Table of Contents 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

WVFA Mountain State Forestry Spring 2024

Spring 24 WVFA Mountain State FORESTRY

CONTENTS West Virginia Forestry Association, Inc. 2008 Quarrier St., Charleston, WV 25311 681-265-5019 | wvfa@wvfa.org © 2024. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced or distributed electronically or mechanically, either in whole or in part, without the express written consent of the West Virginia Forestry Association. The advertisers assume complete responsibility to use any or all brand names, trademarks, guarantees, and statements which appear in their advertisements. Are Railroad Ties The Answer? Part II 4 | Message from the Executive Director 6 | Message from the President WVFA News 8 | Forest Carbon Programs Are Missing Out on the Full Goodness of Wood 11 | Concept Paper Examines Forest Carbon Market Impact on Forest-Dependent Communities and Forest Health 12 | Are Railroad Ties The Answer? Part II 16 | USDA Forest Service: Monongahela National Forest Update 18 | WVFA January Events Round-Up— A Very Busy January! 19 | Thank you to the Sponsors of the A.B. Brooks Symposium & WVFA 2024 Legislative Reception! 20 | Beech Leaf Disease Tree Farm News 23 | Tree Farmer of the Year 2024: Myles Lumber Company West Virginia Loggers Council News 26 | How Long Does It Take to Harvest Timber in West Virginia? PAGE 29 Membership Application • Membership Application • 12 Aaron Plaugher, President......................WestRock Joe McNeel, 1st VP ...................................Appalachian Hardwood Center Anthony Raines, 2nd VP.........................Rainco Forest Resources Kayla Springer, Secretary/Treasurer....ABC Guidance, LLC John Holstine, Past President...............Holstine Forestry Blain Cook.....................................................West Virginia Split Rail Brian Booth..................................................Allegheny Wood Products Buddy Downey...........................................WG Downey Consulting Dan Parker....................................................Tillinghast & Neely David Pierson..............................................Pierson Lumber Denzil Linton................................................Allegheny Wood Products Gary Claypool.............................................Jim C. Hamer Company James Smith.................................................Pixelle Specialty Solutions Jamie Dever..................................................Landmark Forestry Jeff Knollinger...............................................Red Oak Timber Company Lance Fairchild............................................Weyerhaeuser Mark Sturgill.................................................Sturgill Tree Farm, LLC Michael Sammons.....................................Triple S Farms Rusty Leonard.............................................Northwest Hardwoods Sharon Glasscock.....................................Laurel Creek Hardwoods Tom Cover.....................................................Individual Tom Crickenberger....................................Speyside Bourbon Stave Mill Tommy George............................................Individual BOARD OF DIRECTORS PUBLISHER LLM Publications John Constantino.......................................Advertising Sales 503-445-2230 | john@llmpubs.com Hiakato Draconas......................................Design & Layout Bob Boyles...............................................Executive Director Kayla Springer.........................................Accounting Manager Ed Kraynok................................................Program Manager Gabrielle Hedges....................................Events Manager STAFF Joe McNeel, Chair.................................. WVU Linda Carnell............................................WV Division of Forestry David McGill............................................. WVU Ben Spong................................................ WVU EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 4 West Virginia Forestry Association Mountain State Forestry | Spring 24 www.wvfa.org It is unbelievable how fast the time goes. As of this writing, we are halfway through the 2024 legislative session. There have been a few bills introduced that peripherally impact the industry, mostly through their effect on the labor force. However, Senate Bill 618 was introduced to create a carbon exchange in West Virginia. The bill gives the WV Division of Forestry a mandate to develop a state operated carbon exchange and requires that all carbon credits sold in West Virginia be sold through this government managed system. As with most bills, more questions are generated than are answered by this bill, and these answers will only be known once the rules are drafted. I will keep the association posted as things proceed. House Bill 5013 was introduced to eliminate the subdivision section of the code. It was sent to the Energy Committee and is moving slowly. I have met with Delegate Hillanbrand and Anderson several times and with the Energy Committee attorney a couple of times to try and get this bill moving forward. The changes will allow more people to participate in the program if it passes. Hopefully it will come out of committee soon. January is an event month for the association. We had several sponsors of our events and a big thank you to everybody who made each of them successful! First, the WVFA sponsored Legislative Reception at