native plants of the same genus. There are nonnative plants at every stage of invasion in the Southeast, while across the region none are yet at the “maximum occupation” phase. Many currently “naturalized” plants in the early lag phase will likely become invasive due to selective adaptation and hybridization as well as increased disturbed habitat for establishment.

This article is adapted from the USDA publication, A Management Guide for Invasives in Southern Forests by James H. Miller, Steven T. Manning and Stephen F. Enloe. It may be viewed on the web at http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs131.pdf

Three over arching concepts provide powerful ways to get organized and counter invasive plant takeovers: adaptation, collaboration, and restoration.

• Adaptation, or adaptive resource management, generally refers to a community shared process of self-conscious learning by doing. The process involves goal setting, gaining experience and research findings, and monitor-ing actions and outcomes with rapid incorporation of new knowledge into refined goals and actions. It is a corporate cycle process of learning, adapting, and man-aging. It is a process of optimal decision making in the face of uncertainty with an aim of reducing uncertainty over time by monitoring results of actions and careful adjustments to improve outcomes. We do not have all the solutions for fighting the invasion of nonnative plant species, but, by pooling our information resources, we can learn together how to improve our approaches and treatments. We must make full use of print and web resources, and we can become even more effective by paying attention to new and forthcoming information.

• Collaboration with adjacent and area landowners is es-sential because invasive plant infestations most often occur across ownership and political boundaries. For greatest effectiveness, we must develop and use com-munication networks to link local, county, State, and regional programs.

• Restoration of infested lands to healthy and productive ecosystems must be our guiding objective. We only can be successful with eradication, control, and containment of invasive plants through the establishment of desir-able and useful plants that protect soil, produce needed resources and habitats, and safeguard our lands from a resurgence of invasive plants. We must identify, estab-lish, and culture resistant and resilient plant communities on rehabilitated and restored lands, and then we must

monitor these communities for the first possible signs of returning invasive plants. Restoration approaches for most invasive plants are just being developed and will require adaptive management cycles to perfect.

General Principles for Managing Nonnative Invasive Plants


Hoosiers are spending a lot of money to control invasive plants. A recent survey found that landowners and managers in Indiana spent $5.85 million in 2012 to manage invasive plants on their land. Responses came from 116 agencies, land trusts, municipalities, contractors, and private landown-ers around the state representing more than 650,000 acres of managed public and private land. State agencies and municipalities spent the greatest amount, followed by land trusts. The survey revealed that a wide variety of invasive plant species are being managed in Indiana, from kudzu to tree of heaven. Garlic mustard is the invasive plant species that more people are working to control than any other. The sec-ond most frequently managed invasive plant is Asian bush honeysuckle, and the third is multiflora rose. The time spent on invasive plant management is con-siderable. The total estimated time spent on invasive plant management in 2012 came to 120,256 hours, the equivalent of 51 years. A total of 45,472 acres of invasive plants were reported as managed in 2012. These 116 responses represent a very small sample of all the invasive plant management that is going on in Indiana. Many more contractors, agencies, and private landowners are doing management but may not have received the survey. Many of the invasive plants being managed are still sold and planted in landscaping in Indiana. More than 95 percent of those surveyed were in favor of removing these invasive plants from commercial trade. The state is currently exploring a rule that would do that.

Indiana Landowners Spend MillionsBattling Invasive Plants Every Year

by Ellen Jacquart*

* Since 1998 Ellen Jacquart has been directing the management of The Nature Conservancy’s preserve lands in Indiana. She currently leads the Invasive Plant Advisory Committee which reports to the Indiana Invasive Species Council.

Garlic mustard is the most commonly controlled invasive plant in Indiana.

NWOA


The spread and occupation of an invasive plant can be stopped only through regional and state plans and programs that are effectively implemented at the local level. Draw lines on maps to identify problem areas and to show areas where different strategies should be used.

Managing Outlier Areas Outlier (or satellite) infestations exist beyond highly infested areas due to long distance movement of plants or plant re-productive parts. Outlier infestations must be detected and eradicated early if containment is to be successful. Early detection rests with public education as well as organized search and surveillance efforts and strong reporting networks. Movement of contaminated equipment and materials must be effectively prevented to stop new outlier infestations from being established.

Managing the Advancing Front of Invasive Infestations All infestations along the advancing front must be found, mapped, and documented through intensive search and surveillance programs. The search and surveillance pro-grams must include all ownerships. To stop seed dispersal from worsening the problem, treatments must be timely and persistent. For all work near or inside infested areas, extra care must be taken to ensure sanitation of equipment and personnel to prevent spread. Special habitats of rare plants and animals within the advancing front zone should be carefully treated to protect them. The front must be held and then pushed back.

Managing Severely Infested Areas Surveys using sampling techniques are required to quantify the acres of infestation. Cooperation with landowners who have adequate funding are necessary in order to fully imple-ment, support, and maintain eradication or control programs in severely infested zones. Equipment and personnel sanitation, as well as quarantines

of severely infested areas, must be strictly regulated to pre-vent both short- and long-distance movement of plants and reproductive parts. Any forest and nursery product movement must be monitored for contamination. Special habitats of rare plants and animals must be safeguarded from destruction and restored using special techniques. Homes and businesses must be safeguarded against wildfire by highly flammable invasive plants.

A Shift in Mindset Must Occur Followed by Actions Successful management of nonnative invasive plants will require a shift in mindset. The number of species, their area of occupation, and their spread are drastically increasing—a threat that demands new knowledge and approaches by land managers at a new level of cooperation among regional, state, and local programs. Weed management is a growing science aimed at helping intensive agriculture and horticulture combat weed popula-tions, which are becoming toughened by hybridization and new introductions and spreading across the landscape. Forestry, right-of-way, park, and preserve managers should borrow and modify control techniques from agriculture and from one another. Accurate identification skills of both invasive and native plants are required for precise management. New tools, machines, products and techniques are usually necessary to effectively confront the invasions, beat them back, and restore lands. The three logistical areas where more effective manage-ment of invasive plants is currently possible within government agencies include: 1) recognizing the need for more compre-hensive and integrated planning, 2) better and more timely preparation, and 3) a heightened resolve and persistence. Management plans should include goals and actions addressing prevention, eradication, and control of invasive infestations. Such plans are incomplete, however, if they do not lead to site rehabilitation or restoration. Management ac-

Strategies for Confronting A Spreading

Invader

Always inspect vehicles and other equipment before moving to a new site on your property or elsewhere.

Photo by Jerry Asher, USDI Bureau of Land Management


tivities such as timber harvesting, stand thinning, prescribed burning, and road and firebreak maintenance should include an integrated plan for minimizing entry and spread of invasive plants, and a planned reaction to any new infestations. Preparation always has been critical to managers of for-ests, roadways, natural areas as well as to landowners. As invasive plant populations increase in size and density, land managers and owners must be willing to employ and deploy new concepts, tools, and materials. Preparation entails seeking the very latest information on invasive plant identification, preven-tion and control methods, and reha-bilitation and restoration techniques. It also means finding reliable sources of non-contaminated fill dirt and rock, seed, and mulch for soil stabilization. To fully prepare for rehabilitation and restoration, managers and landowners may need to purchase newly available native seeds, planting tools and equip-ment, landscape fabrics and fiber mats for stabilization. They may also need to seek professional services. Without persistence, all efforts to control and rehabilitate infested lands will be lost. To nurture a healthy native or non-invasive community of plants, managers and landowners will need to persist in a regime that includes timed treatments and retreatments as well as tenacious follow through. This will need to be followed by years of site monitoring for reappearance of the prior or new invasive plant species.

Principles to Follow • Never plant recognized invasive plants. Seek information

on whether or not a plant is invasive before you purchase it (for lists and descriptions of invasive plants, go to www.invasive.org/weeds).

• Detect invasive plants early through active surveillance of your lands. Map and mark locations of the invasive plants you find. Apply and document eradication treatments and monitor their effectiveness, retreating as needed. If treatments do not work, research ways to improve current treatments or find more effective alternatives.

• If you detect several invasive plants, prioritize your treat-ment by targeting the worst of the plants first. The worst

plant may not be the plant that has infested your land the most, i.e., has the highest level of infestation. In many cases, the worst plant may be the plant that occupies the least territory but has the greatest potential for spreading. You should manage your fight against several detected species by balancing eradication of first entries of high-priority invasive plants with persistent treatment of extensive infestations (see www.invasive.orglsouth/ for a regional list of High Priority Invasive Species of Southern Forests and Grasslands).

• To prevent spread of invasive spe-cies outward from your property, perform road maintenance, timber harvest, and site preparation start-ing from the boundary of the infested area and working inward, from areas that are not infested to those that are. To prevent the spread of invasive species by contaminated equipment and personnel, post-pone all management activities until you have suppressed or eradicated invasive plants from the site, or be prepared for the consequences of wider occupation. Always inspect and clean equipment before moving to another site.

Invasive plant strategies and programs ultimately depend upon the eradication and restoration of one infestation at a time at the local level and preventing new entries. Following these principles will greatly increase the chances of success.

What Is the Long-Term Plan for the Site? Control methods can change dramatically based on the site’s planned uses. For example, if the long-term plan is to keep the site cleared of all tall vegetation, then a less selec-tive and less expensive approach can be used. If you need to protect indefinitely a site that contains many desirable or rare species, then consider a more selective long-term treatment and monitoring plan.

This article is adapted from the USDA publication, A Management Guide for Invasives in Southern Forests by James H. Miller, Steven T. Manning and Stephen F. Enloe. It may be viewed on the web at http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs131.pdf

Invasives need to be identified. Then they need to be eradicated.

NWOA


What is the Federal Government DoingTo Combat Non-Native Invasives?

Comprehensive federal legislation dealing with the treat-ment of invasive species has never been enacted in the United States, and no single law directs coordination among federal agencies. Similarly, no laws focus on the broad problems of invasive species, their interception, prevention, and control across a variety of industries and habitats. Instead, the cur-rent legal framework is largely governed by a patchwork of laws, regulations, policies, and programs. Some laws are tailored to individual species or narrowly focused on what is affected by the species, such as agricul-tural production or certain aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems. Other laws have a broader intended purpose and may only peripherally address invasive species, such as certain envi-ronmental laws, resource management laws, and species or wildlife protection laws. Some laws, however, even though they do not directly address invasive nonnative species control or prevention, have specific effects that may limit such introductions. The following is a brief digest of existing federal laws that affect non-native plant species introduction, prevention, and control. However, control of invasive species is not often the major purpose of the law in some instances, and agencies have little authority to eradicate non-native invasive spe-cies, except where they occur on federally managed lands. This serves to undermine the effectiveness of these federal programs. In general, laws addressing threats to agriculture (for cen-turies a well-developed North American industry whose risks from non-native invasion species are relatively clear) tend to be more developed than laws protecting other industries or ecosystems. This patchwork contributes to two fundamentally different regulatory approaches to address invasive species: one ap-proach based on a particular listed or known species, and another approach based on certain pathways by which a variety of species may be introduced.

Approaches to Invasive Species Regulation: Single Species vs. Pathways Under a single-species approach, regulation of invasive plants or animals must be placed on a “black list” before they are regulated as harmful. Black list approaches to invasive species are, of necessity, done on a species-by-species basis. Harm can rarely be demonstrated unless the plant or animal is already at pest levels and inflicting damage some-where—that is, generally after the species is reproducing and spreading. Usually, damage must be readily apparent before protection can begin, at which point prevention could be nearly impossible. A key factor is knowledge of the presence of the species. If the species, its potential damage, or its means of transport are unknown, it will not be regulated under the black list approach. Examples of this approach are demonstrated in the laws described in this article. One example of this is the requirement that individual weed species be placed on an exclusion list before they can be regulated under the Plant Protection Act of 2000. Under a pathways approach, regulation of invasive spe-cies tends to be based on the risk of invasion via certain pathways. In such an approach, plants or animals may be removed wholesale, e.g., by sterilizing pallet wood, clean-ing a cargo hold, or sterilizing the soil in which horticultural specimens are shipped. There are instances of regulation and prevention by pathway. For example, plant and animal quarantine and inspection requirements under both the PPA and the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 give the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) broad authority to inspect imported agricultural products to detect, control, or eradicate plant and animal pests or diseases. Pathway approaches also exist at the state level. Pathway approaches do not require lists of organisms to be implemented or effective, and may even block the entry of species whose existence is unknown to science.


Organic Administration Act The Organic Administration Act of 1897 provides broad authority to the U.S. Forest Service within the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA) to protect National Forest System lands from a range of threats, including invasive species. In addition, under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, USDA manages U.S. national forests for multiple uses—such as outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.

Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936 gives the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) the authority to operate Plant Materials Centers for the de-velopment, testing, and distribution of plants and vegetation management technologies for voluntary use by landowners and users of private or other non federal lands for soil erosion control, water conservation, and wildlife habitat. In addition, the NRCS Conservation Technical Assistance Program provides technical assistance to landowners and users of private or other non federal lands to plan and install, on a voluntary basis, structures and land management prac-tices for soil erosion control and water conservation. These programs broadly provide for the detection and prevention of invasive species. Other USDA farmland conservation programs—such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program—also provide technical, educational, and financial assistance to livestock and crop producers to protect against threats to soil, water, and related natural resources, and may also ad-dress invasive species concerns. Aspects of each of these efforts encompass prevention, control and management, and restoration relating to invasive species.

Federal Seed Act The Federal Seed Act of 1939, as amended, requires ac-curate labeling and purity standards for seeds in commerce, and prohibits the importation and movement of adulterated

or misbranded seeds. The law also authorizes enforcement activities and rule making functions. In addition, it regulates interstate and foreign commerce in seeds, and addresses “noxious weed seeds” that may be present in agricultural (e.g., lawn, pasture) or vegetable seed. APHIS administers the foreign commerce provision of this law. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service administers the interstate commerce provisions. The law works in conjunc-tion with the Plant Protection Act, which authorizes APHIS to regulate imports of agricultural seed when they may contain noxious weed seeds.

National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, as amended, established a national policy to protect the environ-ment. Federal agencies are required to comply with NEPA and consider the environmental impacts, including invasive species, of an agency’s actions. NEPA has two primary aims—to require federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of their actions before proceeding with them; and to involve the public in the decision-making process. To ensure that environmental impacts are integrated into that process, federal agencies must prepare an environmental impact statement for actions “significantly” affecting the quality of the human environment. NEPA applies only to “federal actions,” defined broadly to include projects and programs entirely or partly financed, as-sisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies. Accordingly, programs or projects intended to control invasive species (e.g., BLM development of its Weed Management and Invasive Species Program), or actions that may result in the spread or introduction of non-native invasive species (among a range of other potential impacts), may be subject to NEPA. Such impacts may occur as a direct result of the action (e.g. state transportation agency landscaping or erosion control projects that receive federal funds) or be incidental to the action (e.g., a federally authorized construction project that opens a corridor that provides an opportunity for the


movement of invasive species; or that introduces seeds from noxious weeds on construction equipment). NEPA does not prohibit an agency from moving forward with a program or project that may introduce or spread non-native invasive species. Nor does NEPA require an agency to implement measures to control such impacts. Within the framework of completing the NEPA process, an agency would identify any environmental requirements applicable to a pro-posed action, including any measures that must be taken to assure or demonstrate compliance with those requirements. To demonstrate compliance with those requirements, the NEPA analysis must document any outside agency review or consultation regarding the proposal, and identify any mea-sures necessary to control, minimize, or mitigate regulated impacts.

Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, focuses on the conservation and protection of endangered or threatened species and their habitats, except for species that are common to the point of being weeds or pests. ESA is jointly administered by the Departments of the Interior and Commerce. Although ESA has no direct regulation of invasive species, it could limit actions involving an invasive species to the extent the action may harm a listed species. ESA could provide protection in two ways. First, if the

introduction were to be carried out by a federal agency or to require licensing, financial support, permits, or other sup-port from a federal agency, the agency involved would have to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to determine whether the introduction (or action leading to introduction) would tend to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. If the agency action would lead to jeopardy or adverse modification, the action agency would need to carry out a reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid such problems, or risk violating the ESA. The alternative might, for example, reject the introduction in favor of a native species. Second, if the action had no federal nexus, but its effects could result in taking (as defined in the act) a listed species, the party carrying out the action would have to obtain an incidental take permit from FWS or NMFS.

Federal Noxious Weed Act Most provisions in the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 were supplanted by the Plant Protection Act. However, a key section still requires each federal agency to provide for noxious weed management on lands under its jurisdiction. The provision, introduced in the 1990 farm bill, amended the Federal Noxious Weed Act to require federal agencies to establish and fund noxious weed management programs.

