Forest Product Infrastructure and Resource Mapping Workshop
The Center for International Trade of Forest Products (CINTRAFOR) organized a workshop to understand sustainable and responsible pathways for undertaking the ‘Washington Forest Resource Utilization and Capacity Mapping Project’.
Prof. Indroneil Ganguly of the University of Washington led the discussions. Representatives from across Washington State convened to discuss issues and opportunities in the forest sector on a spatial scale to help facilitate existing research. The participants highlighted the universal loss of mill infrastructure and workforce across the State. Forest health is declining across the State, but participants highlighted significant forest health issues in Eastern Washington. Western Washington faces hardwood utilization issues with a loss of infrastructure and support for hardwood use. Across the state, there is a social licensing issue that needs to be resolved, with Eastern Washington more receptive to forest management than Western Washington. Ownership issues stemmed from the conversion of small forest lands and the lack of management of federal timberlands. Participants suggested solutions include investment across the State in infrastructure, especially in Central Washington. Public awareness campaigns were also suggested. Dynamic systems and collaboration in the sector may further reduce barriers and lessen the impacts of issues. Policy reform and cross-ownership collaborations across the State may help with ownership issues. Input from participants was recorded to help inform the research teams about the work.
Background
The Washington State Forest Resource and Capacity Utilization Mapping Project, sponsored by the Washington State Department of Commerce, is to result in a mapped resource of Washington State forest resources, infrastructure, wood processing sites, forest opportunities, and forest risks in the State of Washington. The project is led by the University of Washington Natural Resource Spatial Informatics Group (NRSIG) and the Center for International Trade of Forest Products (CINTRAFOR). The Department of Commerce and the research partners intend that the products of this project will better situate the Washington State Forestry Sector by providing spatial information to help the industry and sector take advantage of opportunities and inform the public and decision-makers about sector risks and opportunities for better informed policies and management.
On May 29th, 2024, CINTRAFOR, with the research partners, Department of Commerce, and the William D. Ruckelshaus Center, hosted a workshop to gain feedback and insight from the Washington State Forestry Sector with representatives from industry, small-forest landowners, government and tribal officials, advocacy groups, conservation groups, and concerned individuals. The group discussed a myriad of issues facing the forestry sector and identified areas of risk and opportunity while describing the historic and current context of the sector.
The project team is now working with the information gathered from the workshop to better inform project research. The CINTRAFOR team has prepared this document to distill the information gathered.
Workshop Debrief
Outlined here are the perceptions and insights from participants from what they have experienced in the sector.
Initial Issues:
Participants engaged in concisely detailing their primary concerns and interests around the forestry sector in Washington. A myriad of concerns and interests were voiced, ranging from the economic viability of the forestry industry to the health of forests to the social and political perceptions of the sector. Top concerns and interests were about social licensing, innovation, and sustainability of the industry, the ability to sustainably manage forests (including publicly managed forests), the sector’s ability to help be part of the climate and carbon solution, and biomass utilization. Equally important, other participants highlighted urban forestry needs, the current state of rural economies and industries, and the hope to be proud of Washington wood and wood products. All issues are highlighted in Figure 1, a word cloud of concerns and interests.
Focus Groups:
Participants went into focus groups to discuss nine different areas of the forestry sector in detail. Two tables consolidate this information at the end of this document.
Participants noted that this is a statewide issue stemming from the cost-effectiveness of extraction and processing biomass and workforce development issues. Burning of biomass presents a social-perception issue, whether it is slash pile burns or burning biomass for energy. Others pointed to the historic crash of the pulp market and industry as a potential casual factor to excess low-value biomass. Participants identified processing capacity and consistent supply coupled with an ununified definition of biomass as barriers to biomass utilization.
Participants also highlighted potential solutions or avenues to explore to overcome concerns and barriers. Participants identified working on policy restrictions and reforming the Good Neighbor Authority as possible regulatory options. Innovation in the sector to include dynamic extraction of biomass and logs together with dynamic processing of forestry and agricultural biomass may help lessen extraction and processing barriers. Socially, working on improving the social license of biomass utilization may encourage public acceptance of biomass products.
Issues around sawmilling capacity were identified as the historic and present loss of sawmilling infrastructure across the State, especially in Central Washington (as described of the eastern slope of the Cascade Mountains). Economically, there are challenging markets for certain milled products, undeveloped premium pine products, a lack of premium for certified wood in local markets, and high barriers to entry for new businesses. Workforce development and availability is another issue for sawmilling capacity. In the regulatory arena, new regulations on existing and new infrastructure have hampered development and existing capacity.
Participants suggested that solutions may overlap with other areas listed here. Overall, participants wanted to highlight decreasing barriers to developing a workforce as a key solution.
The participants described the current state forest management practices on the landscape as fragmented, with lacking federal management and small forest land converting to other uses. Participants prefaced their discuss with a desire to keep working forests working.
Considering the regulatory side, participants voiced concern that regulations that prevents forests being harvested in the future deters infrastructure investment when there is already a lack of access and infrastructure for the sector.
Potential solutions identified include public awareness campaigns for the forestry sector, investing in forest-partner investments, and increasing collaboration across ownerships. Regulatory reform of the Good Neighbor Authority was suggested. Participants also highlighted the need for multi-generational stewardship of land ownership and forests.
Participants highlighted that a lack of regulatory certainty is a barrier. Other barriers include low-value material cost-effectiveness and competition between mills. Another identified issue is a lack of current public support.
Opportunities identified include supporting the creation of more mills and increasing supply of inputs to mills. Participants also suggested the sector is currently competitive in nature and should move to a more collaborative space. Public awareness campaigns and working to garner more support from certification bodies were also identified opportunities.