the Capital Cultural Center was a great success. The event drew roughly sixty-five members and approximately thirty legislators. This important event provides our members with the opportunity to chat with their legislators and state their opinions on upcoming legislation. WVFA also fostered the Senate Resolution for the Tree Farmer of the Year, which was awarded to Myles Lumber Company! We want to send out a big thank you to Senator Karnes for making this presentation. WVFA also cosponsored The Taste of West Virginia in cooperation with the WV Farm Bureau. As usual, this event was well attended by legislators, WVFA members, and Farm Bureau members—as they say, “Feed them and they will come!” A lot of legislators attended and mingled with the attendees. And there were close to seventy members registered for this event, drawn by good fellowship and great West Virginia sourced food! Finally, the A.B. Brooks Symposium was held the following day with over eighty members from across the state attending. The focus of the symposium focused on current market conditions. There was a full agenda with some outstanding speakers from the Appalachian Hardwood Export Council and the Hardwood Market Report. The message was sobering: market conditions are tough, and it is up to us as an industry to develop new, more stable markets for our wood products when the economy recovers. It will be a nice reprieve for me when this legislative session is over, and I can get back out to visit with members. In the meantime, if there is anything I can do to help any member, don’t hesitate to contact me. Turkey season will be here before we know it… Bob Boyles Executive Director There was a full agenda with some outstanding speakers from the Appalachian Hardwood Export Council and the Hardwood Market Report. The message was sobering: market conditions are tough, and it is up to us as an industry to develop new, more stable markets for our wood products when the economy recovers.

MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR www.wvfa.org Spring 24 | West Virginia Forestry Association Mountain State Forestry 5 January 23, 2024 Stakeholders, Alumni, Donors, and Friends: The recent transformation process diminished the faculty, staff, and academic programs within the Davis College. However, I was excited that the proposed merger/unification of the Davis College and Extension could provide excellent opportunities to enhance our overall capacity to facilitate our missions in teaching, research, and service/engagement. This unification (effective July 1, 2024) has great potential to increase efficiency, add value to our mission areas, breath to our focus and increase our overall output/delivery in teaching, research and service/ outreach in support of agriculture and forestry. My concern is that the administrative structure of the unified product is critical for us to realize much of this potential. To date, the WVU, College and Extension leadership has not put forth a compete plan with their specific vision for the results of the unification. The process lacks appropriate transparency, has not, at this point, taken the time to get the necessary input from faculty, staff, students, stakeholders, and industry partners to achieve the necessary database from which to make the best decisions moving forward. Instead, they have chosen to make this unification effective on July 1, 2024, and released the new name, basic administrative structure, and the administrative leader for the Unified unit. The new name was announced as the Division of Land-Grant Engagement which will be home to WVU Exrension, Davis College of Agriculture and Natural Resources and WVU Center for Community Engagement. However, the basic structure of WVU is colleges and not divisions. Division of Land-Grant Engagement is generic, applies to the entire University, and provides no identity on academic disciplines or focus. Why not a college with a name that provides identity of academic disciplines included in the mission for the new unit. WVU has announced that Dr. Jorge Atiles (current Dean of WVU Extension and Engagement) will be appointed later this summer as associate vice president and dean of the Division of Land-Grant Engagement. No other leadership positions have been announced at this time. Darrell Donahue, current dean of the Davis College will step down from that position effective July 1, 2024. Since both the Davis College and Extension and engagement currently have a strong focus on community engagement, why a separate focus for the addition of the WVU Center for Community Engagement? My greatest fear is that the focus of this merger will ultimately diminish WVU’s research and academic focus on Agriculture and Forestry. It has potential to dismantle more of our Experiment Station capacity funding to support research specific to these areas. In addition, I am concerned that moving in the current direction will enhance the existing negative image among our stakeholders, who believe that WVU has limited focus on academic or research in the broad areas of Agriculture and Forestry. I strongly encourage you to become involved in identifying the future focus of the teaching, research, and engagement missions for the WVU Davis College and Extension programs. Everyone is invited to submit your ideas and comments to: wvulandgrant@mail.wvu.edu. You can also express any concerns to the WV Legislators, WV Board of Governors (valerie.lopez@mail.wvu.edu), and