In 2003, the U.S. Forest Service developed a Southern Regional Framework for Non-native Invasive Species intended to “prioritize non-native invasive species (NNIS) posing the highest threats.” The Southern Region Task Force for Assessing NNIS species was assembled in August 2006 to address the issue. The task force is composed of program directors and assistant directors, managers, staff and scientists from all branches of the U.S. Forest Service in the Southern Region and with one team member from the Northern Region. The group has been tasked to collaboratively construct a list of the most potentially damaging invasive species in the region and evaluate these relative to existing and new risk assessments. After internal and external review, this Priority Invasive Species List will be used to focus programs and management using the “best available science.” An early-detection system has been compiled to identify invasive threats not currently in the Southern Region or present only in limited numbers. The species on this list must be carefully monitored. The Forest Service recognizes that a multitude of in-vasive organisms are present and invading the Southern Region and this process of assessment and listing will be part of an ongoing, adaptive cycle. The “Regional Framework” recognized that invasive species go across the landscape unbounded by ownership, which include National Forests and other agency lands surrounded by privately owned lands, cities, and municipalities. It is hoped that the assessment process will lead to

effective strategies for management, education, and research. An effective strategy will require each National Forest as well as their multi-county and multi-partners and stakeholders to construct their own prioroty lists. The regional lists are meant to aid in this process, since invasions are occurring unevenly from different entry points, epicenters, and expanding fronts along with outliers infestations from long range spread. To be effective in combating alien invasions, a regional strategy must be formulated that enables networks of partners to support actions at the local level for eradi-cation, control, or containment leading to restoration of native ecosystems. All invasive taxa have being considered for assessment and listing. Included are those NNIS that occur widely, those with restricted occurrence, and those that are in the Eastern U.S. poised to enter the Southern Region. Invasive species currently in tropical Florida are not included in the priority invasive database unless they were thought to have potential for eventual northern spread. NNIS were included that are recognized to rep-resent or pose the most threat of damage to forest and rangeland ecosystems (plants-soil-water systems), their regeneration and sustainability, special habitat values, and amenities. For more information or for reporting new invasives in the Southern Region please contact Alix Cleveland, Southern Region NNIS Coordinator ([email protected]) or James H. Miller, Research Invasive Species Ecolo-gist and Task Force Coordinator ([email protected]).

U.S. Forest Service Southern Regional Task Force For the Assessment of Nonnative Invasive Species


It also allows the agencies to implement cooperative agree-ments with state agencies regarding the management of undesirable plant species in areas adjacent to federal lands. The law requires joint leadership from the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior in coordinating federal agency programs for control, research, and education associated with designated noxious weeds. In 1994, a memorandum of understanding among several federal agencies created the Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW) as a vehicle to coordinate noxious weed priorities.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act, is the U.S. Forest Service’s primary authority to conduct research activities, including research relating to invasive species. The law contains broad authority for research and technology regarding U.S. lands related to the protection, conservation, and sustainable use of natural resources. The law also authorizes competitive grants to conduct research, and authorizes cooperative agreements with uni-versity, industry, and other private and public partnerships.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act Provisions under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, provide funds for range betterment within a variety of range rehabilitation and improvement activi-ties, including weed control on certain National Forest System rangelands. In addition, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, provides funding for on-the-ground rangeland rehabilitation and range improvements on some of the range-lands managed by the Forest Service within USDA.

International Forestry Cooperation Act Provisions under sections of the International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990 allow USDA to support international forestry and related natural resource activities and provide assistance to prevent and control insects, diseases, and other damaging agents, including invasive species. The Forest Service delivers research and development to conduct pre-vention, rapid response, control, and management activities related to invasive species and to restore areas affected by invasive species.

Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act The Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1992 (ASPEA) defines certain categories of non-mailable plant pests and injurious animals. ASPEA does not make any new categories of plants or animals illegal to ship, but rather makes it clear that use of the U.S. Mail is included among those forms of transport whose use is illegal for shipment of prohibited species. The prohibited species are those injurious animals whose movement is prohibited and those plants and animals whose shipment is prohibited, as well as plants covered under various plant pest and plant quarantine acts. ASPEA is administered by the U.S. Postal Service. Although ASPEA appears to do very little to prevent the introduction of invasive species, especially if the sender is unaware that the shipped items are prohibited under the above laws, it may provide for prosecutors to bring cases involving shipment of various species, including non-native invasive species, to court.

Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act The Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act of 1992 amended the International Forestry Cooperation Act to create a variety of measures to address the problems within the native forests of Hawaii. The introduction of non-native invasive species has been a major threat to the integrity of native Hawaiian forest ecosystems. The law has several features that address these issues. The U.S. Forest Service is authorized to develop a program to assist Hawaii and U.S. territories to protect native species from non-native species, and to establish biological control agents for the non-natives, as well as develop plans for the Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry and for the Hawaiian tropi-cal forests which must, among other things, provide for the study of biological control of non-native invasive species. In addition, the law created a short-term task force of specified federal, state, and other individuals. Among its other responsibilities, the task force developed an action plan to “promote public awareness of the harm caused by introduced species” and “the benefits of fencing or other management activities for the protection of Hawaii’s native plants and animals from non-native species, including the identification and priorities for the areas where these activities are appropriate.” Since that time, the report has been the framework for Forest Service management and research budget requests in this area.

Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act The Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 amended the Plant Protection Act to direct USDA to establish a grant program to provide financial and technical assistance to weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, invasive weeds on public and private lands. The law also authorizes USDA to enter into cooperative agreements with weed management entities to fund weed eradication activities, and enable rapid response to outbreaks of noxious weeds. The law is administered by APHIS.

NWOA

The Chinese Tallow Tree is a major invasive in the South.

This article is derived from the publication entitled Invasive Species: Major Laws and the Role of Selected Federal Agencies by M. Lynne Corn and Renee Johnson and published by the Congressional Research Service.


On most wooded properties, the owner will recognize the presence of at least a few undesired plant species. In some cases, these plants become sufficiently abundant to interfere with the owner’s objectives. Interference might include the development of a beech or fern understory that impedes oak or pine regeneration; hardwoods that interfere with the establishment and growth of conifer forests; or invasive shrubs that reduce the diversity of native plant species. In situations of overabundance, the owner may need to control the interfering plant to more fully achieve his or her objectives. Each interfering plant control situation is unique, so a set of guiding principles will help landowners consider the range of management strategies.

Strategic Goals Landowners should consider the following factors when planning for control of interfering plants:

• What are your goals for controlling invasives and how much harm is being done by them?

• Efficient use of labor, energy and equipment;• Cost effective strategy to minimize the consumption of

tools, supplies and especially time;• Targeted control of the interfering plants with minimal dam-

age to desired plants.

Integrated Vegetation Management, (IVM), is an approach that incorporates these management goals into a framework that allows optimal control of interfering plants. IVM originated with plant management on power utility corridors, but its principles apply to private lands. The foundation for effective IVM is a situation profile that includes knowledge of: plant biology, the extent of the plant problem, the desired level of control and an estimate of the costs. The landowner and forester should consider these four elements of the profile before beginning any treatment of the vegetation. Failure to consider these elements may result in unnecessary cost, undesired damage to desired plants, ex-cessive use of herbicides or wasted labor and supplies—and most likely, failure to control the target plant.

IVM Situation Profile And Vegetation Treatments• Plant Biology—Identify the plant, understand its life cycle,

reproductive strategy, and any mechanism that the plant uses to store propagules or energy reserves. Give special attention to anything that allows the interfering plant to be successful.

• Extent of the Problem—The geographic extent of the problem plant on the property being treated and within the landscape is a major concern. It will influence the likelihood of reintroduction, the operational efficiency of potential treatments, the likelihood of treatments affecting viable non-target species and the amount of disturbance and open space following the treatment.

Integrated Vegetation Management:Control Undesirable Plants in Your Woods

by Peter Smallidge*

The effects of a broadcast foliar spray to control fern, beech root suckers, and striped maple.

*Peter Smallidge is the NY State Extension Forester and director of Cornell University’s Arnot Teaching and Research Forest.


• Desired Level of Control—Complete annihilation of a spe-cies is a difficult task. In many cases, ownership objectives can be satisfied with less than 100 percent control of the target plant. However, any residual plants may allow for spread into the treated areas. Some objectives may be satis-fied with spatial control (e.g., within rows for a plantation) or control for a period of time to allow other species to become established.

• Costs—Costs include the ac-tual financial outlay for the ma-terials and labor, the ecological costs associated with the treat-ment, the ecological costs of not controlling the undesirable plant, the cost for re-treatment if the initial effort fails, and the risk to the staff applying the treatment. Failure to plan for successful re-vegetation with desired species will cost you time and money later.

IVM treatments can be de-scribed by mode and method (Table 1). Mode is the specificity of the treatment to the target and is either broadcast or selective. Method is the mechanism that allows the treatment to limit the plant and includes mechanical, chemical and biological treat-ments. Each treatment is a combina-tion of mode and method; the choice depends on the profile of the target plant. Each method functions differently to control tar-get plants. Mechanical methods remove the plant and thus future propagules. This removes the plant, depletes the root energy reserves as plants attempt to

Table 1: Examples of vegetation management techniques.

Table 2: Potential advantages of method-mode vegetation management.

Table 3: Potential disadvantages of method-mode vegetation management.

resprout, and limits the ability for on-site reintroduction. Chemical methods disrupt biochemical pathways by changing the plants’ ability to, for example, regulate growth hormones or form enzymes used in photosynthesis. Biologi-

A backpack sprayer is an effective tool for targeted application of herbicides.

Kills targeted species

Kills targeted species


Here is a hypothetical example of IVM in practice.

1. Profile—multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) has invaded a 60 year old hardwood forest. Positive identification confirms it is not a desired species. The plants have an average height of more than five feet. The shrub’s abundance has reduced wildlflower diversity and will restrict the future regeneration of desired hardwoods. The shrub has reduced access by the owner into this section of the woods. A moderate to large deer herd is likely helping to favor the multiflora rose over de-sired species. The shrub dominates 15 acres of the property and has spotty but limited presence in other areas. The manager recommends at least 90 percent control, sustained for 10 to 12 years, to ensure suc-cessful hardwood natural regeneration. The desire to control the shrub is fairly high and the owner wants to avoid a prolonged treatment period.

2. Response Selected—The owner and manager want to minimize the use of herbicides, but recognize that some herbicide will be needed to kill the root system in an effort to minimize soil disturbance. They opt for a combination of selective mechanical and selective chemical treatments. The prescription involves cut-ting the shrub and applying an appropriate herbicide to the freshly cut surface of the stump. The owner has the equipment and labor necessary to apply this type

of treatment at a reasonable cost. The cut stems will be left clustered but not piled in an effort to impede the access of deer to the area and minimize their impact. Further, the owner works with hunters on his property and neighbors to increase the harvest of female deer. Initial IVM efforts will concentrate in the main area of in-festation, but also expand to scattered shrubs. In future years, the owner will pull small shrubs as they are no-ticed or apply a selective foliar herbicide to areas hav-ing numerous small scattered multiflora rose shrubs. A forester has developed a prescription to open the forest canopy to increase sunlight and further aid in hardwood seedling regeneration.

3. Why not other treatments?—Each situation is different and the treatments used by one owner might not work in the future or might not work for the neighbor’s need. The owners and managers decided against selective foliar herbicide sprays because these would not have been as effective given the shrub’s abundance and height. Repeated cutting would not sufficiently control the shrub and would have required repeated entry that the owner did not have time to complete. Grubbing and excavation was deemed too disruptive to the soil in this location. Controlled grazing with silvopasture principles would work, but the owner lacked access to livestock or funds for fencing.

How Integrated Vegetation Management WorksMultiflora rose is a serious threat to hardwood regeneration.

Mechanical and chemical treatments can be combined. Photo: Randy Westbrooks, Invasive Species Prevention Spec., Bugwood.org

cal methods include a variety of host-specific insects, fungi, viruses and bacteria that limit the success of the target plant to grow and reproduce. All the advantages (Table 2) and the disadvantages (Table 3) may not apply to each situation, but should be considered. The integration of ownership goals and IVM situation profile determine the combinations of methods and modes to consider. Use the treatment that is least intrusive and has the lowest environmental impact, but that gives an adequate level of effectiveness and efficiency. Foresters should independently scrutinize each situation, assess the likelihood of potential advantages and disadvantages, and

discuss treatment options with the landowner to achieve management goals with minimal costs. The complexity of IVM rests primarily in understanding the biology of the plant and the relative merits of the different treatment options. Most owners will benefit from the advice of foresters or others trained in plant biology and vegeta-tion management. Consult with your state’s forestry agency and Cooperative Extension Service to help identify people who can help. A recorded web conference of IVM, includ-ing descriptions of several problem species, is provided at ForestConnect.info.com.

NWOA

NWOA


7 NATIONAL WOODLANDS SUMMER 2013

STAPLES(TILTED LOGO) CARBON CANOPYLOG

Since STAPLES opened our first store in Massachusetts in 1986 we have grown our business and operate in 26 countries worldwide. We know we have a large carbon footprint we are working hard to reduce it.

• We are proud to be ranked #7 on the EPAs Green Power List and purchase 100% renewable energy for our facilities in the US.

• We operate over 500 EPA Energy Star certified buildings in the US

• We operate high efficiency diesel, CNG and electric trucks in our fleets.

• We are a proud co-‐founder of CARBON CANOPY, an organization of top American corporations and stakeholders providing woodland owners with a reliable marketplace to sell their carbon credits and believe that well-‐managed forests are part of the carbon solution.

WHY? Because it is the right thing to do!


In many parts of California, human-caused disruptions of natural fire regimes have contributed to widespread inva-sion by nonnative species.

Grassland Invasion Valleys and other sites with relatively deep clay soils, formerly dominated by native perennial grasses, have

been converted to non-native an-nual grasslands through intensive grazing and plow-ing. Today, grass-lands cover about 8.4 million acres (3.4 million ha) in California, about 99 percent of which are dominated by nonnative annual grasses and forbs. In Cal i fornia, fires normally occur in summer and fall, when both annuals and perennials are dormant. Annual

seeds and perennial basal buds typically survive the fires to regenerate the following spring. However, fires in spring destroy seed crops, favoring the perennials, which can resprout from basal buds. Spring burning can therefore shift the balance from annual exotic grasses to native cover, but only on sites where perennial bunchgrasses are present. Remaining sites with native bunch-grasses are rare in California. On the vast majority of grasslands, burning prescriptions might alter species composition but will not suffice to eliminate exotics. Moreover, spring burning might not be appropriate for community restoration because it also inhibits native annual plants.

Pre- and Post-Fire Treatments Fuel manipulation can contribute to invasion by exotic plants. For example, fuel breaks can act as invasive high-ways, carrying exotic species into uninfested wildlands. Normally destroyed by stand-replacing fires, exotic seed banks can survive the lower fire severities in fuel breaks, resulting in source populations poised to invade adjacent burned sites.

In parts of California and adjacent regions with a Medi-terranean climate, non-native invasive plants are largely concentrated in valleys and foothills. Fire has historically been important in many of these ecosystems. However, human-caused disruptions of natural fire regimes have contributed to widespread invasion by non-native species. Throughout the Coast Ranges and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades, high-frequency fire has helped to convert shrub lands and closed woodlands into annual grass-lands dominated by grasses and forbs that originated in the Mediterranean Basin. Returning these landscapes to their former closed-can-opy condition is the only way likely to re-duce the presence of non-natives.

Chaparral Conversion California’s chaparral communities are highly fire adapt-ed. For good regeneration, they require stand-replacing fires at intervals of two decades or more. It might seem counterintuitive that fire would make fire-prone chaparral more susceptible to invasion by nonnative species. How-ever, plants evolve in association not with fire per se, but with a particular fire regime. When the natural fire regime is altered, even highly fire-adapted plant communities can become vulnerable to competition from non natives. Herbaceous growth forms, annuals in particular, are more resilient to higher fire frequencies than woody growth forms. Invasives make few inroads where chaparral com-munities remain intact, because they cannot establish under the closed canopies. However, as fire frequency increases, the canopy thins and more sites become avail-able for colonization by non natives. Nonnative plants in turn increase the flammability of surface fuels, thereby promoting more frequent, lower intensity fires. The altered fire regime ultimately decimates native shrubs, converting chaparral to grassland dominated by nonnative annuals. Conversion is accelerated if fire is combined with grazing.

The Greatest NumberThe Greatest Good For......

Forest Research—State & Private Forestry—National Forests

Fire and Invasive Plants in California Ecosystemsby Jon E. Keeley

Burned knobcone pine plantation invaded by grasses in southern California. Frequent fires in the region’s Mediterranean climate can promote the spread of exotic plants, which dominate 99 percent of California’s grasslands.