The group highlighted that this is a spectrum of products, from small specialty value added products to added value in larger timber product outputs. Issues across the spectrum or affecting certain parts of the spectrum include the lack of infrastructure, ranging from mill infrastructure to manufacturing facilities to transportation. Specialty products face economies of scale. Transportation costs are high due to lacking infrastructure, resulting in lessened ability to move products across the state. Low-cost materials for biomass and biochar have similar issues. There is a potential lack of communication, coordination, and collaboration between entities in the supply chain and end-product manufacturers.
Participants highlighted solutions of facilitating sector development through investments in new manufacturing, decreasing barriers to new manufacturing, and encouraging the mass timber market. Additionally, further collaboration and sector-wide planning may help supply and capacity constrains along with dynamic timelines and processes for handling capacity resources. Addressing scaling issues may be a key solution for value-added products. Other participants highlighted a need to support and utilize the Climate Commitment Act and ensuring the Just Transition model in implemented for the sector.
The participants suggested that the public underappreciates the potential of hardwood in the State and that hardwoods tend to be a Western Washington issue, primarily in alder. There are issues of supply and demand mismatch. The loss of infrastructure has led to difficulties in timely pipelines from harvest to final product, leading to quality issues. Participants foresee solutions in this area requiring risk-based investments.
Potential opportunities for this topic may include increasing awareness of alders as early succession species that can revitalize unproductive stands or serve as a support species in conifer stands. Advocacy for the sector may improve the sector outlook. Dynamic infrastructure and collaboration in the sector may help solve pipeline timeliness and capacity issues.
Issues across the state include declining forest health, especially in Eastern Washington, impacting the sector and communities. Low management on Federal timberlands has contributed greatly to supply constraints, with other lands contributing to a lesser degree.
Participants encouraged a streamlined permitting process to help reduce barriers related to supply constraints and managing timberlands. Others highlighted the Central Washington Initiative as a success story.
Participants set the context of this topic by remarking on the mixed perceptions around forest management, suggesting that there may be uncertainty around what perception about management represents the majority of the Washington public, and concern that a vocal minority voice may be dictating forest policy through fear-mongering campaigns. The group also suggested that the novelty of management notions may be hindering progress. There is a high degree of knowledge and familiarity with the sector among many agencies, concepts, and acts.
A possible solution identified by the group was the creation of a story around the forest sector that has a dialogue of “yes” rather than “no” and “a part of” rather than “apart from” for unification. The sector needs to be considered in its entirety rather than its parts, highlighting that all pieces and entities are connected. As part of this conversation and story, the rural voice needs to be present. The participants also suggested the sector needs to avoid fearmongering.
In discussion of issues, participants stated the historic context of mill closures and the resulting poor optics around the industry as a feasible career path for young people. Presently, those optics still exist with the industry sometimes considered as a “dead-end” industry or plagued by instability. Similarly, there are workforce recruiting issues along with issues of the seasonality of workers and support for seasonal workers. Rural communities also lack housing availability and affordable housing overall for the workforce and other rural community members.
Participants supported solutions around coordination with post-secondary institutes to develop programs for the sector and to encourage further education within the sector. The YESS Act was highlighted as a possible tool to support dealing with workforce development issues.
Forestry workforce development
| Topic (Geography) | Summary |
|---|---|
| Low-value biomass utilization issues (Statewide) | – Difficult to transport low-value biomass out of the forest – Facilities have high-capacity needs, high area supply demand – Differing definitions of low-value biomass – Cost-effectiveness concerns – Road infrastructure not designed for chip transportation – Burning of slash issues, public perceptions of burning – Workforce development issues; pulp market crash – Issues on both sides of the state |
| General sawmilling capacity-related issues (Statewide, Central Washington) | – Several sawmills have been shuttered since the beginning of the year – Historic loss of infrastructure across the Pacific Northwest – Increased regulations on existing and new infrastructure – Challenging markets for mill residuals – Lack of good pine products from Eastern Washington – Lack of market premium for certified wood – Labor challenges in logging and trucking – Barriers to entry is high (such as costs of equipment) |
| Landownership-based forest management practices (Statewide) | – Fragmented landscape – Lack of federal management – Land conversion of small lands – Locking up land in the future prevents infrastructure investment – Lack of access and infrastructure – Desire to keep working forests working |
| Forestry and forest industry support infrastructure (Statewide) | – Physical infrastructure barriers – Intangible barriers of low-value materials and competition between mills – Lack of public support – Changing regulation |
| Value-added wood products manufacturing in the State (Statewide) | – Spectrum of value-added products from sawn timber and mass timber to smaller forest products – Lack of mill infrastructure – Lack of outlets to manufacturing or scaling of specialty products – High cost of transportation/hampered capacity to move products – Low-cost material for biochar and biomass – Lack of communication and collaboration between entities in the supply chain |
| Hardwood-related issues (Western Washington) | – Public underappreciation of the potential of hardwood – Scale of supply and demand not being aligned – Solutions have an amount of risk (investment) – Alder as a primarily issues, Western Washington – Some hardwoods require a quick pipeline from harvested to end product |
| Poorly managed timberlands and related enviro-socio-economic implications (Statewide) | – Forest health issues across the state – Significant issues east of the Cascades – Supply constraints, specifically from federal lands |
| Social licensing issues (Statewide, Western Washington) | – Mixed perceptions about management (uncertainty what perception represents the majority) – Shiny object syndrome – Concern policy comes from the vocal minority voice – Fearmongering campaigns – Alphabet soup of agencies and notions |
| Forestry Workforce Development (Statewide) | – Mill closures across the State – Optics around the industry as a dead-end industry or plagued by instability – Lack of housing availability and affordability for workforce and individuals in rural communities – Workforce recruiting issues – Workforce seasonality issues |