to WVU President, E. Gordon Gee (presidentsoffice@mail.wvu.edu). I appreciate and thank you for your participation and support. Paul E. Lewis, Professor Emeritus Assistant Director of Outreach and Community Affairs WVU Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Design 304-216-6987 • plewis@wvu.edu Folks—I’m doing something that I’ve never done before, providing you a copy of a letter that was recently sent directly to me as the Executive Director of the West Virginia Forestry Association. The letter was penned by Dr. Paul Lewis, former director of the Animal Sciences Division in the College of Agriculture and Forestry at WVU, and currently serving as a liaison for the Dean’s Office of the Davis College. From what I can tell from Paul’s letter and from comments made by this fellow, Jorge Atiles, who seems to be heading up this merger plan and who talked to all of us at the A.B. Brooks Symposium, there’s some real issues with this new “merger” between the Davis College and the Extension Program. At face value, it seems there’s no merger, rather it’s a take-over of the Davis College by the administration in Extension. I’m not sure how this is going to turn out, but I doubt it will be a good thing for the Forestry and Wood Science Programs. I encourage you to read this letter and provide critical input about this off-the-rails “merger.” I certainly plan to provide critical input on this very unusual approach to a merger. Thank you for hearing me out and please take the time to read Dr. Lewis’ letter. –Bob

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT 6 West Virginia Forestry Association Mountain State Forestry | Spring 24 www.wvfa.org I’m writing this note in early February, but the weather is beautiful and it’s nearly 60 degrees. Spring is on the way, and I expect to hear the early migrating woodcock peenting just before dark in the field in front of my house in the next week or so. My Facebook feed is full of pictures of happy anglers with stringers full of trout. I’m envious and hope to get out on the water soon. Spring will be here in no time offering wonderful weather to re-connect to nature. What connects you to the forest? Is it as simple as enjoyment of time spent there walking/running/ biking/hiking? Maybe you take this a step further and define your time in the forest as “forest bathing?” Is it appreciation of wildlife and their forested habitats? Do you love hunting and fishing or digging ramps or harvesting morel mushrooms and consuming the bounty provided by the forest? Maybe your only tie to the forest is financial through your job in the industry or ownership of forestland purely for economic benefit. My personal connection to the forest, as is the case with most of us, is a combination of all these items. Foods harvested from the forest play an integral role in my life. A ramp dinner with ham and fried potatoes is an Appalachian culinary delight. When I go through a spring without eating ramps I truly miss them. Whether you dig the ramps yourself or get them at a community ramp dinner, it is still a tie to new growth in the forest in the spring. Although I rarely go out specifically searching for morels, those that I do find while hiking or spring turkey hunting are a real treat, particularly when combined with recently harvested wild turkey. My original interest in the forest started with hunting and fishing, and I still enjoy these pursuits every chance I get. Am I also a forest bather? Absolutely! Although the way I forest bathe may not meet the definition held by forest bathing purists. Some of my favorite forest bathing experiences have been during solo timber cruises. At midday when I’d stop to eat the flattened sandwich in the back of my cruising vest, I’d allow my mind to slow down and just hear the sounds of the forest. During a slow day of hunting when the weather is warm and dry, I’ll search out a tree with just the right shape at the base, lay the gun or bow down, sit down and just enjoy the quiet. The forest bathing key for me is turning off the noise of the outside world and tuning in to nature. My financial interest through my job with WestRock is another tie to the forest. Our ability to make paper, and therefore my ability to earn a living, rely on wood harvested from a forest. Early on in my career I was in the forest almost every day strengthening my connection to the forest. Now, 27 years later, my work is still forestry work, but it is all behind the desk in my home office. I only get into the woods for work four or five days a year. Even though I still rely on the forest financially, I know that if my job changed and I suddenly found myself making widgets out of plastic, I would still have a strong connection to the forest and a desire to see the forests managed properly. I urge you to think about your own personal connection to the forest and take time this spring to find a peaceful place in the woods, turn off the digital world, turn off your thoughts about work, finances, politics, and anything else that keeps spinning in your brain. Think about how you impact forests and how forests impact you. Take a moment to remember what drew you to own forestland or work in the forest industry and make sure the business and politics of forestry haven’t loosened your connection to nature. Aaron Plaugher Board President Hunting deer, or just watching them during a walk in the woods? Find your peace in the forests of West Virginia.