NWOA

Post-fire rehabilitation programs often include seeding of exotic species for erosion control. In the past, seeding has contributed to the spread of noxious weeds such as black mustard and short-pod mustard. Post-fire seeding continues to spread exotics such as Italian ryegrass and Zorro fescue, which readily colonize some native habitats. In shrub land, post-fire seeding of exotic grasses can contribute to the acceleration of the fire return interval, decimating native shrubs.

Management Implications Prescribed fire and other treatments to protect and restore ecosystems can have unforeseen adverse con-sequences. Land managers should keep the following in mind:

• Many grasslands are dominated by annuals due to his-torical changes in fire regime that have degraded native shrub lands. On such sites, the only way to reduce exotic species is to restore closed-canopy shrub lands. The first step is to reduce the incidence of human-caused fire.

• Prescribed burning can be effective in controlling noxious weeds. However, it is unlikely to diminish dominance by exotic species unless accompanied by revegetation with native species.

• Management activities can promote the invasion of exotic species. For example:

• If the frequency of prescribed burning exceeds the natural fire frequency, natives are readily displaced by non-native weeds;

• Post-fire seeding can promote the spread of exotic species and alter historical fire regimes; and

• Fuel manipulations such as fuel breaks can create favorable conditions for nonnative weeds, increasing their movement into wildlands and building seed sources capable of invading after fire. Associating fuel breaks with roadways would reduce the risk.

For more information, contact Dr. Jon E. Keeley, Se-quoia and Kings Canyon Field Station, 47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers, CA 93271-9651, [email protected] (e-mail).

Forests within the 13 states of the USFS Southern Region are rich in biological diversity and provide vital goods and services. The current infestations and grow-ing threat of non-native invasive (NNI) species can displace diversity and habitats, disrupt vital ecosystem functions, and degrade productivity and recreational benefits. NNI plants have increased in their range and severity, while others await entry through global commerce.

Project Highlights• In FY 2003 Region 8 received the first funding for

cooperative work on NNI plants.• Since that time 9 of 13 states in Region 8 have

established NNI plant projects.• Cooperators include State Forestry Agencies, State

Departments of Agriculture, non profit organizations, land grant universities, and county governments.

• Several states (FL, GA, NC, AR, MS, and TX) have multiple projects.

• Most major invasive plants are involved in at least one project (Chinese privet, Chinese tallow tree, cogongrass, Ailanthus altissima, kudzu, autumn olive, old world climbing fern, Japanese climbing fern, Japanese silt grass, Chinese wisteria).

• In excess of 2,000 acres have been treated to control NNI plants.

• Over 850,000 acres have been surveyed for the presence of NNI plants.

• Native vegetation has been or will be restored on over 300 acres.

• Training in identification and control techniques has been provided to over 2000 land managers.

• Forest Health Protection projects have leveraged over $1,336,900 for use in NNI plant activities.

• FHP support has played a key role in establishing Exotic Pest Plant Councils in three states.

• Installation of demonstration projects in GA (3), NC (2), MS (2), AR, and TN have increased public awareness of the role of FHP in non-native plant management.

Conclusions/Future direction• The NNI plant management issue is one that truly

concerns land managers in the Southern Region. • FHP is recognized as a leader in evaluating technol-

ogy and developing and supporting implementation of management strategies for NNI plants.

• The program is maturing in the Region and is ready for the next step: providing significant cost share opportunities for land managers.

For more information, contact John Taylor, Forest Service-USDA 1720 Peachtree Road, NW, Room 815 N Atlanta, GA 30309, Email: [email protected].

Southern Region Declares War On Non-Native Invasive Plants

Kudzu is a serious threat to forests of the Southeast.


FIRE LOOKOUTS = EARLY DETECTION = SMALLER FIRESCheck www.nhlr.net for a complete listing of the more than 800 fire lookouts in the United States and around the world that are listed on the NHLR. There are pictures, descriptions, a map on how to get there and even the current weather at the site! If the lookout appears to need some maintenance, check www.ffla.org to see how you can help!

Listings Reach 1,000!

US# 991, TN#11The 100’ Springdale Fire Tower is on the west end of Powell Mountain in northeast Tennessee south of Cumber-land Gap. Built by the Tennessee Div. of Forestry, it is now for emergency use only.

US# 992, TN# 12Still maintained by the Div. of Forestry for bad fire weather and communica-tions the Hiwassee Knobs Fire Tower has a view of the western slopes of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

US# 993, TN# 13Located on the first major ridge north of the Great Smoky Mountains, English Mountain Fire Tower is a 61’ tower built by the Div. of Forestry.

US# 994, TN#14 Standing on a stone knob on a ridge of the same name, Chimney Top Fire Tower has a unique cab on a 10’ tower located north of I-81.

US# 995, MT#59Baptiste Lookout was built in 1964 as a replacement for a 1928 30’ tower on the Flathead National Forest. Staffed until 1971, the lookout was restored in 1913 and is now staffed by volunteers. It is on the east side of Flathead Reservoir.

US# 996, FL#05Built by the Div. of Forestry in 1937 when the land just north of Tampa was mostly orange groves and wetlands, Hammer Fire Tower was active until the 1970s when subdivisions and shopping cen-ters replaced the groves. Designated a historic landmark in 1995, it is now a Hillsborough County park.

US#999, MO#06The 100’ Twin Knobs Fire Tower is located on the Mark Twain National Forest in southern Missouri.

US# 1000, FL# 04The honor of the 1000th listing in the NHLR goes the Crestview Fire Tower built by the Florida Div. of Forestry in 1953. It was closed in 1983 and the six-acre site was later acquired by the City of Crestview. The two forestry buildings have been developed as an Environmental Education Center.

US# 997,VA# 11Now within the Jefferson National Forest, Butt Mountain Fire Tower was constructed by the Virginia Div. of Forestry in the 1930s and operated until the 1970s. The ground house was removed in 1990. The Appalachian Trail passes nearby.

US# 998, VT#06 Vermont’s Bald Mountain Fire Tower, a 60’ tower with a 7’x7’ cab, is located in the Northeast Kingdom near the Canadian border. It was constructed in 1939 with funds provided by a federal program to restore the extensive dam-age from the 1938 hurricane. Located in the recently purchased Willoughby State Forest, the historic ground cabin was completely restored in 2014.

Springdale Hammer

English Mountain

Butt Mountain

Bald Mountain cabin before.....

....and after restoration.

Crestview


The new National Woodland Owners Association’s Wildfire Insurance program took three years to develop, working with a direct contact at Lloyds of London and Outdoor Underwriters, our carrier. It is much less expensive than existing fire insurance programs because: Risk is spread nationwide.

• • •NWOA is proud to offer this program to our members in all 50 states. When you participate, you receive a certificate of insurance covering your woodlands at the level you selected. The biggest difference from conventional fire insurance is that a per-acre limit has been established to avoid the need for a comprehen-sive timber valuation. • • •Just $15 per year gives a NWOA member $2,500 of insurance of up to $500 per acre of fire damage. The amount of acreage insured at that

rate is 200 contiguous acres (eight cents per acre). Do the math. At $15 per year, it will take 167 years before you spend a total of $2,500 for this insurance.

• • •What are your chances of having a wildfire in the next century and a half? With more people moving to rural areas, the Wildland/Urban Interface is spreading closer to your land every year. The risk of wildfire keeps increasing. Is having no fire insurance still worth the gamble? That is entirely up to you.

• • •The most popular coverage for NWOA members so far is $25,000 at $110/year for up to 200 acres. That is enough acreage for two thirds of our members. You can insure additional acreage—including multiple tracts—at additional cost.

• • •

At These Prices....Why Would You Not Buy Wildfire Insurance?

NWOA and Outdoor Underwriters have made it very simple to cover all or a portion of your timber stand from the threat of wildfire. To apply for coverage the only information that is needed is 1) number of acres you want covered, 2) type of trees, 3) age of trees, 4) location of your timberland. If you are unsure if you meet the eligibility guidelines give us a call and we will walk you through the process. If you are in-terested in discussing higher cover-age limits or additional perils with an underwriter please check the box on the bottom of the applica-tion and mail it to us for review. It’s that simple!

• • •The choice is yours. This is your op-portunity to protect your land and investment for a fraction of what you would pay elsewhere.

Keith A. Argow Woodland Owner and President

[email protected]: (909) 983-0772

WITH LONG TERM FIRE RETARDANT

SHIELDS UP!


800-426-5207

wildfire-env.com

Get Up Close and Personal.

Call Today for Details

Meet the RANCHER.Designed specifically for use on ATVs and small utility vehicles. Compact and lightweight, these units can access remote areas beyond the reach of standard firefighting vehicles FAST and effectively. Ideal for managing prescribed/control burns and other fire suppression requirements. Available with 65 or 125 gallon tanks; with or without firefighting Class A foam capability. With a full range of proven, trusted products, exceptional service and added value, Wildfire is more than just a name you can trust.

Starting at Only $3,195! n EASY TO USE: One pull start Honda 4-stroke engine.

n DEPENDABLE: Manual reel comprised of ultra-durable aluminum alloy, standard booster hose 3/4” x 50’ only. Polycarbonate nozzle. n LIGHTWEIGHT: Dry weight: 160lbs/65 gal - full 702lbs Dry weight: 200lbs/125 gal - full 1245lbs

n HIGH PERFORMANCE: WATERAX pump ensures quality, reliability and durability. The light weight non-corrosive polyproylene piping and valves provide a robust plumbing system.

Fire Damage Limit is the maximum loss limit selected. Per Acre Limit is the maximum that will be paid for any one acre. Coverage is for 200 contiguous acres or less. A deductible has been placed on the policy to help minimize the number of minor claims being filed which will in turn protect the low rate structure for years to come.

Coverage is in excess over any other valid and collectable coverage.

There is a 30 day waiting period before coverage is effective.

All claims settled on an actual cash value basis not to exceed the per acre limit.

Co-insurance does not apply. Instead a per/acre limit has been established

to avoid the need for a comprehensive timber valuation.

This Policy does not cover the Burning of Slash or Prescribed Burns.

Claims Illustration:Landowner “A” owns 33 acres of standing timber mostly comprised of mature hardwoods and selects a limit of $25,000 to protect his timber stand from fire damage and subsequent re-forestation cost. A wildfire burns just 10 of his 33 acres. The actual cash value determined by the adjustor for the 10 acres is $18,000. In this scenario the most landowner “A” would receive for his claim is $7,500 or the per-acre maximum of $750 per acre based off of the overall limit chosen of $25,000 (Subject to the deductible).

Landowner “B” owns 33 acres of stand-ing timber mostly comprised of young pine trees. He selects a limit of $25,000 to protect his timber stand from fire dam-age and subsequent reforestation cost. A wildfire burns all 33 acres. The actual cash value determined by the adjus-tor for the 33 acres is $22,500. In this scenario Landowner “B” would receive the entire value of $22,500 because it is less than the per acre maximum based on the overall limit chosen of $25,000 (Subject to the deductible).

Higher limits and additional perils can be purchased upon underwriter review. Send any questions to [email protected] and we will forward it for a quote.

Basic Options: Fire Damage Limit Per Acre Limit Deductible Premium $2,500 $500 $500 $15 $5,000 $500 $500 $30 $25,000 $750 $1,000 $110

How the NWOA Wildfire Insurance Works


800-426-5207

wildfire-env.com

Get Up Close and Personal.

Call Today for Details

Meet the RANCHER.Designed specifically for use on ATVs and small utility vehicles. Compact and lightweight, these units can access remote areas beyond the reach of standard firefighting vehicles FAST and effectively. Ideal for managing prescribed/control burns and other fire suppression requirements. Available with 65 or 125 gallon tanks; with or without firefighting Class A foam capability. With a full range of proven, trusted products, exceptional service and added value, Wildfire is more than just a name you can trust.

Starting at Only $3,195! n EASY TO USE: One pull start Honda 4-stroke engine.

n DEPENDABLE: Manual reel comprised of ultra-durable aluminum alloy, standard booster hose 3/4” x 50’ only. Polycarbonate nozzle. n LIGHTWEIGHT: Dry weight: 160lbs/65 gal - full 702lbs Dry weight: 200lbs/125 gal - full 1245lbs

n HIGH PERFORMANCE: WATERAX pump ensures quality, reliability and durability. The light weight non-corrosive polyproylene piping and valves provide a robust plumbing system.

1. Your name and NWOA number (if you have it).

2. Complete your address, email and phone # clearly.

3. Include ZIP Code (nearest city) when land is located or “Coor-dinates” (Coordinates are easily found on a GPS. We do not need your boundary. Just a spot on your land).

4. Include Type, Species, and Acre-age per Stand. Use additional sheet if necessary.

5. Select from four “Effective” dates.6. Check off level of coverage and

include check for Premium pay-able to: Outdoor Underwriters.

7. If not already a NWOA member (see your label on this magazine), include a second check ($35 or $45) payable to: NWOA.

8. Mail to: National Woodland Own-ers, 375 Maple Ave. E. #310, Vienna, VA 22180.

HINTS TO COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION


Volume 32, Issue 1 Late Breaking Forestry News from Washington DC and State Capitals Winter 2015 Published for Woodland Owners by the National Woodland Owners Association

Woodland Report Reliable, Responsive, Reporting since 1983

113TH CONGRESS ENDS WITH PASSAGE OF A HUGE “CROMNIBUS” BILL The 113th Congress concluded its fractious two-year life on Dec. 17 when the Senate passed a huge omnibus bill (full of postponed actions for which floor time was not possible). It was combined with a continuing resolution crafted to finance the majority of federal agencies whose individual budgets were never voted on. The result is a compromise, contained in a huge 1,695-page bill with a $1.1 trillion budget. Two days earlier, House members passed the same bill before leaving town. Combining the two: A “Continuing Resolution” and an “Omnibus” bill added a new term to the political lexicon: “CrOmnibus.” This may be the future of doing the people’s business: a détente among warring factions that does not allow time for bipartisan floor debate, but when the end of the session looms they agree to a huge compro-mise. Messy? Yes. But it does show that even with a divided Congress elected by a divided nation, democracy does work. It also reveals why NWOA’s headquarters is in Washington D.C. and most of the offices of its state affiliates are in or near their respective state capitals.

CONSERVATION EASEMENT TAX FAILS BY ONE PERCENT OF NEEDED VOTES One of the last acts of the House was to reinstate expired tax incentives—just for 2014— including those for land conservation easements. These benefits, which previously had been law—expired at the end of 2013. Although the new leg-islation had enough sponsors to pass both bodies, neither gained time for a floor vote. In December, House sponsors made a last ditch effort to pass the donations bill under suspension of the rules. This procedure is used to quickly

pass legislation that has wide support, but it needs a two thirds margin instead of a simple majority. Proponents got 275 votes, just eight shy of the 283 needed. All Republicans voted to support the bill, as did 47 Democrats. The Land Trust Alliance, of which NWOA is a member, will make this a priority for early passage in the 114th Congress.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT Most, but not all, of the forestry and natural resources issues are within the National Defense funding bill for 2015, containing more than $500 billion in defense funding. Also attached is the largest package of public lands bills since the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009. Included are 200,000 acres of new wilderness, 140 additional miles of Wild and Scenic riv-ers, and many federal land grants to states and counties. Absent are the proposed “Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities, Act,” the “O&C Land Act,” and the “Forests Jobs and Recreation Act.”

BROAD BIPARTISAN COALITION BACKS WILDFIRE DISASTER FUNDING ACT Although 236 organizations, including NWOA, supported this bill last year, and with 140 co-sponsors in the House, it died with the close of the 113th session. It did come close to being included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, a positive sign for its future passage. The most important part of the bill is the trans-fer of half of the annual wildfire appropriations to FEMA’s national disaster account. This would eliminate “fire borrowing” which often takes co-operative forestry dollars targeted for landowner education.


Reports From State Affiliates“All Forestry is Local” .net

VIRGINIA OFFERS TAX CREDITSFOR DONATED EASEMENTS Virginia Governor Terry McAullife has directed the state tax agency to expedite the procedure for landowners to receive conservation tax cred-its for 40 percent of the value of land conserva-tion easements donated to the Dept. of Forestry, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation or other quali-fied land trusts. Passed by the state General Assembly in 1999 with the endorsement of the Virginia Woodlands Association (NWOA affiliate) the Land Conserva-tion Act facilitated easements on 105,000 acres in 2012, about 70 percent of which was woodlands.Tax credits, unlike tax-deductible donations, are like cash for payment of Virginia taxes. Under the law, Virginia landowners can claim up to $100 million of credits each year. Credits are awarded on a first-come-first served basis and are good for ten years. The program is an impressive commit-ment to private sustainable forestry, agriculture and open space.