FEATURED NEWS 8 West Virginia Forestry Association Mountain State Forestry | Spring 24 www.wvfa.org Forests are an important part of global climate dynamics—the growth of trees influences, and is influenced by, the climate. One result of increasing concern about global climate change is that there is now a market for carbon that includes programs to pay forest landowners to change how they manage their forests. More money for forest landowners and mitigating climate change seems like a ‘win-win’ scenario; however, there is an important forest carbon benefit that currently isn’t getting counted: wood products substitution. This effect is important and, although it is challenging to quantify, we need to fully account for the carbon impacts of wood products—including substitution—if we are to get the full climate benefits of our forests. What is Carbon? Carbon the element is the basic material of life on earth, but the word ‘carbon’ is also shorthand for other concepts in conversations about forests and climate change. For example, the main driver of climate change is ‘carbon,’ a reference to the emissions of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels (Figure 1). Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that keeps the earth warm by trapping solar energy. Carbon sequestration occurs when trees grow by capturing carbon dioxide gas (via photosynthesis) and converting it into sugar, which is then converted into other materials such as wood. Biogenic carbon refers to the carbon in living and dead plants. Fossil carbon is the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas. Biogenic carbon has recently been sequestered from the atmosphere—the oldest trees are only thousands of years old, and biogenic carbon will mostly be released again soon, when the trees rot or burn—likely within the next few centuries or millennia. Fossil carbon was sequestered by plants millions of years ago and, if it weren’t combusted for fuel, would have remained stored in the ‘fossil’ deposits indefinitely. Carbon (dioxide gas) removal from the atmosphere reduces the greenhouse effect. One tree doesn’t do much by itself, but the many trees growing together in the world’s forests result in significant climate impacts. For example, in the United States, our forests remove more than 600 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (TgCO2) each year, an amount equivalent to more than 10% of our nation’s fossil carbon emissions (Figure 2). Forest carbon storage occurs when plant tissue accumulates in the forest—including the wood in living and dead tree stems, roots and leaves, and their breakdown products in and on the soil (litter). Dry wood material (i.e. cellulose, etc.) is about 50% carbon by weight. The carbon stored in wood can be calculated by determining the volume of wood (m3), using the dry wood density to determine wood mass (kg), then multiplying by 50% to get carbon content (kgC), and then multiplying this by 3.67 to get the mass of the carbon dioxide equivalent (kgCO2e). Figure 2. Forest and wood products carbon storage in the United States over time. (brackets) indicate net increase that year in carbon storage in TgCO2. “SWDS” is carbon stored in wood products in landfills. From Domke et al. 2022. Carbon pool 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2018 2019 2020 Forest (650.2) (646.0) (622.7) (581.2) (606.7) (583.0) (546.0) (584.4) Aboveground biomass (462.5) (450.9) (435.4) (416.3) (421.4) (406.6) (393.1) (398.7) Belowground biomass (94.2) (91.6) (88.3) (84.2) (84.7) (80.8) (78.1) (79.1) Dead wood (96.8) (98.7) (98.5) (96.8) (100.1) (102.0) (97.0) (101.5) Litter 0.6 (7.0) (1.6) 16.0 0.8 1.3 22.8 (1.9) Soil (mineral) 3.0 2.2 0.9) (0.3) (1.9) 4.1 (0.6) (4.1) Soil (organic) (0.9) (0.8) (0.5) (0.3) (0.1) 0.3 (0.7) 0.2 Drained organic soil 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Harvested wood (123.8) (112.2) (93.4) (106.0) (69.1) (94.1) (88.8) (83.6) Products in use (54.8) (51.7) (31.9) (42.6) (7.4) (29.0) (24.4) (20.0) SWDS (69.0) (60.5) (61.5) (63.4) (61.7) (65.1) (64.5) (63.6) Total net flux (774.0) (758.2) (716.2) (687.3) (675.7) (677.1) (634.8) (668.1) Forest Carbon Programs Are Missing Out on the Full Goodness of Wood By Adam Taylor, PhD, Professor, University of Tennessee Figure 1. Sources and sinks of carbon globally. From Friedlingstein et al. 2023.