KENTUCKY WOODLAND OWNERS TAKE A STAND TO REDUCE TIMBER THEFT Nina Cornett, a woodland owner in Letcher County, Kentucky, has long been a crusader against timber theft. Most recently the Kentucky Woodland Owners Ass’n member (NWOA affili-ate) encouraged the state’s General Assembly to form a Timber Theft and Trespass Reduction Task Forest to explore solutions to this problem. Two KWOA directors are members of the task force. Unfortunately for family woodland owners, timber theft can be a serious problem, even if they live on or near their land. The thieves know how to get in and out with stolen logs very quickly, typically leaving a mess. Selling this stolen booty is no problem as mills are always buying wood and very few states require proof of ownership.

Ms. Cornett has developed two excellent websites to assist landowners in monitoring their property, steps to take to get a prompt inves-tigation, plus guides to civil action. See: www.timbertheft.org and www.ecooutpost.org.

LOGGING ANNUALLY CONTRIBUTES $170 MILLION TO NH STATE ECONOMY New Hampshire may be a small state but it is home to many woodland owners who grow wood to sustain a job economy worth $169.7 million/year. A recent study examined the direct, indi-rect and induced economic contribution to the state’s timber harvesting industry. Commissioned by the NH Timberland Owners Association (NWOA affiliate), the study surveyed 1,200 timber harvesting companies. It did not include the economic contribution from sawmills and other wood products industries. Viewed from a different angle, the economic output of each log truck load was $1,600.

COLORADO BECOMES THIRD STATE TO ACHIEVE 100 FIREWISE COMMUNITIES Many members of the Colorado Forestry Asso-ciation (NWOA affil.) own land near large subdi-vided home sites. The new owners are typically not aware of how to protect their forests from wildfires, which can spread rapidly. The Firewise program promoted by state forestry agencies and USFS helps reduce the risk. Colorado now has 100 Firewise communities.

MARYLAND’S NEW FOREST WEBSITE The Maryland Forests Association (NWOA affili-ate) has an excellent new website describing its programs. It was developed with the assistance of the Forestry Extension Program and can be found at http://www.mdforests.org.


.net

SOUTHERN

.net

Annual Reports from The Southern Alliance

Of Landowner Associations

OklahomaWoodlandOwnersAssociation

Ozark

Woodland Owners Association—Arkansas—

Oklahoma Woodland Owners Associationwoodlandowners.org The Oklahoma Wood-land Owners Association (OWOA) participated in the annual Oklahoma “Ag Day at the Capitol” in April. At that time, some 35 agriculture-related organizations were provided a table for display at the State Capitol building in Oklahoma City. Several forest landown-ers did stop at the booth to discuss their forestland property. The number one concern expressed by those individuals

was how to encourage the “younger generation” to take an interest in land ownership and management. The spring OWOA workshop was held at the Oklahoma Forestry Services office in Broken Bow on June 14. The workshop focused on the management of shortleaf pine, which is a valuable resource in southeastern Oklahoma. Legislative actions at both the federal and state levels were discussed. The recent rule regarding the Waters of the U.S. has become an issue across a large part of the country. This rule is an attempt to clarify which waters fall under the purview of the 1972 Clean Water Act. At the workshop, Erin Johnson of the Oklahoma Forestry Services presented a summary of the Forest Stewardship Program, and then spoke on the many opportunities of managing shortleaf pine. A summary of the National Wood-land Owner Survey was presented. The more significant findings include the fact that some 75 percent of ownerships in Oklahoma are comprised of fewer than 50 acres. Additionally, only 19 percent of Oklahoma owners are age 45 or younger.

Dan Lewia of Huber Resources presented information regarding land-owner dealings with industry. He gave some excellent pointers on how to deal with timber buyers, negotiating a sale and follow-up to harvesting timber. Following lunch, he led a field trip to view shortleaf pine management in Pushmataha County. The association’s annual meeting convened on September 20, 2014 at the Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture near Poteau. The primary focus of the meeting was what forest managers can do to mitigate potential harmful effects of environmental changes. A brief re-view of the current state of the climate change and greenhouse gas debates was presented followed by Dr. Duncan Wilson of Oklahoma State University who discussed the expected impacts of drought on the forests of Oklahoma. Dr. Rod Will, also of OSU, discussed the various forest management ac-tivities that may be employed as a response to changes in climate. Dr. Jeanne Schneider, USDA, gave a brief update on the agency’s Regional Hubs program for climate change and then presented ways in which to manage risks involved with changes. After the business meeting, Mr. David Redhage of the Kerr Center led the group on a tour of the grounds and explained his goals for beautifying the area with a wide variety of plants. In the spring, a letter was submitted to Oklahoma legislators co-sponsoring what has been referred to as the “abandoned land” bill. One section of this somewhat-lengthy bill provided

for local or state governments to classify land as abandoned and in need of being cleaned up. Under the proposed bill, if a landowner chooses to not provide the needed maintenance, then

the governmental agency could remove unwanted vegetation and charge the landowner for the activity. Several other provisions were included in the bill, but the main point of OWOA’s objection was that absentee landowners, who are growing timber as a crop, might be at risk from unwanted intrusion. The bill failed in 2014 and is likely to not be re-submitted. Following the fall meeting, a letter was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the possible listing of the northern long-eared bat as either threatened or endangered. The letter indicated OWOA’s opposition to the listing, as timber management does not appear to be a threat to the bat’s ability to survive.

Ozark Woodland Owners Assoc.ozarkforestry.org Arkansas forest landowners are now closely monitoring two trends which will soon impact Arkansas forest health and local forest product markets. During the last favorable timber market cycle from 1999 to 2007, many landowners took advantage of those markets to acquire forest management plans and conduct selective harvests as part of their management plans. Such harvests were good both for forest health and landowners’ finances. Now, ten years later, many of those


forests have regrown back to the land’s biological carrying capacity and are, once again, in need of harvesting. This will help maintain forest health, and avoid die-offs or insect outbreaks during the next drought period. Fortunately, timber markets are once again improving, with stumpage and mill prices rising in concert with increases in national housing starts and lumber exports. Some increases in the value of select species, such as white oak and walnut, have been spectacular in response to short term market conditions. Although the two key ingredients— marketable forest inventory and mar-kets—are present, the challenge now facing Arkansas forest landowners is the lingering lack of harvester and mill infrastructure needed to get their product to market.

North Carolina Woodlandsncwoodlands.org Since the 1980s, North Carolina county forestry groups have proven to be important for landowner networking and training all across the state. Re-search has also identified the need for landowner education and promotion of expanded markets for forest products. With this in mind, NCWoodlands recently cooperated with Mount Olive College to provide educational work-shop opportunities to woodland owners in four eastern North Carolina counties. The ultimate goal is to establish forestry associations in each one. This effort was made possible by a 2011 grant from the NC Tobacco Trust Fund Commission. The North Carolina Forest Service and the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service also provided critical support. The grant spanned 18 months in 2012-13 and addressed topics including taxes, land use options, estate plan-ning, forest management plans and other subjects relevant to woodland management. Questionnaires completed by work-shop participants in the four counties showed this effort was a huge suc-cess. The collected data showed that increased forest management would result an average $3.5 million poten-tial economic impact to each county and a total overall increased impact of nearly $14 million. Not a bad return on

a $72,500 grant! And the effort continues. NCWood-lands is currently working with the NC Forest Service, NC State University Extension Forestry, and the University of Mount Olive, among other partners, to conduct regional Working Forests Summits for North Carolina Landown-ers for 2015-16. Funding is provided by a grant to the University of Mount Olive’s Lois G. Britt Agri-Business Center from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission. Four summits will be held across the state over the next two years. Among the topics to be addressed are taxes, land use options, estate planning and forest management techniques. The goal of these summits is to stimulate landowners to:

• Recognize the immediate and long-term importance of forestry;

• Create and implement new forest

management plans;• Increase acreage enrolled in Present

Use Tax Valuation program;• Increase acreage implementing

alternative use strategies;• Diversify forest products to meet new

and expanding market demand; and• Understand the economic impact

of forestry to their family and rural economies.

WWW.FIELDFOREST.NET • (800)792-6220GROW YOUR OWN MUSHROOMS!

®

Indoor and Outdoor Kits • Free Catalog

NCWoodlands has cooperated with Mount Olive College to provide workshop oppor-tunities to woodland owners in four eastern North Carolina counties.

NWOA


NWOA and ALC:Working Together for

Common Goals

NWOA

The National Woodland Owners Association (NWOA) recently became an Associate Member of the American Loggers Council, a national organiza-tion representing logging contractors from around the country. It is NWOA’s only associate membership. “Besides myself,” said NWOA President Keith Argow, a forester, “the logger is the most important person who comes onto my woodlands. What he does—and how he does it—lasts a rotation or longer.” This article by ALC immediate past president Brian Nelson details the for-estry provisions of the recently-passed Farm Bill, and the implications for for-estry, loggers and forest landowners.

President Obama signed into law on February 7, 2014 The Agricultural Act of 2014 better known as the Farm Bill. The Senate had passed it a few days earlier by a 68-32 vote with bipartisan support. The Act contains numerous forestry provisions that are important to log-gers, forest landowners and the forest industry as a whole. Most of us would agree that the forestry provisions in this Farm Bill are some of the best we’ve seen in recent memory. It was encouraging to see that the two parties could put partisan politics aside and come together to pass a Farm Bill that should be very beneficial to those who grow, harvest and process trees. Of the numerous forestry provisions in the bill, arguably none have a higher profile nor the potential to have a greater impact than the Forest Roads Provision. It will preserve the treatment of forest roads and forest management as “non-point sources” subject to state derived Best Management Practices (BMPs) under the Clean Water Act.

More importantly, the Forest Roads Provision will provide us with legal and economic certainty by codifying the EPA’s longstanding policy speci-fying that silvicultural activities do not require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This means that forestry activities may continue to use state-developed BMPs as has successfully been done for the past 38 years under the Clean Water Act. While it appears the issue is now resolved, the language in the legisla-tion does leave the EPA with some flexibility. Specifically, the agency does have the authority to take action if it sees the need to address adverse impacts to water quality caused by point source discharges of storm water from silvicultural activities. Reaching this point has involved traveling a long and tedious road, with numerous people and organizations from across the country working to-gether to find a solution to this problem. Of course, with this success comes responsibility. There has been con-siderable time and effort by many, including the ALC, to see this issue resolved and we surely wouldn’t want to do anything to jeopardize it. I’m sure there will be some who will have us “under a microscope” to verify our compliance with the regulations. It is critical that we all do our part to protect the quality of our waters. We can do this by being diligent in applying BMPs to all activities on our logging jobs. It took a lot of work to get this resolved and will take the effort of all of us not to lose it. Other key forestry provisions in the Farm Bill include:

• Permanent reauthorization of stew-ardship contracting authority;

• Authorizing Categorical Exclusions of up to 3,000 acres for disease and insect infestations;

• Authorizing Good Neighbor Author-ity;

• Authorizing “designation by descrip-tion” and “designation by prescrip-tion” as valid methods of designation for timber sales;

• Including forest products within the labeling and procurement prefer-ences of the USDA’s “bio-based” program;

• Expanding Healthy Forest Resto-ration Act authority to streamline projects in “critical areas” that have been identified as facing forest health threats;

• Reaffirming that the projects conducted under Categorical Ex-clusions should not be subject to Administrative Appeals;

• Ensuring that fire liability provisions in stewardship contracts will now be the same as in timber sale contracts;

• Granting state governors greater authority in the identification of criti-cal areas for Categorical Exclusions on national forest lands.

I would encourage everyone reading this to thank your legislators for their work and support of the forestry provi-sions included in the 2014 Farm Bill. It seems we’re often quicker to give a “kick in the back side” than to give a pat on the back, but here’s a case where we should show them that we appreciate their support of the forest products industry and those who make it work.

Brian Nelson

Brian Nelson, along with his brother David and father Marvin own and operate Marvin Nelson Forest Products, Inc. based out of Cornell, Michigan.

The 2014 Farm Bill:Important Implications for Loggers and Landowners Alike


Anyone who has ever put together a puzzle has had this experience: You’re in the home stretch, and you reach for the last piece you need to finally finish, only it’s not there. You look everywhere, stewing in frustration as you think about what could have happened to it: “Maybe it got lost. Did I vacuum it up?” Regardless of the cause, your puzzle can never be complete, and all the time you spent working on the rest of it feels like it’s been for naught. Now imagine that a third of the pieces are gone.

That’s what will happen to the puzzle of protecting critical forestland if we don’t make family-owned woodlands part of the conservation conversation. More than a third of U.S. forests are owned by individuals and families—a larger share than the federal government or various companies own. As we work to protect both the environment and rural economies, family-owned forests are hugely important yet too often overlooked.

Having grown up surrounded by my family’s woodlands in Wisconsin, I have seen firsthand how the woods give us so much more than peaceful beauty. They protect against climate change; they provide habitat for plants and animals; they help maintain clean, fresh water and provide oxygen to keep us alive; and they aid our economy by supporting jobs and producing materials that we all use every day.

The fact is that these precious lands are under tremendous pressure, and their sustainability is severely threatened. The American Forest Foundation (AFF) is releasing groundbreak-ing research conducted in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service and the Family Forest Research Center to quantify the threats that family-owned forests face and why we need to empower family forest owners to protect the many benefits forests provide to our environment and economy. In our cam-paign “Vanishing Pieces of the Puzzle,” AFF will showcase five of these benefits over the next five months and highlight what will happen if we don’t act now.

Water: Protecting family-owned forests is essential to main-taining healthy, clean water. The most cost-effective way to protect water quality is to protect and manage the forests that currently exist while simultaneously restoring land to the natural filters we call trees.

Wood: Family forests contain a tremendous supply of wood—for building materials, paper and other products—that can be regenerated continuously through replanting and regrowth. For example, there is enough sawtimber in American family forests today to build 37 million houses. Additionally there is an even larger supply of fiber that can provide other valu-

able forest products like wood for energy or fiber for paper products, as well as jobs throughout the country. Threats from development to natural disasters and other issues such as landowners who are uninterested in harvesting their timber have the potential to remove more than 855 billion board feet of sawtimber alone from the available supply—more than 75 percent of the total supply. Engaging private landowners in conservation and stewardship and ensuring strong markets for their products will help strengthen rural communities and local forestry operations as they continue to grow this renewable resource.

Wildlife: In most landscapes, family forests are an essential piece of the puzzle. Engaging family forest owners in conser-vation activities is the only way to accomplish large landscape goals like conserving critical habitat. Family forests provide thousands upon thousands of acres of high-quality wildlife habitat, yet events such as fragmentation and insect infesta-tion and disease have the potential to destroy 33.3 million acres of core habitat, an area larger than South Carolina. By empowering woodland owners to protect these forests, they can continue to provide wildlife with food, shelter and a place to call home.

Recreation: Family forest owners are the largest forest own-ership group and currently provide tremendous recreation opportunities. Currently, 34 million acres of family-owned forests are available to the public for recreational use. How-ever, threats such as natural disasters and development mean we stand to lose up to 6.5 million acres, an area just larger than the state of Maryland.

Carbon: Family forests continuously capture and store a tremendous amount of carbon—but with numerous threats piling up, it’s not a sure thing. As much as 2.6 billion tons of carbon currently stored in family forests—the equivalent of emissions from more than 2 billion cars—could be impacted by threats like development. By investing in stewardship and conservation, and promoting forest markets, we can protect our carbon capture and storage now and into the future.

Tackling big issues like forest conservation and economic growth require addressing every piece of the forest puzzle. It simply cannot be done without engaging America’s 22 million family forest owners.

Tom Martin is president and CEO of the American Forest Foundation. This article originally appeared as a blog post in the February online edition of the Huffington Post.

by Tom Martin

NWOA


The Women Owning Woodlands web project strives to bring topical, accessible, and cur-rent forestry information to woodland owners and forest practitioners through news articles, blogs, events, resources, and personal sto-ries. We support women in forest leadership, women who manage their own woodlands, and all who facilitate the stewardship of forests. The web address is: www.womenowningwoodlands.net

Mission Statement

Good Advice, News and Tips From Women Owning Woodlands

Alien Invaders Invasive pests cost the U.S. an estimated $130 billion in damage and preventative measures every year, and informa-tion is the best defense, according to the Arkansas Forest Resources Center, which hosts a website, www.arinvasives.org, dedicated to managing these destructive forest pests. Examples of destructive invasives already in Arkansas include the red imported fire ant and kudzu. “We have two primary goals with this web site,” said Jon Barry, an extension forester for the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture. “First, we want to make people more aware of the problems caused by invasive pests. That $130 billion a year estimate is growing as old pests spread and new pests arrive.” Managing these pests starts with being able to identify them, knowing the damage they can do, and what can be done to halt their spread. “If invasive pests bug you, use this website as a resource to learn more about them,” Barry said. The second goal for the website is to recruit and train qualified people who can serve as an early warning system for invasive pests in Arkansas, he said. “If you work in the fields and forests of Arkansas and would like to serve as a field spotter, please watch this web site for announcements about training opportunities. Arkansas needs you.” “ARInvasives.org is focused on six forest invasive pests that may threaten Arkansas in the future, but also includes information about invasive pests already in Arkansas,” Barry said. “We will be continually updating the web site and adding

new information and new invasive pests, so drop by often and see what is new.” For more information about the Arkansas Forest Resources Center, visit http://www.afrc.uamont.edu/ or contact your county extension office.