FEATURED NEWS www.wvfa.org Spring 24 | West Virginia Forestry Association Mountain State Forestry 9 A metric tonne of CO2e is the most common carbon unit bought and sold in the carbon market. This market has developed to allow buyers to compensate (‘offset’) their greenhouse gas emissions with ‘carbon credits’. A carbon credit represents reductions in atmospheric carbon levels, either from reducing carbon emissions to the atmosphere (e.g. building a windmill to produce electricity instead of burning coal), or by removing carbon (dioxide gas) that is already in the atmosphere (e.g. growing trees in a forest). The carbon market includes buyers who are required by law to reduce their net carbon emissions (the ‘compliance market’) and those who purchase credits by choice (the ‘voluntary market’). The specifics of the types, measurements, and value of carbon market products vary greatly around the world, but forest-related carbon programs are among the largest by volume and most important by monetary value sources of the carbon credits that are sold in the voluntary carbon market (Figure 3). There are many forest carbon programs, with many variations, and currently, no binding universal standards for these programs. However, these programs often involve payments to forest landowners to apply ‘improved forest management’ practices that result in greater carbon storage in the forest. The specifics vary by the program but usually include reduced or delayed harvesting of trees. This makes sense because harvest reduces the carbon stored in forests because wood is removed from the site, and because the harvest disturbance increases decomposition of the ‘slash’ (treetops and branches) and other plant materials that have accumulated. What About Wood Carbon? Wood products have multiple carbon impacts. As mentioned, tree harvest reduces forest carbon storage levels, at least for a time. But wood products also store carbon—both in use (your wooden kitchen table is ½ carbon by weight) and after disposal (much of the wood in a landfill doesn’t rot). This carbon storage in wood products is less than what is lost at harvest but can remain stored for a very long time. For example, in U.S. government reporting of forest carbon storage, wood products of various types are assigned specific half-lives (a few years for paper, decades for building materials) but then, once disposed of in landfills, much of the carbon in products is assumed to be stored forever. In the U.S., this adds up to a lot of wood product carbon storage (84 TgCO2e; Figure 2). Wood products also provide useful alternatives to other materials, and this has carbon implications. Non-wood materials usually require more energy inputs, and this energy is mostly sourced from fossil fuels. The use (burning/combustion) of these fossil fuels releases additional carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere—i.e. the opposite of carbon storage. Thus, using wood products instead of alternative materials results in a carbon substitution effect because using wood avoids some fossil carbon emissions. The various carbon pools associated with a forest area are illustrated in combination in Figure 4, which represents a general forest area beginning after a clear-cut and growing through two subsequent harvests. The biogenic carbon stored in the soil (grey) is stable over time, but harvest of the trees (green) greatly reduces the carbon stock in the forest. This ‘trees’ carbon stock rebounds as the trees grow back, while the extra litter (yellow) that is introduced at harvest decomposes. This picture also accounts for the biogenic carbon stored in harvested wood products (pink). A portion of these products degrades over time, releasing biogenic carbon back to the atmosphere (by burning or rotting) but some of the product remains as a stable carbon store 1 The ‘equivalence’ of this CO 2e accounts for the fact that other greenhouse gases (e.g. methane) have different impacts. Figure 4. Carbon storage and substitution pools for an area of forest land over time. Carbon storage in the forest and wood products rises and falls between harvests; avoided emissions of fossil carbon (substitution effects) increase (Adapted from McKinley et al. 2011). Figure 3. Forest-related carbon is a big and growing business. From Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace (2023). 2021 2022 CATEGORY VOLUME (MICO2e) VALUE (USD) PRICE (USD) VOLUME (MICO2e) VALUE (USD) PRICE (USD) FORESTRY & LAND USE 242,339,151 $1,404,461,426 $5.78 113,253,651 $1,148,848,783 $10.14 RENEWABLE ENERGY 214,508,581 $463,950,451 $2.16 92,477,042 $386,054,729 $4.16 CHEMICAL PROCESSING & INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING 17,253,275 $53,877,016 $3.12 13,338,781 $68,531,895 $5.14 HOUSEHOLD/ COMMUNITY DEVICES 8,687,821 $46,606,814 $5.36 9,070,331 $77,590,244 $8.55 ENERGY EFFICIENCY / FUEL SWITCHING 10,936,656 $23,583,132 $2.16 6,601,354 $35,577,952 $5.39 WASTE DISPOSAL 11,647,530 $42,292,142 $3.63 6,207,615 $44,870,139 $7.23 AGRICULTURE 987,026 $9,525,119 $9.65 3,783,393 $41,700,362 $11.02 TRANSPORTATION 5,405,466 $6,257,391 $1.16 176,338 $770,485 $4.37