Guest post on the WOW website, www.womenowningwood-lands.net by Tamara Walkingstick.

The Future of Your Woodland? Who will care for your land in 20, 30 or 40 years? I have seen many estate planning workshops offered to woodland owners over the years addressing this important topic. The focus of these events is typically to explain the tax implica-tions of passing land on to the next generation; how to save your heirs money and red tape by planning now. Communication between you as the owner of the property and your heirs is critical. Three items are of particular interest and need to be addressed:

• Your hopes and dreams; • Management or care of the land;• The legal tools used to pass the land on to the next owner.

Succession planning involves family communication, transitioning the management of the land from one genera-tion to the next and transferring the property title to the next generation. If the family does not agree on the disposition of the land and the responsibilities that go with land ownership, passing the land on to the next generation is likely to fail. Imagine a family of five. The land has been in the family since the mid-1800s. The hopes and dreams of the mother, who owns the property, is to pass it to the children with the idea that the children would care for the forest. However, they have moved away from the property and live in the far corners of the United States. Two of the children would like to keep the land, provided that it doesn’t cost them any money. One would like to keep it even if it means some cost. If the land is passed to the three children in a trust without having discussions about the interest and ability to care for it, most likely the two children who do not want the expense of


NWOA

Forester and woodland owner Barrie Brusila of Mid-Maine Forestry in Warren, ME shares some of her lessons learned in a simple handout entitled “Timber Harvesting Do’s and Don’ts.”

Do:• Work with a licensed forester as your agent, unless

you are very knowledgeable about the value of your woodland, market prices, contracts, realistic logging expectations, timber harvesting regulations, etc.;

• Be clear about your objectives for timber harvesting;• Ideally, follow a written forest management plan;• Work with a reputable forester and logger;• Have well-written contracts with your forester and

logger;• If possible, look at other harvests conducted by a

potential logger. Go beyond the wood yard, and walk through the woods. Ask yourself, “If this was my woodlot, would I be satisfied?”;

• Make sure your boundary lines are well-marked;• Remember that the skill/attitude of the logger, and

season of harvest are more important than the size/type of equipment used;

• Work with a logger who is skilled at both business practices and on-the-job logging.

Don’t:• Have timber harvested without a written contract;• Have a poorly written contract;• Choose a logger simply because he is a relative or

friend;• Be lured by what seems to be very high stumpage

prices;• Assume that smaller equipment = a better job;• Expect both extraordinarily high payments and an

extremely meticulous job;• Believe a logger who makes a point of telling you that

you don’t need a forester;• Be lured by generic solicitations/form letters from

loggers.

ownership will ask the other child to buy them out. In many cases such a buyout is not financially possible. The end result is that some of or all of the land is sold. Beginning a conversation with your heirs about your hopes and dreams and their interests and ability to own and manage the land will help determine how to develop a succession plan. To foster family communication, many families have found it useful to use a scale that asks each family member to rank themselves on a 1 to 10 scale where 1 is “the property is a financial asset only” and 10 is “the property is a price-less heirloom.” The ranks are then discussed among family members. The second step is to think about how to transfer the management or care of the property to the next generation. This also involves family communication while at the same time considering who will implement your land management

plan 20 or more years into the future. After you know what you and your family want from the property and how you want to care for it, you can begin working with accountants and attorneys to plan for the transfer. The www.timbertax.org website and the tab for estate planning have many helpful links to publications that discuss various options for land transfer. Family discussion, planning for the care of the property and finally planning for the transfer of the property are the three main steps in forest succession planning. A great way to begin a family discussion is to talk about what you value, your hopes and dreams, and your vision for the future.

Guest post by Angela Gupta.

Some Guidelines for Planning A Timber Harvest

If you have questions about these “Timber Harvesting Do’s and Don’ts,” you can reach Barrie at [email protected].

Guest post by Amanda Mahaffey.


The bad news is that thousands of acres of privately owned forests have never been managed for long-term production of forest benefits. The good news is that many woodland owners wish to convert these lands into productive forests. These basically unmanaged lands demonstrate an array of conditions ranging from stands that have been cut-over, burned and ignored to fully stocked, untouched stands of timber that are treasured by the owner. The purpose of this article is to help those woodland own-ers who wish to convert unmanaged stands into productive forests ask the right questions and make good “first decisions.” The term “The First Decision” was coined in a 1985 forest management handbook by two Clemson University profes-sors, Jackie Haymond and Bob Zahnor. In this article I have adapted that terminology to apply to existing unmanaged stands. My goal here is to help define and describe the options available to landowners and their foresters as they make those difficult early stand decisions. The nightmarish uncertainty of early stand decision-making can be reduced if we limit our options to just three treatments:

• Stand rehabilitation • Stand regeneration • Planned postponement of stand treatment Many factors can and will affect later management options and decisions. But at this early stage, the overriding factor behind the decision to rehabilitate or regenerate a stand depends on whether there is enough good growing stock to provide crop trees for future harvests. A slightly less important factor is the availability of markets for the harvested timber. If the status of the growing stock in an unmanaged stand is the key factor in making the decision, then the landowner and

forester must become familiar with the quantity and quality of the trees in the stand. All living trees are considered growing stock. However, for decision-making purposes, timber quality is categorized as Desirable or Acceptable or Other. Future crop trees can only come from the supply of Desirable or Acceptable categories. Desirable growing stock includes healthy dominant or co-dominant trees of a preferred species; those that will survive 20 years or more and will increase in volume, quality and value following the removal of competing trees. Acceptable growing stock includes: mostly healthy trees of merchant-able species likely to survive 20 years or more; trees that will probably increase in volume and value after release. Other growing stock trees include overmature, overtopped suppressed or defective trees, trees of undesirable species and all others that will not qualify as crop trees. This category may include some trees with significant current value, such as for pulpwood or biomass, but that do not qualify as crop trees. At this point, it should be apparent that technical expertise will be needed for stand analysis, growing stock evaluation and help in making the first decision. If the stand is to be rehabilitated, then crop tree selection and marking, as well as timber sale administration, should be handled by a profes-sional forester. How will your forester gather the technical information needed to make the decision to rehabilitate or to regenerate your timber stand? A 100 percent cruise or inventory that also classifies the growing stock qualities of each tree would be ideal. However, a reconnaissance walk in the stand with the forester who is taking prism point plots along the way, would provide a qualitative appraisal of the stand. The prism data will give a good estimate of the total basal area per acre on the site, along with an estimate of the number of desirable and acceptable crop trees per acre. Let’s assume that the necessary data have already been

The First Decision:Managing Previously Unmanaged Stands

by Charles E. McGee*

A decision to rehabilitate this mixed pine-hardwood forest converted a mixed forest overtopped with low-quality hardwoods to a free-to-grow pine stand with a promising and productive future.

*Retired Leader, USFS Suwanee Forest Research Unit, and former Exec. Dir. University of Tenn. Center for Oak Studies, Knoxville. TN


gathered and that you, the landowner, are prepared to con-sider your options and make the First Decision.

Stand Rehabilitation Many unmanaged stands will not qualify for rehabilitation, and should instead be regenerated. Therefore, it is critical to carefully consider whether or not a rehabilitation harvest should be attempted. Successful rehabilitation projects will provide a good future harvest and a variable current harvest. But rehabilitation should only be attempted if—and only if—the stand contains adequate growing stock. Bear in mind that rehabilitation has up-front costs for stand analysis, crop tree identification, marking and timber sale planning. Also, depending on current markets, income from the sale of low value trees is often modest. Two potential pitfalls exist in treating unmanaged stands: The first risk is that rehabilitation potential for a stand is overlooked and the stand is regenerated. This is a missed opportunity. Conversely, rehabilitationm is attempted in a stand with inadequate crop tree growth, and the stand fails to perform as hoped when it is released.

Selection Criteria for Crop TreesGrowing stock—Almost all crop trees should come from the

desirable and acceptable components.Crop tree age—Almost all crop trees should be between age

40 and 65. The problems with releasing younger crop

trees are discussed later. A few older, longer-lived trees may be selected.

Crop tree species—Crop trees should be of a preferred spe-cies. Species preferences should be determined by the landowner and forester.

Crop tree health—Clearly, it would be desirable for all “leave” trees to be healthy and free of defects. Such premium trees may be scarce in unmanaged stands. Therefore, trees with fire scars, logging or wind damage may be used to reach the needed numbers. Diseased trees should seldom, if ever, be selected.

When is the crop tree component adequate? Ideally, 55 to 60 square feet of basal area or about 60 12-inch trees per acre will respond nicely when released from competition and form a fully stocked stand in a few years. Unfortunately, most unmanaged stands do not support growing stock at this level. So, what is the minimum crop tree basal area or number of trees per acre needed to justify going forward with a rehabilitation program? Every case will be different, but stands with fewer than 40 to 45 crop trees per acre should be subjected to extra scrutiny before making a final decision. The forester will be able to consider other factors on the ground, such as tree distribution, and will be in the best posi-tion to make the go or no/go call. The forester will know that 30 trees per acre will not fully occupy the site for regeneration to have much hope of success. Or, he may decide that in a particular case, the sparse stand produced by 35 crop trees will not justify a rehabilitation program. Decision Time! In consideration of all of the factors men-

A 14-inch diameter limit harvest was conducted on this stand and the owner was left with the small trees and a tough first decision. Should this stand be managed as is or should it be regenerated and started over? The answer depends on the actual age and species of the stand and the markets for pulpwood and tie logs.

This nice immature hardwood stand has great potential. How-ever, careful analysis of the quality and quantity of desirable and acceptable growing stock will be needed before a decision can be made to immediately reduce competition to crop trees or to postpone action for ten years.


tioned, the forester and the landowner must now make the first decision. Can the stand be saved or should it be regen-erated? If the stand is to be rehabilitated, plans for crop tree selection and logging should begin.

Crop Tree Marking Selecting and marking the crop trees that will make up the residual stand and be the source of future harvests will require a forester who can recognize the qualities of desirable and acceptable crop trees. It is best, in this case, to mark these crop trees instead of marking the trees to be cut.

Logging All trees in the stand shall be cut except the marked crop trees. The logger should be instructed to provide complete protection to the marked trees.

Forest Stand Regeneration Regeneration means starting over. The question to be answered here is, does a previously unmanaged forest stand require regeneration at this time? We have already discussed stand rehabilitation. Now we will explore how to regenerate an unmanaged stand. Unmanaged stands occur in all sizes, shapes, conditions and ownerships. Because of poor quality of the trees, most unmanaged stands will not qualify for rehabilitation and should be considered for regeneration. A major risk in stand regeneration strategies is postponing the harvest when regeneration is urgently needed. A second mistake would be to regenerate an immature stand that is performing well and increasing in value. Therefore, a previously unmanaged stand should be regenerated when:

• A stand is overmature and contains dead or dying trees.• A stand is overstocked with undesirable trees. • A stand is performing poorly and not increasing in volume

or value.

Regeneration should be carefully considered when an unmanaged stand is:

• Sparsely stocked • Diseased • Storm damaged

An owner’s decision to regenerate a stand should include advice from a skilled forester knowledgeable about local conditions as well as current markets.

Postponement of Stand Treatment Postponing needed remedial stand treatment may not always be an example of procrastination. We foresters call it “storing forest assets on the stump.” Be advised, however, that putting off needed stand treatments is hardly ever done without some risk. The following examples dealing with postponement of rehabilitation and regeneration projects will illustrate the point about risks and rewards. Earlier, the opportunities and problems associated with rehabilitating young stands were considered. Crop trees younger than 30 years old almost always respond to release from competition. However, the many non-crop trees in the stand do not have any commercial value; it would cost more to remove them than they are worth. But in order to release the crop trees, these young, unmerchantable trees will have to be dealt with in some way. To avoid the expense of control-

This tree, plus 29 additional crop trees of a similar size and quality would produce a fully-stocked stand.


ling these trees in other ways, such as chemical treatments, girdling or a pre-commercial thinning, a forester will often postpone the release until the competition is big enough to have commercial value. This is certainly a reasonable ap-proach in many cases. But there is risk to the crop trees during the 5-10 year wait. The hundreds of aggressive competing trees will crowd the stand, which could permanently interrupt the growth pattern of the crop trees. An observant forester will see that crowding is becoming a factor and shorten the waiting period. Postponing the regeneration harvest of a mature high quality stand that is rapidly increasing in value can be very beneficial to the owner. However, the owner is foregoing the income from a substantial current harvest for a greater harvest in the future. During the postponement period the valuable mature stand will be exposed to the risks of fire, disease, wind and other natural events. And if a stand becomes overmature, growth and tree quality can degrade rather rapidly and value can be lost. Storage on the stump can be useful, but postponing the regeneration of a mature stand for more than five years is not wise.

Summary Thousands of acres of private forests across this country are unmanaged for long-term forest benefits. Some private owners wish to increase the productivity of their forestland, but face a bewildering array of problems—as well as oppor-tunities—in determining how best to do so. Hopefully, this article reduces some of the confusion by suggesting that owners consider only three options as they begin manage-ment of their previously unmanaged stands.

In short: Rehabilitate stands if you can. Regenerate stands that cannot be rehabilitated. Postpone action only when good forestry requires it—consider it storage on the stump. And, the key to successful stand rehabilitation is having enough good growing stock to provide for crop trees and future harvests. A skilled forester will be needed to identify, select and mark crop trees. Unfortunately, many unmanaged stands will not have enough growing stock to qualify for rehabilitation. Many unmanaged stands are overmature and overstocked with undesirable trees. Some stands have been highgraded in past years and are sparsely stocked with trees left from the previous harvest. Some stands may be diseased or storm damaged. An obvious prescription for these stands is a regeneration harvest. Some of the stands may be in such bad shape that mar-keting the low quality timber may be difficult, but the owners should resist the temptation to make a diameter limit harvest that will remove only the best timber. Occasionally, mature, unmanaged stands will be fully stocked with relatively valuable timber. While regeneration may always be an option for these stands, the owner may be advised to postpone the regeneration harvest while the stand increases in value. A close watch is needed to detect signs of tree mortality or stand deterioration. If any of these are observed, they should begin the regeneration process. Woodland owners who wish to convert their unmanaged forests into sustainable productive forests face great chal-lenges and great opportunities. Making a good “first decision” is critical, and the more knowledgeable landowners can become, the better their chances of success.

Choose SFIThere’s a simple way you can ensure healthy forests for generations to come while supporting the people and communities in North America who depend on them.

Choose the Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI®) Standard for your working forests. It’s a symbol of responsible forestry.

Learn more at sfi program.org

NWOA


William C. Siegel, J.D.

NWOA

TAXNewsYouCanUse

Tax NewsYou

Can Use

by Dr. Linda Wang

Your Timber Tax Questions Answered

A taxpayer is selling a stand of timber and land as a trade or business activity. She seems to qualify for long-term capital gains treatment but is running into the new Net Investment Income Tax of 3.8 percent. Could you explain who is subject to the 3.8 percent tax? Does it apply to timber sales? The 3.8 percent tax applies to net gain from the sale of investment or passive business property, effective January 1, 2013. This includes investment timber sales and passive business timber sales. This 3.8 percent tax was enacted as part of the 2010 healthcare reform law. It applies to single taxpayers with adjusted gross income of more than $200,000, or couples with more than $250,000 of adjusted gross income (AGI) only. If the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income is below the thresholds, the capital gains are not subject to the 3.8 per-cent tax. If the sale of timber is not a passive business asset, it is not subject to the 3.8 percent net investment income tax.

Example 1: In 2014, Mrs. Johnson sold her timber as in-vestment property for a gain of $10,000. She is a single taxpayer. Her adjusted gross income is $270,000. Because her income is above the $200,000 individual threshold, the $10,000 capital gain on timber sale is subject to the 3.8 percent tax, on top of the long-term capital gains tax. If her adjusted gross income is less than $200,000, the $10,000 capital gains from the timber sale are not subject to the 3.8 percent tax.

A husband and wife jointly purchased an 81-acre wooded property in 1985 for $1,000 per acre. The tim-ber value at the time was approximately $500 per acre. A cost basis was never established. No improvements were made. No timber was sold. A complete inventory in 2014 showed 600,000 board feet of salable timber, with a value of $240,000. In September 2014, the couple had a selective timber sale: A total of 140,000 board feet was sold at a value of $56,000 on a selective improve-ment harvest. Expenses in the amount of $2,000 were paid to a consultant for timber sale and inventory. It was sold on a lump sum basis with a sealed bid. What is the tax due, and when? Setting up timber basis helps save taxes. This is be-cause timber basis can be deducted from the timber sale proceeds before the gains are taxed. One may retroactively set up the basis. However, weigh the cost of hiring qualified professional foresters or real es-tate appraisers to set up the basis against the potential tax savings.

To set up the timber basis, the taxpayer will need to:

1.) Obtain the fair market value (FMV) of the timber and land back in 1985. A qualified consulting forester can help document the FMV of the timber then. Note the fair market value of timber and land, as appraised by qualified professionals, may or may not be equal to the purchase cost paid. Figure out the timber’s and land’s basis by allocating the total purchase cost paid based on the proportionate FMV share of the timber and land.

2.) If there are net gains after deducting the timber basis and the sale expenses from the sale proceeds, taxes will be due on the net gains on your 2014 tax returns. If there is no basis, the taxes are higher. Thus her taxable gains are calculated as:

Sale Proceeds – [Total Basis/Volume of Timber] x Volume of Timber Sold – Consultant Fee = Taxable Gains

If the taxable gains qualify for long-term capital gains, they will be subject to the favorable lower rate than ordinary income. Lump-sum sale of standing timber qualifies for long-term capital gains treatment if it’s an investment prop-erty or business use asset that is held for more than one year (There is an exception: if you cut the timber yourself or have it cut and sold—the cut product in your business—all gains are ordinary income unless an election is made to treat part of it as capital gains).

What if the same scenario played out as above, but the timber was sold in 2014, with 25 percent down payment at sale time and balance to be paid in 2015? For lump-sum timber sales, the sellers are paid a fixed amount for the specified total timber prior to the harvest-ing. Such sales are reported in the year of sale. However, if the buyer pays a down payment first with the rest of the balance due in an escrow account in later year(s), different rules may apply depending on the restrictions placed on the seller to receive the sale proceeds. According to the IRS Publication 537, full purchase price is considered received in the year of sale unless there are substantial restrictions on the seller to receive payment. The sale can be reported using the installment method if there are substantial restrictions. An installment sale helps to defer taxes but there must be interest charged to the deferred payment. If the transaction qualifies for installment sale, one must report the sale and pay tax in the year when each installment is received. Interests are reported sepa-rately as ordinary income.

If there are two or more individuals who own the prop-erty, do they just have one $10,000 limit on reforesta-tion expense per year? Or does each owner have a


$10,000 limit to use? Also, if a landowner owns two dif-ferent tracts of land, do they have two $10,000 limits to use (one for each tract) or just one? For reforested property, sec. 194 of the tax code says “the aggregate amount of reforestation expenditure…with respect to each qualified timber property for any taxable year shall not exceed $10,000.” The $10,000 limit applies to both the partnership and the partners. So one $10,000 payment is available for the partnership to allocate to each partner. If one landowner owns two tracts, there are two options: if he treats the two tracts as one timber asset for tax pur-pose, the reforestation expensing limit is only one $10,000. To be consistent, he also keeps track of the timber basis together which potentially allows bigger casualty loss de-duction. If he separately reports the two tracts and keeps track of the basis separately for the tax purpose, there’s no clear guidance from the IRS on whether two $10,000 refor-estation expenses for each property can be used, given the limited guidance on this issue on Form T Instructions and the tax code. Depending on how one interprets the $10,000 limit “with respect to each qualified property for any taxable year,” the result may be quite different.

Local governments now have to reevaluate local prop-erty, especially rural property, every few years be-cause it is the only source of revenue they have to run schools, county upkeep, sheriff’s department and etc. We just had our evaluations done—doubled in some cases—and most people who own rural property ap-pealed. It took two years for most appeals to be heard. Most were denied and the evaluations stood. The main concern was that the landowners were not notified of the hearing nor allowed to present their case. Is this legal? Who spoke for the landowner? Who pleaded our side? What is the legal process for an appeal? Timber growers have no insurance protection like farmers of row crops. If we have a fire after paying taxes on a stand of timber for 10-20 years and lose the stand to a wildfire, we have lost everything, including the taxes for that time period. This is a property tax issue. Each state has its own set of rules in appraising and taxing agricultural property or woodland. So does the process for appeal, which varies from state to state. Also, each local county tax or apprais-al office may require different type of evidence or docu-ments to determine the eligibility for special woodland use tax programs. Typically, taxpayers may appeal their case but should do so within the specified deadline. Missing a deadline might delay your appeal until next year, at which point you will have to file it again. Information on the legal process for appeal and the associated deadlines may be sent together with the annual statement of the proposed valuation of your property for the year. Or you can normally obtain the appraisal and appeal procedure from the local county tax appraisal office or the state tax or revenue office. A tax or forestry consultant or an attorney may be re-tained to help your case. You can also search the web or go to a library to try to find any reference on the woodland ap-praisal calculation, the comparable sale data used and the appeal process. To find out the reason for increased valu-ation of your land, it is important to know how the valuation was derived. Because each county may use different data or process to do the valuation, it is hard to generalize. For a starting point, go to the National Timber Tax Website at www.timbertax.org for useful information on local property tax calculation methods. Although lack of insurance protec-

tion increases the risk of owning timberland property, it may or may not be a factor for how the valuation is calculated. The property taxes you paid for the timber that is lost in the fire are still deductible for the federal income tax on Sched-ule A, Itemized Deduction or deductible as casualty loss (as part of the timber basis).

After a clearcut, should rural land valuation be lower because the 60- to 70-year-old trees have been re-moved? The cost of replanting today is astronomical, to say the least, so many people are not replanting. Each state has different standards and they use different methods to derive the valuation of your woodland. Typically the local county appraisal or tax offices are responsible for doing the appraisal. Contact them to find out the appraisal determination. For example, many states use soil produc-tivity to grow timber as the tax base, rather than what is ac-tually on the property. Land that is not used to grow timber could be taxed at the highest best use, which may be actu-ally higher than woodland use appraisal, especially if the property is close to an urban area where property values are high.

What steps would you recommend a first-time forest landowner take to understand tax laws and how to plan for future harvests? There are three useful publications by the US Forest Service for first-time forest landowners to learn the tax law: 1) Tax Tips for Forest Landowners for the 2014 Tax Year; 2) Federal Income on Timber: A Landowner’s Quick Guide; and 3) the Federal Income Tax Guide for Forest Landowner. These three publications are available at the USDA Forest

Valuation of timberland following a clearcut varies by state.


Linda Wang is the U.S. Forest Ser-vice national timber tax specialist, author and coauthor of numerous articles. For more information, visit the National Timber Tax website, www.timbertax.org.

NWOA

Here’s what you missed in the Fall Quarter:Oct. 1 How to Prepare Your Winter Firewood SupplyOct 9 How to Limit Cracking When Drying Woods

DiscsOct. 16 How to Make a Replacement Axe HandleOct. 23 How to Select additives for Chainsaw GasOct. 30 How to Break and Mean a Saw ChairNov. 6 How to Diagnose Black Walnut DamageDec 30 How to Drain Winter Roads

FEATURE STORYOct. 1 Forest Legacy Success StoriesOct. 16 U.S. Forest Service Tracking Climate Change

Service-Forest Taxation web page: http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/tax.shtml. Your state’s university or Ex-tension offices may have educational publications geared to forest landowners. The Forest Service and state partners will host free tim-ber tax webinars that you can tune in to from your home or office: www.forestrywebinar.org. These tax webinars ex-plain the tax laws and answer your questions as well as giving you the new tax law changes to file your tax return. The National Timber Tax Website has up-to-date infor-mation: www.timbertax.org. Consider joining your local forest landowner association where you can network with other landowners and find out about educational workshops on taxes.

To properly plan for a future harvest, you may consider setting up your timber basis and making sure the sale quali-fies for long-term capital gains. Timber basis is the cost of the timber in your hand (or other values as assigned by the tax law). For more information, you may read the Federal Income Tax on Timber: A Landowner’s Quick Guide, which has easy-to-understand discussions on how to set up tim-ber basis, complete with examples. When you sell timber, you can deduct the basis from the sale proceeds to get to the taxable gains, thus saving taxes. Make sure you un-derstand the qualification requirement for long-term capital gains. Long-term capital gains are subject to lower tax rate than ordinary income. To plan for the future harvest and know how to file your taxes correctly, you may find help from both your tax advi-sor and consulting forester. A consulting forester can su-pervise the harvest and provide the necessary sale volume and value data for calculating your taxes.

Be Smart Before You Start

learn more: www.interforestry.com • (800) 633-4506

INTERNATIONAL FOREST COMPANY

The Decision Pyramid Future markets, climate, soil conditions, silvicultural practices and genetics can all play a vital role in the success of your forestry investment. Increase your growth and decrease your risk...Be smart before you start.

To subscribe to the online Woodland Word, which is emailed to subscribers every Wednesday,

email: [email protected]

Nov. 6 What You Should Know About Carbon OffsetsDec. 30 Forests and Carbon

FORESTRYOct 1. Pests in the NewsOct. 23 Timber CruisingNov. 6 Urban Forest FragmentsNov 12 Seeing the Forest for the TreesDec. 30 600 Temporary Jobs at U.S. Forest Service

SILVICULTUREOc. 9 Emerald Ash Borer in IllinoisOct. 16 The Forest Tent CaterpillarNov 12 Fall Care of Fruit Trees

WILDFIRENov. 12 Yarnell Fire Videos from Arizona Forestry

DID YOU RECEIVE TWO COPIES OF THIS ISSUE? IF SO, PLEASE PASS IT ON TO A FRIEND

EACH QUARTER WE MAIL AN INTRODUCTORY COPY OF NATIONAL WOODLANDS TO LANDOWNERS, FORESTERS AND LOGGERS WHO ARE GOOD PROSPECTS FOR JOINING NWOA.

WE TRY HARD TO REMOVE DUPLICATE ADDRESSES, BUT THEY DO SLIP THROUGH

SHARE YOUR ADDITIONAL COPY WITH OUR COMPLIMENTS


Federal regulators say Oregon is not doing enough to protect water quality in coastal areas. A recent ruling on the state’s coastal non point pollution control could end up costing the state millions. More than 15 years ago, the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration told Oregon officials they needed to tighten regulations on non point source, or runoff-related, pollution. Non point pollution comes from a broad range of human activities, including agriculture, grazing, urban development and forestry. Specifically, officials said Oregon regulations on urban, septic systems and logging runoff needed work. Over the years some changes happened, but not enough. Now federal officials say Oregon’s logging rules still don’t do enough to protect fish habitat and drinking water. “We have concerns that extend beyond the disapproval points that the federal agencies made today,” says Nina Bell with Northwest Environmental Advocates, the group that sued the EPA and NOAA in 2009 to force a ruling on Oregon’s plan. “But we agree strongly with what the federal agencies did say.” The plan disapproval cited four forestry-specific areas that need to be addressed:

• Protecting small- and medium-sized streams. This could include increas-ing logging buffer zones in these riparian areas and treating non-fish-bearing streams the same as those with fish. One objective of increased protections is to maintain enough shade to keep water temperatures

at levels healthy for fish downstream. • Addressing runoff from logging

roads, including older “legacy” roads. Erosion of unmaintained logging roads can cause significant sedimen-tation problems in streams, harming salmon habitat. Oregon currently has a voluntary compliance program to ensure impacts are curbed, but the EPA says the state doesn’t have a sufficient monitoring or tracking pro-gram to ensure the voluntary efforts are working.

• Protecting waterways from land-

slides. Landslides can severely impair water quality. As above, voluntary compliance measures not

Federal Government QuestionsOregon’s Commitment to Clean Logging

tracked. In addition, logging-related landslide deterrence is managed to prevent loss of human life and prop-erty, not impacts on water quality.

• Minimizing forestry-related pesti-cides’ impact on streams. Pesticide run-off from forestry activities can harm fish and impair drinking water for communities downstream. The EPA suggests effects can be limited with an increase in no-cut buffer zones, especially on non-fish bearing streams.

Oregon Department of Forestry spokesman Dan Postrel says the state is continuing to work on these issues. “We are definitely continuing to evolve the Forest Practices Act as we have for 40-some years,” he says. Postrel cites current work by the state forestry board to re-evaluate stream shade practices. For the other issues, the state stands by the effectiveness of voluntary measures. With the disapproval of Oregon’s pol-lution control plan comes consequence —financial in nature. As soon as July 2015, the government can begin cutting the amount of federal grant funds avail-able to the state. That reduction could be as much as $1.3 million the first year, according to Northwest Environmental Advocates.

Landowners who regularly check their land are in the best position to assure that Best Management Practices are followed, before the situation gets out of hand.

Here We Go Again? We Hope Not! When this story came in from Oregon Live we thought: “Not all over again?” Surely the Supreme Court had settled the issue for good. It overturned the Ninth Circuit Court ruling that would have required logging companies and road depart-ments to obtain EPA permits for stormwater runoff from logging roads. That deci-sion also led Congress to drop further consideration of the proposed Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Act of 2013. The law was clear. EPA’s 1980 silvicultural rule in the Clean Water Act was indeed the law of the land. Unfortunately for landowners, there is also a provision in the law that permits citizens groups to question how well federal EPA managers provide oversight on how state agencies regulate Best Management Practices within their jurisdiction. This provision allows people to challenge the effectiveness of this oversight in court (all over again). So the games begin anew.

—KAA

NWOA


My first memory of seeing the true value of a pickaroon was in a high-production, high-tech sawmill in Finland. One guy ran the whole mill, as I remember, but he was well equipped with a vast array of computerized, totally mechanized equip-ment and a bank of television monitors showing what was happening at strategic places in the production line. He also had a pickaroon leaning against the control panel. The reason became clear when a log got cross-ways on the infeed chain, causing a pause in produc-tion. We could see it on one of the monitors. The operator grabbed the pickaroon and ran out to where the log jam was, straightened the offending log with the tool, then came back into the control room to return to the business of producing spruce lumber. A pickaroon is a very simple device. Basically, it’s a hook welded to a steel strap at-tached to the end of a regular axe handle, which you drive into a piece of wood that you want to move. It extends your reach by about three feet, which saves a lot of bending and other physical exertion and contortion, while keeping your hands dry and out of harm’s way. The business end of the tool is a sharp, curved little hook designed to be embedded in the wood fiber with a minimum of effort. It provides surprisingly firm command of any piece of wood, and a fair amount of mechanical advantage as well. You can drive the hook into the end of a log or into the side, then yank it into position. A pickaroon works great for managing log-length firewood when cutting from a pile, and is just as useful for moving the cut blocks out of the way as you work and standing them up for splitting. The pickaroon has been around for centuries, and I’ve been cutting and handling all kinds of roundwood since the age of 14. So, you’d think I’d be an old hand, so to speak, when it comes to the wonderful pickaroon. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. My trip to Finland was in the late 1980s, and the irony that a multi-million dollar, multi-million board foot sawmill could be “fixed” with a remarkably simple and inexpensive device, was not lost on me. I was truly impressed. That’s why I can’t for the life of me understand why I didn’t buy my first pickaroon until last year.

I’ve been wrestling with firewood, pulpwood and sawlogs with my back and hands for more than 40 years. After using my new tool to cut firewood in the yard last fall, I don’t know how (or why) I ever tried to cut wood without it. I do have a legacy of smashed, cold fingers and sore backs to punctuate

my memories of bygone wood cutting days. Perhaps the aging process plays a role. As my late dad used to remind me when we were cutting wood together, “You don’t have to be smart because you’re young and strong. Me, I need to be smart.” Of course, he was right. You’d think a tool as useful as a pickaroon would be easy to find, but like most forestry and logging gear, you won’t see one at a Menards or Home Depot or Lowe’s. The best place is a well-stocked saw shop that caters to loggers, at a timber industry trade show or online at Northern Tool or Bailey’s. They cost about $30. I was talking to a friend the other day about just how cool a pickaroon really is, when he casually mentioned that he has a special way of

sharpening his. He explained that he’s figured out a shape that works best for the wood he cuts. And it’s different in the winter than the summer due to frozen wood. This reminds me of the fact that most loggers sharpen their new chains right out of the box. They claim they can get the chain sharper with a file than the factory can with a grinder, and the folks at the factory who I’ve talked to, agree. I’m also reminded of my dad, who was very proud of his idea to weld the tip of a pulp hook on to the back of his splitting maul head, so he could use it like a pickaroon for standing firewood blocks up for splitting. It’s indeed smarter than the way I was doing it, but I never warmed up to the idea of swinging the extra six or eight pounds of iron around, just to use the hook. Finally, a word about safety. Most people who have used a pulp hook have either driven the hook into their arm or leg, or come close. Just because they’re not a razor-sharp chain moving at 11,000 rpm doesn’t mean pickaroons, split-ting mauls, axes and pulphooks aren’t dangerous in their own right. They can still draw blood, and thus deserve the appropriate respect.

by Eric Johnson, Executive Editor

The Pickaroon:A Remarkably Useful Tool

NWOA

Work with us and we’ll work for your grandchildren.