FEATURED NEWS 10 West Virginia Forestry Association Mountain State Forestry | Spring 24 www.wvfa.org in long-term use or in landfills. Finally, the substitution (blue) sections represent the amount of avoided fossil carbon emissions due to using wood in place of other materials. This portion is a large share of the total, and it accumulates over time: each harvest provides another opportunity to use wood instead of steel, concrete, plastic, and glass. Note that the substitution component is the only carbon in this picture that represents (avoided emissions of) fossil carbon; all the other pools are stores of biogenic carbon. The United States is the world’s largest producer of wood products, and these wood products together provide a huge carbon substitution effect: 188 TgCO2e of fossil carbon emissions avoided by using wood products in 2020. This substitution benefit is only a rough estimate, partly because it hard to know what alternative materials some wood products are substitutions for—what could we use instead of toilet paper? But, even with this uncertainty and some conservative assumptions (e.g. in this case, no carbon substitution benefit for toilet paper), this substitution impact in the United States is large relative to the other forest carbon and wood product carbon storage benefits that are currently reported (Figure 5). Wood Substitution Isn’t on the Carbon Market Unfortunately, forest carbon programs do not yet reward forest landowners or industry for the ‘substitution effect’ of the wood products that their forests provide. And, because of the current emphasis on increasing forestsite carbon storage, the harvest of products may in fact be discouraged. However, it would be possible for the wood substitution effect to be assigned a carbon value. The carbon market already includes credits from Renewable Energy projects (Figure 3), for example by supporting the construction of windmills and solar panels that offer substitution effects by providing alternatives to burning fossil carbon to produce electricity. Wood products’ substitution effects are similar. The state of Georgia has a new law that seeks to document potential carbon offsets for wood in buildings, including credits for the wood products substitution effect . My colleagues and I have recently estimated the potential financial impacts of this idea for buildings made with cross-laminated timber panels and other ‘mass timber’ technology (Figure 6). If a market developed for these carbon offsets, the money generated could provide significant incentives to use more wood in buildings. Additionality and the Future of the Forest Industry One of the challenges with rewarding producers for the carbon value of their wood products is the ‘additionality’ criterion that is commonly applied to carbon offsets. Additionality requires that the carbon payment must fund changes (e.g., changes in forest management) that result in ‘additional’ carbon storage (e.g., delaying harvest to increase forest carbon storage). However, as explained, wood products already provide huge carbon benefits via their storage and substitution effects, thus the carbon saved is not generally considered ‘additional.’ The carbon in mass timber buildings could be additional, given that steel and concrete are the standard option for tall buildings. However, most wood harvest is for traditional wood use options such as residential building construction and paper packaging. Thus, the avoided emissions carbon benefits of forests are like clean air and water: forests and the forest industry have been providing them to society for free. However, simply because we have received the carbon benefits of forest products up to now doesn’t mean they are guaranteed for the future. The hardwood forest industry in the eastern United States is currently dropping to record low rates of production, while the volume of wood in the forests continues to grow. In this unfavorable supply/ demand economic context, landowners face a choice between maintaining working Figure 6. Wood products store biogenic carbon and substitute for the use of fossil-carbon intensive materials. Credit could be paid for these carbon benefits (From Taylor et al. 2023). Figure 5. The carbon impacts associated with forests in the USA, expressed per unit of harvested wood (From Taylor et al. 2024).

FEATURED NEWS www.wvfa.org Spring 24 | West Virginia Forestry Association Mountain State Forestry 11 The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities (Endowment) has provided a grant to Dovetail Partners to conduct a project in collaboration with Cambium Consulting over the next year with the goal of creating shared understanding around the potential effects of an expanding forest carbon market in the United States. This project aims to provide elevated awareness, shared knowledge, strengthened connections, and support for critical thinking among key stakeholders regarding the potential for expanding markets for forest carbon offsets that may materially disrupt raw material availability and supply to domestic forest products manufacturing sectors. The desired outcome is to provide space and momentum to spur research, increase understanding of potential downstream impacts, and initiate development of integrated, multi-dimensional strategies for optimizing benefits from natural climate solutions, and buffering or otherwise mitigating potential negative outcomes to communities. You can read more about the project here. The concept paper describing the project, entitled “Exploring the Potential Effects of an Expanding Forest Carbon Market in the United States.” The paper explores the potential effects of an expanding forest carbon market on working forests and the communities that rely on them in the United States. Dovetail Partners, in collaboration with Cambium Consulting, will work to create a shared understanding around the potential effects of an expanding forest carbon market in the United States. The project has four distinct phases designed to raise awareness and encourage consideration and integration of approaches to maximize positive outcomes and minimize negative impacts: development of a concept paper, a survey of stakeholders and interested parties, development of mapping strategies, and a convening workshop to be held in mid-2024. A link to the Dovetail Study website follows: https://www.dovetailinc.org/portfoliodetail. php?id=6584b3231a4f6 Concept Paper Examines Forest Carbon Market Impact on Forest-Dependent Communities and Forest Health forests and the conversion of their forestland to other, perhaps more profitable, uses. It is a mistake to take the future carbon benefits of forest products for granted. Carbon Markets to Support Climate Smart Forestry Climate Smart Forestry is a term that has been introduced to explicitly recognize the multiple climate benefits of forests, including the substitution effect of using wood products (Nabuurs et al. 2017). Unfortunately, we don’t yet have a carbon program for forest landowners that recognizes this holistic approach. But, fortunately, in the voluntary carbon market folks are free to come up with new ways of doing things. We need new carbon programs that include wood products substitution! References Friedlingstein, P. et al. 2023. Global carbon budget 2023, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301– 5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-53012023. Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. 2023. State of the voluntary carbon markets 2023. Washington DC: Forest Trends Association. McKinley DC et al. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecological applications. 2011 Sep;21(6):1902–24. Nabuurs, GJ et al. 2017. By 2050 the mitigation effects of EU forests could nearly double through climate smart forestry. Forests. Dec 6;8(12):484. Taylor A et al. 2023. Carbon credits for mass timber construction. BioProducts Business 8(1):1– 12. ISSN 2378-1394. https://doi.org/10.22382/ bpb-2023-001. Taylor A et al. 2024. Substitution estimates for wood products in the United States, 1990 to 2020. Forest Products Journal (2023) 73 (4): 362–369. https://doi.org/10.13073/ FPJ-D-23-00036. A U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities’ Grant Funds Research by Dovetail Partners in Collaboration with Cambium Consulting

FEATURED NEWS 12 West Virginia Forestry Association Mountain State Forestry | Spring 24 www.wvfa.org INTRODUCTION The grade lumber component of the hardwood sawmill industry is continually faced with cyclic fluctuations in lumber pricing. Predictability of grade lumber markets, with any level of confidence, is uncertain at best. Figure 1 illustrates the volatility in nominal pricing of 1 Common red oak and white oak lumber over a 22 year period (2001 through 2023), on a quarterly basis. The data points represent Hardwood Market Report1 pricing from the second week report for January, April, July, and October. For red oak and white oak, the period from 2004 through 2013 showed a downward trend in pricing, followed by significant peaks and valleys until 2021 and then a drastic increase in price followed by a deep drop and another spike in 2023. Figure 2 illustrates the volatility in nominal prices of 1 Common soft maple (unselected) and yellow-poplar lumber over