For today’s timberland owner, there is much to consider. Balancing short-term gains against

long-term values is complicated. As North America’s largest manufacturer of hardwood

veneer and plywood, Columbia Forest Products believes helping timberland owners properly

manage their forest is important. For this reason, we’re proud of our commitment to forest

certification. As FSC®-certified resource managers through

Rainforest Alliance, we support forest certification by

promoting and rewarding responsible forest

management for generations to come.

CFP053_National_Woodlands_Ad(7x10).indd 1 9/18/13 11:43 AM


Work with us and we’ll work for your grandchildren.

For today’s timberland owner, there is much to consider. Balancing short-term gains against

long-term values is complicated. As North America’s largest manufacturer of hardwood

veneer and plywood, Columbia Forest Products believes helping timberland owners properly

manage their forest is important. For this reason, we’re proud of our commitment to forest

certification. As FSC®-certified resource managers through

Rainforest Alliance, we support forest certification by

promoting and rewarding responsible forest

management for generations to come.

CFP053_National_Woodlands_Ad(7x10).indd 1 9/18/13 11:43 AM


National Woodlands374 Maple Avenue EastSuite 210Vienna, VA 22180

[email protected] Woodlands374 Maple Avenue EastSuite 310Vienna, VA 22180

Dear Keith: It has been frustrating to watch our forests get overgrown to a point where wildfires have become commonplace. Mark V. Thornton’s letter in the Autumn 2014 issue of National Woodlands hit the nail on the head: “We’re losing too much property, timber, and water quality due to severe damaging fires.” There has been disagreement and opposition with loggers for decades. As a result, many hazy laws were enacted, prohibiting the sale of timber. Employ-ment in the timber industry has been declining ever since: and the trees are getting thicker, more decadent, and bug infested. The Forest Service is being per-suaded to reduce this avalanche of excess fuel by prescribing wildfires. The cost of administration and loss of resources would be completely prohibi-tive: the taxpayers would choke from the cost and the smoke. The birds and the bears would be horrified by such wildfires! Just ask Smokey. The best news came recently from Oregon told by an AP release; “where a sawmill was rescued by a détente between the timber industry and envi-ronmentalists. The sides uncovered a shared goal: thinning overgrown forests to prevent catastrophic wildfires.” The wise use of forestry practices

would reduce excessive fuel loads. It looks increasingly that we can all benefit by working together and devising a plan for the benefit of all living things.

Jack OwenHillman, Michigan

Dear Keith: I know I am only one small speck on the windshield, but I am confused about changes to the American Tree Farm program. They want more information from me for my forestry plan. Is that for “certification?” Will it cost me money? Will I get that cost back when I sell my timber? Last year I thinned a small tract of timber and several buyers came to look at it. One of them asked if my timber was “certified.” I said it was; there is a Tree Farm sign on my gate. He remarked that it looked like the sign had been there many years, and asked how recently someone had come to look at our management plan. I didn’t know. My dad joined Tree Farm maybe 30 years ago. The buyer said that Tree Farm was once a recognition program, “a sign of good forestry,” but that did not mean my trees were certified. If they were, we would have been given a “Certified” sign as well. None of the other log buyers I met mentioned cer-

tification at all. Later I remembered that my dad had mentioned a request for additional in-formation about his management plan. He had heard that he would need a forester to update the plan and it might cost him money. In his things I found that Tree Farm had requested additional information, but there is no indication that he responded. I am sure you hear this beef all the time. I would like to keep the Tree Farm sign because it was important to my dad. If they do come to take the sign, how much will it cost me to keep it?

Name Withheld by RequestNorfolk, VA

Dear NWOA member, you are not alone in being confused about Forest Certification and its benefit to family woodland owners. When your Tree Farm was registered many years ago it was indeed a recognition program for your dad’s good forestry practices, just as the log buyer told you. That all began to change in the early 1990s when the European-based Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) es-tablished its international certification program in the United States. It was not long before the American forest industry responded with a certification program of its own, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). Tree Farm members were also tem-porarily grandfathered into SFI. In 1999 the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) was created as an alternative to FSC. SFI worked quickly to meet the PEFC certification standards. In a few years the Tree Farm pro-gram also successfully met the PEFC standards. Technically, only Tree Farms designated as “certified” actually are, but buyers are not too fussy during the transition. Will you receive a premium for your certified trees? Only the buyers know for sure, and they do not often confide that to the landowner. NWOA gets that question often. We plan a special feature on that question in an upcoming issue of National Woodlands.

—KAA

Smaller version of PA Conferecne adPrivate Forest Landowner Conference

This conference is for woodland owners, resources profes-sionals, and all who care about private forests in Pennsylvania. Topics include forest health, forest legacy, taxes, tending your woods, water quality, wildlife and woods in your backyard.

THE FUTURE OF PENN’S WOODS

March 20–21, 2015Blair County Convention CenterAltoona, Pennsylvania

Center for Private Forests at Penn State

Penn State is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer, and is committed to providing employment opportunities to minorities, women, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and other protected groups. Nondiscrimination: http://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD85.html 10/14 5155

ecosystems.psu.edu/private-forest-conferenceCollege of Agricultural Sciences


Southeast

North Carolina to Charge FeesFor Forest Management Plans The North Carolina Board of Ag-riculture recently approved fees for woodland management plans, follow-ing a directive from the state General Assembly. The state budget approved by the General Assembly directed the NC Forest Service to start charging for woodland plans, commonly referred to as forest management plans. The budget bill also allowed the Board of Agriculture to review and approve the fees. “The North Carolina Forest Service has been helping protect, manage and promote North Carolina’s forests for nearly 100 years,” said Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler. “They have a lot of experience assisting woodland owners with valuable and tax-saving management advice. I be-lieve the Board of Agriculture approved reasonable fees that will allow the NC Forest Service to continue delivering

Northeast

New Smartphone App. For Northeast Forest Landowners Woodland owners in the Northeast have a new tool to help them learn about their woods. AboutMyWoods is a new app for mobile phones and tablets (both Apple and Android) that puts a wealth of in-formation at your fingertips. Developed to help forest landowners learn more about their land and connect to pro-fessionals who can help them, About-MyWoods is a great way to connect with the information that landowners need. And the app includes a series of custom maps, from location-specific connections to professional assistance. Users can also use the app to identify common wildlife, trees, wildflowers and invasive plants and insects. An in depth description of the app and its features can be found at http://www.inrsllc.com The North East State Foresters As-sociation (NEFA) includes the state foresters of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York working in cooperation with U.S. Forest Service. This app is designed to assist woodland owners in understanding their woods and the options for managing it, by providing basic information and con-necting them with forest professionals who can assist. Development of the app was funded by a grant from the Forest Service.

Massachusetts Quarantines StateFor Emerald Ash Borer The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) recently announced a state-wide Mas-sachusetts quarantine to help slow the spread of the invasive Emerald Ash

Borer (EAB). The quarantine took effect in mid November. “The Emerald Ash Borer poses a very serious threat to ash trees across the Commonwealth,” said DCR Com-missioner Jack Murray. “We believe a state-wide quarantine provides the best chance for slowing the spread of Emerald Ash Borer.” The quarantine order means that certain products will be prohibited from moving outside the regulated area, including all hardwood firewood (any piece of wood smaller than 48 inches), all ash nursery stock and any ash lum-ber that has not been treated. Proper wood treatments include the removal of bark and half an inch of wood, dry kiln sterilization, fumigation and heat

the professional services its customers have come to expect.” Woodland plans will have a base fee of $45. In addition, there will be a fee of $3 per acre for forest management plans and forest stewardship plans, both of which are comprehensive. Practice plans, which are simpler plans that usually address just one manage-ment practice, will cost $2 per acre in addition to the base fee. The NCFS offers a variety of forestry programs and services that are still free of charge. There are financial and environmen-tal benefits to having a woodland plan, said Sean Brogan, director of forest management and development for the NCFS. Certain types of plans can qualify a landowner for participation in the state’s Forestry Present Use Valu-ation Program, resulting in significant property tax reductions. The tax sav-ings realized in the first year alone are usually more than enough to cover the cost of a woodland plan, Brogan said. Woodland plan preparation fees can also be considered a deductible management expense for tax purposes. Woodland plans provide detailed forestry recommendations, but they can also advise landowners on wildlife habitat, soil and water protection, rec-reation opportunities and aesthetics. In addition, they can help qualify landown-ers for forestry recognition programs, including forest certification. North Carolina landowners inter-ested in forestry advice and a woodland plan should contact their local county ranger for more details. Click on the “Contact Us” section of the NCFS website (http://ncforestservice.gov) for county information. Landowners also can call the agency’s central office at (919) 857-4801 for assistance.

Kentucky Fire Season Ends,Landowners Vigilance Urged Kentucky’s fall forest fire hazard season officially ended Dec. 15, but officials with the Kentucky Division of Forestry continue to urge caution when conducting any kind of outdoor burning. “Kentucky’s forests have weath-ered serious storms over the past few


Mid Atlantic

years and the increase in dead and fallen trees are of particular concern for fire suppression efforts,” said Leah MacSwords, director of the Division of Forestry. “We were fortunate to receive timely precipitation this fall, which kept the fire dangers low.” During 2014, 1,399 fires have burned 40,251 acres across the state. While arson continues to be the leading cause of wildfires in Kentucky, many regions of the state showed an increase in debris fires. Forestry officials reported the fol-lowing numbers as causes for 2014’s wildfires: 900 arson fires, 305 debris fires and 194 fires due to lightning, faulty equipment and other causes. The increase in debris fires is likely due to the accumulation of dead trees and limbs from storm damage. The danger of setting fire to debris piles and fence rows is often underestimated and the potential for these fires to spread to the woods is much higher than in past years due to the condition of our woods. For more information about fire haz-ard seasons, outdoor burning laws and safe debris burning practices, contact the Kentucky Division of Forestry at (800) 866-0555 or visit the division’s website at http://forestry.ky.gov/. Citizens should also check with the Kentucky Division for Air Quality, the Kentucky Division of Waste Manage-ment and local agencies to ensure that all outdoor burning laws are being obeyed.

New Pellet Project Announcedfor North Carolina, Alabama Enviva Holdings, LP and John Han-cock Life Insurance Company have announced a partnership to develop industrial wood pellet production plants and marine export terminals in the southeastern U.S. Through their affiliates, Enviva De-velopment Holdings, LLC and Hancock Natural Resource Group, Inc., the com-panies have committed to invest up to an aggregate of $320 million in equity capital in Enviva Wilmington Holdings, LLC. The joint venture plans to construct an industrial wood pellet production plant in Sampson County, North Caro-lina, a marine export terminal at the Port of Wilmington, North Carolina, and potentially other wood pellet plants and marine terminals in the southeastern U.S. Enviva will serve as the manag-ing member and operator of the joint venture. The joint venture expects to com-mence construction of the Sampson

Natural Gas Fracking Banned in New York State New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently announced a move to prohibit hydraulic fracturing of gas wells in the state, commonly known as “fracking,” citing unresolved health issues and dubious economic benefits of the gas-drilling technique, widely used in other states, including neighboring Pennsyl-vania. Environmental Commissioner Joe Martens said that he was recommend-ing a ban, and Cuomo said he would defer to Martens and Acting Health Commissioner Howard Zucker in mak-ing the decision. Forest landowners who are sitting on potential gas wells are dismayed by the decision—not unexpected but certainly not welcome—while the forest industry in the state’s Southern Tier is largely in support of the ban, given the potential negative impact that fracking has on roadways and timber supplies, as well as other aspects of the local infrastructure. The issue of roads is a touchy one, since sawmills and other forest indus-tries are often asked to share in road reclamation costs, regardless of their actual responsibility. Another negative impact that natural gas fracking has had in Pennsylvania on the forest industry is that it makes landowners less motivated to sell timber if they are seeing income from gas drilling. Another complaint is that gas line rights of way through produc-tive forestland tend to limit their future productivity.

South Central

British Company AnnouncesSoutheast Pellet Projects Drax Biomass International Inc. is a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Drax Group plc, a major electricity generator in the United Kingdom with a commit-ment to producing renewable power. On December 13, the company an-nounced two plants in adjoining states. In Gloster, Mississippi, located in Amite County, the company plans to construct a 450,000-metric-ton-per-year plant (Amite BioEnergy) that will create 45 direct jobs. The Mississippi Development Au-thority (MDA) worked with company and local officials to provide assistance for road and infrastructure needs related to the project. The Town of Gloster and Amite County provided assistance for infrastructure needs, as well. In ad-dition, Entergy Mississippi provided support for this project. That same day, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Drax Biomass CEO Chuck Davis announced a more than $120-million investment by the com-pany in Louisiana, where Drax Biomass plans to build a wood pellet facility in Bastrop and a storage-and-shipping

Pennsylvania Forest LandownerConference in March The Center for Private Forests at Penn State and its partners have an-nounced the second Pennsylvania Private Forest Landowner Conference. The goal of this event is to provide pri-vate woodland owners with resources that will help them care for their lands. “To insure the sustainability of these resources, it is essential to consider society’s increasing demands for forest products and the preservation of forest health and diversity,” say the conference organizers. The conference will be held in Al-toona, Pennsylvania on March 20-21. Registration will be $100 for both days, with lower registration fees for attending only one of the days. Online Registration Closes March 9. For more information, call (877)-778-2937.

plant and Wilmington terminal as soon as possible. Wood pellet production from the Sampson plant will be exported through the Wilmington terminal under long-term contracts with major Euro-pean power generators. The joint venture’s customers are replacing coal with wood pellets to improve the environmental profile of energy generation.


facility at the Port of Greater Baton Rouge. The project will create 63 new direct jobs, with 47 of the jobs located at the Bastrop wood pellet facility and 16 jobs at the shipping facility in Port Allen near Baton Rouge. Louisiana Eco-nomic Development (LED) estimates the project will result in an additional 143 indirect jobs in the state. Jindal said the project was a sign of recovery from the region’s loss of the International Paper mill in Bastrop. With 169,000 acres of timberland as a renewable resource hub in Morehouse Parish, Drax also will draw on forestry products within a 50-mile radius of its wood pellet facility, to be located ten miles north of Bastrop in the Beekman community. According to a release from LED, the project will tap private and industrial landowners who manage sustainable forests in the region, using logs and residual forest products that will be sized and dried before being pelletized at the Drax plant. The pellets will be further sized and conditioned for transport to the U.K. via bulk cargo ships.

Tax Prep WorkshopFor Texas Forest Landowners The day-long workshop, being conducted by nationally-recognized

forestland tax expert, Harry Haney, Jr., will provide working knowledge of timber tax including basics about tim-ber taxation and the latest changes to tax laws and rules for 2014 tax return preparations. Topics will focus on fed-eral timber income tax issues for private forest owners with a refresher on local timberland property tax incentives. Participants will gain a clear under-standing of commonly misunderstood timber tax issues. For individuals who have had timber losses due to the recent drought, this workshop can explain how to claim the loss. The workshop is designed for forest landowners, consulting foresters, ac-countants, attorneys, and others who work with forest landowners in matters pertaining to timber taxes. For additional information or ques-tions, contact Jennifer Hayes at (979) 458-6630 or [email protected].

Oklahoma Forestry Officials TargetDevastating Beetle Infestations Oklahoma Forestry officials recently announced that funding is available for forest landowners to prevent the rav-ages of a pine beetle infestation that has devastated vast areas in many southern states. “More than 600,000 acres of Okla-

homa’s pine forests are at high risk of attack by the South’s most destructive forest insect, the Southern Pine Beetle,” said John Burwell, State Forester. “Congress and the U.S. Forest Service are supporting state efforts to help landowners thin these overcrowded pine stands and improve forest health.” The Oklahoma Department of Agri-culture, Food and Forestry is offering cost-share assistance to landowners whose forests are at greatest risk. Approved forestry practices include thinning of dense pine stands and development of forest management plans. For more information visit the State Forester’s website or contact Jack Carson (405) 522-4575

Heartland Region

Ohio Windbreak Program With fewer fence rows, less woodlot acreage, and the addition of fall plowing, Ohio farms lose more and more soil


North Central

New Wisconsin Landowner Lobby The Wisconsin Alliance of Forest Owners is a new landowner organiza-tion attempting to bring about legislative

due to wind erosion. The Northwest Ohio Windbreak Program is a turnkey tree planting program—from design to planting—for farmers in the flatest, windiest portion of the state. The Northwest Ohio Windbreak Program is an inter-agency effort that began in 1977 with the objective to reduce soil erosion, protect crops from wind damage, and enhance wildlife habitat. Since the program’s beginning, more than 1,500 windbreaks have been planted, covering more than 6.9 million row feet or 1,300 row miles. Cooperating agencies and organi-zations include local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) in 17 northwest Ohio counties; the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the US Department of Ag-riculture; the Ohio DNR Divisions of Forestry, Soil & Water Resources, and Wildlife; and Pheasants Forever. Windbreaks planted through this program are at least 1,000 row feet in total length and protect agricultural land. Landowners can have from one to six rows of trees and shrubs planted.

Illinois Landowners Honored The Illinois Environmental Protec-

tion Agency recently honored private forestry landowners who have volun-tarily adopted conservation practices, which will reduce greenhouse gas, while earning payments through the Chicago Climate Exchange. Representatives of the Department of Natural Resources, Delta Institute, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts were also represented to recognize landowners’ role of adopting forestation, preservation and manage-ment practices that help reduce GHG emissions. In essence, they noted, forest ecosystems act as biological scrubbers by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

changes that will benefit the state’s for-est landowners. WAFO board member Richard Wedepohl said forest owners need to be better organized to be ef-fective. “The way to be effective will require two things. We are going to need to raise enough money to retain a lobbyist and at least minimal staff … and the other part of our plan is to get contact information for as many woodland owners as we can so we can keep them informed of things that are happening in the legislature,” Wedepohl said. “Provide us an email (and) we’ll send out updates.” Wedepohl said the organization is dealing with old issues, but having lobbying power puts more force behind its ability to represent private woodland interests in the same way that other trade organizations do in informing policy. “Landowners will soon be receiving their property tax bills and the legislature will begin work on the state budget, along with again working on bills to change the (Managed Forest Law). If we want to make a difference, now is the time to increase public understand-ing and work to educate legislators on issues that affect us,” Wedepohl wrote in an email to potential members.


Spain CanadaCanadaMacedonia

MontenegroMontenegroMontenegroSpain CanadaMacedonia

CanadaMacedonia

CanadaAustralia

United States651.209.7191 www.fi rebossllc.com

1700 Henry Avenue — Fleming Field South, St. Paul, MN 55075

Powered by a 1600 HP Pratt & Whitney Engine

Nearly 70 Operating Worldwide

CanadaMacedonia

CanadaMacedonia

CanadaMontenegroMontenegroMontenegro

CanadaMontenegro

CanadaMontenegro

CanadaMontenegro

Canadawww.fi rebossllc.com

1700 Henry Avenue — Fleming Field South, St. Paul, MN 55075

Argentina

Show Your AffiliationTo All Who Pass by Your Land

Available from the National Woodland Owners Assoc.Sturdy18”x18”metal sign, only $15 plus $4 postage; $25 for two, plus $5 postage

To order with VISA/MC call (703) 255-2700,or mail check pay-able to: NWOA National Woodlands Owners, 374 Maple Ave. E.,Suite 310, Vienna VA 22180

Northwest

Idaho Forest LandownersGet BMP Help from New Website A new website is taking root to help forest owners and others comply with Idaho forestry best management prac-tices (BMPs) designed to protect water quality and the environment. University of Idaho Extension Forestry and the Idaho Department of Lands developed the website, www.idahoforestrybmps.org. It explains the importance of best management practices to protecting watersheds, water quality and other environmental benefits.. BMPs are defined as practices that are the most effective and practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of erosion resulting from forest practices.

Providing links to key state and fed-eral forestry agencies, the website also offers primers on filling out notifications of forest practices and stream chan-nel alteration permits, key documents required for most forestry operations. Readily available, easily understood information for forest owners and man-agers is the goal of the new website, said Randy Brooks, UI Extension forestry specialist at Moscow. Yvonne Barkley, associate exten-sion forestry specialist at Moscow, led the production of information for the website. “We want people to look at this and say this is the shining example of provid-ing good information about forest best management practices to the public,” Brooks said. UI Extension Forestry created the website in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Lands, U.S. Forest Service, Idaho Forest Products Com-mission, Idaho Associated Logging Contractors, Project Learning Tree/Idaho, Idaho Forest Owners Associa-tion and the Idaho Tree Farm Program. The project is funded by a $300,000 U.S. Forest Service grant, which also sup-ports a companion project in Montana.

Southwest

Arizona Forest LandownersJoin River Protection Partnership Four private properties linking an important wildlife and bird migration corridor along the lower San Pedro River will be forever protected as part of a partnership between landowners, the U.S. Forest Service, Arizona State Forestry Department, Arizona Game and Fish Department and The Nature Conservancy. The properties, totaling 613 acres, include biologically rich riverside forest that is highly threatened throughout the Southwest. The San Pedro Ecosystem project was selected in 2010 as the top national priority for protection through the Forest Legacy Program, which funds conser-


Gulf South

Battle Against Cogongrass InvasiveShowing Positive Results A new study that reports significant progress in the fight against cogon-grass is being made. Cogongrass is ranked as the seventh worst invasive plant species worldwide and is both a significant economic and ecological threat to much of Alabama and the rest of the Southeast. Featured on the cover of this issue, cogongrass is an aggressive, highly flammable, nonnative grass that in-vades and can quickly overtake forests and other uncultivated areas. It spreads by seeds and by underground rhizomes and forms dense stands that choke out native plants. The cogongrass rhizome system can account for up to 80 percent of the weed’s biomass, making it difficult

vation easements on private forestlands that provide important benefits like water and wildlife habitat and have a high potential for being developed. The voluntary land-use agreements prevent development that could de-grade the biologically rich riverside forest, a rare habitat type that is highly threatened throughout the Southwest. The agreements will also prevent pump-ing of water that could further harm the San Pedro River, one of Arizona’s last flowing rivers. “I’ve wanted to protect this property for more than a decade, so I’m thrilled,” said Nathan Sayre, one of the landowners who signed a conservation easement. The Forest Legacy Program, funded by the federal Land and Water Con-servation Fund, is a program of the U.S. Forest Service that partners with the states. The Arizona State Forestry Division administers the program for Arizona. In exchange for agreeing not to develop their property, the landowners receive compensation that reflects the value of the development rights they are giving up.

to eradicate. “No research has successfully dem-onstrated eradication of an infestation of cogongrass before,” the researchers who conducted the study said. “So we are very excited that we know we can do it, even on some of the most severe infestations.” The three-year study, conducted at Tillmans Corner, and Bayou La Batre, Alabama, used herbicide treatments of glyphosate, imazapyr and a mixture of both. The combinations of herbicide treatments and application timing pro-duced nine treatments in addition to a non treated control. Applications of the herbicides were made in May, August and October of each year. At one site, the May and October glyphosate treatment achieved eradication in 18 months, while the same treatment was successful after 36 months at the second site. The Alabama Agricultural Experi-ment Station and the USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station funded the research.

Potlatch Announces AcquisitionOf 201,000 Acres Gulf South Potlatch Corp., of Spokane, Wash-ington, reported that it has agreed to buy 201,000 acres of timberlands in Alabama and Mississippi for $384 mil-lion. The land, which Potlatch is acquiring from affiliates of Resource Management Service LLC, will expand Potlatch’s ownership in the southern U.S. by almost 50 percent and will increase its total acreage under management to nearly 1.6 million acres. The transaction is expected to be completed late in the fourth quarter. The company said in a press release that it plans to finance the acquisition with new long-term debt and cash. Michael Covey, Potlatch’s chairman and CEO, said in a release that the company’s wood products, real estate, and resource businesses all continue to perform well, though its planned harvest was constrained by wet weather in the South.

Florida Forest StakeholdersPetition European Biomass Leaders Forest America, an initiative of forest landowners and others, is circulating a petition to transmit to European leaders in support of policies promoting the use of imported biomass for energy. According to groups backing the petition, European governments are


The director of a leading pipeline opposition group said there are 115 landowner holdouts, and she expects them to refuse the latest offer. Jane Kleeb of Bold, Nebraska also argued that a foreign firm lacks a legal basis to use eminent domain since the state’s pipeline routing law has been declared unconstitutional. A recent Nebraska Supreme Court ruling leaves the issue unresolved, and further legal action is anticipated.

Aspen Regeneration ProjectUnderway in Wyoming A large habitat enhancement project kicked off this past fall in the South Pass area near Atlantic City, Wyoming. The work is a collaborative effort between Wyoming Game and Fish Department ,U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Forestry Division, Fremont County Firewise, Popo Agie Conservation District, and private landowners. The project will occur over the next ten years with the potential to treat several thousand acres of land. The primary fo-cus will be on regenerating aging aspen stands where natural forest succession to conifers is progressing. Other goals of the project include reducing wildfire risk through removal of fuels, and improving shrub, riparian, and stream communities to benefit wildlife. Aspen communities provide a mul-titude of benefits that include wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, water stor-age, and firebreaks. Aspen is a shade intolerant species that often flourishes after disturbance such as fire or timber harvest.

Rocky Mountain

“research demonstrates that demand for wood helps keep land in forest and incentivizes investments in new and more productive forests, all of which have significant carbon benefits.” We applaud you for supporting po-lices that help keep America’s forests thriving.

Can. Firm Threatens Eminent Domain Against Nebraska Landowners The Canadian pipeline builder Trans-Canada Corp. said it mailed new offers of right-of-way payments recently to more than 100 Nebraska landowners who have refused to sign an easement contract. The letters also say the company will pursue eminent domain against land-owners who don’t agree to terms by Jan. 16. The company says Nebraska law requires condemnation proceedings to start within two years of the state’s approval of the pipeline route, which occurred Jan. 22, 2013. “This really is an effort to reach voluntary agreements rather than going through the eminent domain process,” said Andrew Craig of Omaha, Keystone’s land manager. “We always prefer to go through negotiations.” NWOA

being targeted by anti-biomass cam-paigns. In an attempt to demonstrate their view that wood biomass is an en-vironmentally responsible fuel source, stakeholders in Florida are being asked to sign the following petition, according to the Florida Forestry Association:

Dear European Leaders and Policy Makers: U.S. forests have increased every year for more than 50 years and so has the amount of carbon these forests remove from the atmosphere, despite rapid population growth and increased demand for all forms of wood fiber. Consequently, we know that strong markets for forest products create more forests, not less. Eighty-seven percent of working forests in the U.S. Southeast are owned by small forest owners. Wood fiber markets, now made stronger with the European biomass-to-energy demand, provide economic incentives to ensure that forest owners keep their forests well maintained, and do not sell or convert their land to other uses. Accordingly, European policies promoting the use of imported biomass for energy will have the outcome of helping forests to flourish, sustaining more U.S. forests, not less! In a recently released, peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Forestry, leading, independent forest carbon experts with the Society of American Foresters concluded, “forest biomass energy yields significant net decreases in overall carbon accumulation in the atmosphere over time compared to fos-sil fuels.” In addition, they found that,


ForestryService Bureau

A Landowner’s Guide to Managing Your WoodsAnn Larkin Hansen, Mike Severson & Dennis L. Waterman, 2011$15.00 + postage

Across the Green Line: How Forest Service Employees Can Support Local Land Use Planning EffortsUSDA Forest Service, 2014postage only

Adirondack Fire Towers-SouthernMarty Podskoch -signed, 2003$15.00 + postage

All Lands, All Hands. Sustaining America’s State and Private ForestsNational Association of State Foresters, 2010postage only

Crop Tree Field Guide, Selecting and Managing Trees In the Central AppalachiansUSDA Forest Service, 2001postage only

Crop Tree Management In Eastern HardwoodsUSDA Forest Service, 1993postage only

Diameter-Limit Cutting And Silviculture in Northern ForestsUSDA Forest Service, 2005postage only

Estate Planning For Forest LandownersUSDA Forest Service, 2005postage only

Forest Landowners’ Guide to the Federal Income TaxUSDA Forest Service, 2013postage only

Forest Road Contracting, Construction and Maintenance for Small Forest Woodland OwnersBrian D Kramer, 2001postage only

Managing Your Woodlot9-Part Series DVDUSDA Forest Service & West Virginia Division of Forestry, 2009postage only

National Report on Sustaining Forests 2003USDA Forest Service, 2003postage only

NWOA “POSTED” Private Property Signs size: 11 1/4” x 11 1/4”$10 per pack of 5 + postage

Positive Impact ForestryThom McEvoy 296 pgs, 2004$20.00 + postage

Science Biodiversity and Sustainable ForestryNational Council for Science, 2005postage only

GROW WOOD bumper sticker12” x 5”$5 for 3 stickers - no postage

Make checks payable to National Woodland Owners Association. Add $5 postage for one book or item, $10 for two or more. Send orders to: 374 Maple Ave. E., Suite 310, Vienna, VA 22180

12 Of These Wonderful

People

Sitting in a Jury Box

Could Ruin Your Life!

WoodlandLiability

InsuranceUp to 535 acres for

only $150/year!

“IT’S JUST COMMON SENSE”

National Woodland Owners

Serving Landowners Nationwide

woodlandowners.org

(703) 255-2700


The decision whether or not to buy additional wood-land liability insurance is a personal choice. Many landowners have not given it much thought, believing that any liability that may occur on their woodlands is already covered by their homeowners or other insur-ance. You should think about this.

Check to be sure you are in fact covered. Get it in writing if you can. With the low cost ($150/year for up to 535 acres) with no deductible, many agents recom-mend this group policy as well.

WHAT DOES THE NWOA WOOD-LAND LIABILITY INSURANCE COVER? We cover the liability of the landowner(s) in whose name the land is listed for any acts of negligence for which you are found to be legally responsible, whether you knew it or not.

• NWOA is not in the insurance sales business, but we do have a national Woodland Liability insur-ance policy as an optional benefit. The risks covered are spread across a nationwide base, which is much cheaper than individual policies. This makes possible the low group rate.

• NWOA researched and approved this master policy because of the excellent service record of Out-door Underwriters, Inc. and the depth of their experience in the London Insurance Market.

• Participating NWOA members receive a one year Certificate of Insurance within three weeks.

• Lawsuits for damages, real or imagined, are becoming more frequent.

• If you are sued and have this insurance, Outdoor Underwriters contracts with claim adjusters and attorneys with years of experience specific to woodland liability is-sues.

TWO INSURANCE OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE:

Woodland Liability Insurance—our most popular (includes incidental hunting—trespassers or guests)

Hunt Lease Liability Insurance—the necessary option if you lease your property. Includes falling out of a tree or harm caused to other hunters or other people, even on adjacent land. A “Best Buy” at only 16 cents/acre.

Or the two policies can be combined. See www.NWOA.net and click “Land Insurance”

DO YOU REALLY NEED WOODLAND LIABILITY INSURANCE?

This Top Rated Insurance —A M Best Rating “A”Provides “peace of mind” at a “best buy” price.

NWOA member landowner

named on the application

Named Insured

Comprehensive General LiabilityLimit of Liability: $1,000,000 each occurrance; $2,000,000 aggregateDeductible: none

WOODLAND LIABILITY INSURANCEINSURANCE APPLICATION: FOR LANDOWNERS ONLY

Woodland Liability Coverage provides legal liability coverage for woodland owners. This coverage is designed

to provide general liability protection for owners of woodland who do not lease their land to a hunting club.

Owners, Landlord & Tenant - Liability Limit to $1,000,000 per occurence

Special Master policy rating basis. A certificate will be issued to each landowner

Liability coverage for the Landowner does not provide protection for owned timber.

Landowner Name Telephone

Address Telephone (work/mobile)

City State Zip email

Woodland Location (County, city and State)

Are locations fenced or posted? Any lakes or ponds? Any leased hunting or commercial hunting? Any dams/spillways/bridges? If yes, are Certificates of Insurance required? Any property ever used for mining?Any watercraft or docks? Any of the property leased for farming? Any buildings? If yes, do you ask for a Certificate of Insurance?

Please answer the following questions.

What is the property used for?

Signature of Landowner

Premium Calculation - Woodland Liability InsuranceNumber of acres to be covered x .28 cents per acre =

Subtotal:

For your convenience, you may add your NWOA membership

Total Payment Due:

(subject to a minimum premium of $150 for up to 535 acres)

Please Specify Effective Dates:

Return this form completed and signed along with your check to:

National Woodland Owners Association374 Maple Ave E, Suite 310; Vienna, VA 22180

Coverage is subject to approval by Outdoor Underwriters, Inc. Applications received will be effective upon approval and expired according to policy terms.

Did you �nd us through a state a�liate promotion?If so, please staple your ad coupon to your application to ensure credit to your association.

(email will not be shared or abused)

($35/year $45/year sustaining)

$150 minimum

January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015April 1, 2014 to April 1, 2015July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2015October 1, 2014 to October 1, 2015


[email protected] (703) 255-2700

Documents

Winter 2015 - woodlandowners.org2015-01).pdf · Jim Chapin – Southwest Director California [email protected] Linda L. Finley – Mid Atlantic Director Pennsylvania [email protected]