the same time period. Yellow-poplar exhibited much more stable nominal pricing from 2001 through about 2021 and much more stable than soft maple, red oak, or white oak. Soft maple showed a bit more stability over the 2001 through 2021 period than red oak and white oak. Both yellow-poplar and soft maple experienced drastic swings in price starting in 2021, much like red oak and white oak. By Curt C. Hassler, WVU Appalachian Hardwood Center (AHC), chasslerwv@gmail.com 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2001-01 2002-01 2003-01 2004-01 2005-01 2006-01 2007-01 2008-01 2009-01 2010-01 2011-01 2012-01 2013-01 2014-01 2015-01 2016-01 2017-01 2018-01 2019-01 2020-01 2021-01 2022-01 2023-01 $ per MBF Year - Quarter Red Oak White Oak Figure 1. Red oak and white oak nominal pricing per mbf of 1 Common lumber from the first quarter of 2001 through the fourth quarter of 2023. Figure 2. Soft maple (unselected) and yellow-poplar nominal pricing per mbf of 1 Common lumber from the first quarter of 2001 through the fourth quarter of 2023. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 2001-01 2002-01 2003-01 2004-01 2005-01 2006-01 2007-01 2008-01 2009-01 2010-01 2011-01 2012-01 2013-01 2014-01 2015-01 2016-01 2017-01 2018-01 2019-01 2020-01 2021-01 2022-01 2023-01 $ per MBF Year - Quarter Yellow Poplar ARE RAILROAD TIES THE ANSWER? PART II 1 HMR. 2001–2023. Hardwood Market Report: Various Volumes and Issues. HMR, Memphis, Tennessee.

FEATURED NEWS www.wvfa.org Spring 24 | West Virginia Forestry Association Mountain State Forestry 13 Over the entire time series (first quarter 2021 to fourth quarter 2023) No. 1 common yellow-poplar had the least volatility with a nominal price range of $330–$855 per mbf or $525 per mbf. During the same period red oak experienced a nominal price range of $460– $1,015 or $555 per mbf, white oak ranged from $450–$1,555 per mbf or $1,105 per mbf and soft maple (unselected) ranged from $525–$1,485 per mbf or $960 per mbf. Together Figures 1 and 2, create a picture of continual fluctuations in price with significant price swings from late 2020 through the end of 2023. Managing this volatility is a significant challenge for hardwood sawmills and represents an ongoing threat to their continued economic viability. This level of uncertainty places considerable pressure on stumpage pricing, where mills must try to predict lumber pricing up to two years in the future for stumpage purchases today. Rising lumber prices over time can mean relatively good returns on stumpage purchased today, but falling lumber prices can have devastating impacts on overpriced stumpage prices today. Alternatively, Figure 3 illustrates the trends in pricing for both pallet cants and railroad ties. The obvious difference is that pallet cant and tie prices, while showing some peaks and valleys, exhibit a general upward trend, with tie pricing always exceeding pallet cant pricing. The consistent upward trend was interrupted at the end of 2020 when all lumber related markets experienced wide swings in nominal pricing. One takeaway is that a degree of certainty in pallet cant and tie pricing, not seen in grade lumber, is evident. The question is how best to take advantage of this situation? When the hardwood industry is mired in another down cycle for grade lumber, can hardwood sawmills offset some of the pain by producing railroad ties? The answer lies in better understanding how tie pricing can affect profitability for various combinations of log size (diameter) and clear faces. The WVU Appalachian Hardwood Center (AHC) has, over the last decade plus, conducted over 60 sawmill studies throughout the Appalachian Region. These studies collected data on individual logs, where each log was measured and characterized according to a number of variables, including scaling diameter, length, scaling defects, as well as a number of other variables and then numbered on each end. The logs were then processed through the sawmill. Each board was graded and scaled, and the dimensions of each cant recorded, with all data being recorded by log number. The database contains over 4,600 logs of data. In collaboration with the Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturer’s Association, the AHC developed a set of Guidelines for Scaling and Grading of Hardwood Logs2 that are available for industry use. The following Grading Table (Figure 4) is contained in the aforementioned Guidelines. The grades are classified by scaling diameter and clear faces, with the proportion of Select & Better lumber used in assigning the grades. The applicable Select & Better proportions are listed at the bottom of Figure 4. For instance, a Prime grade log will have an estimated 55 percent or greater proportion of Select & Better lumber and a Grade 3 log will have less than 10 percent Select & Better lumber. METHODS For the purposes of this article a comparison will be made between sawing a pallet cant and boards versus sawing a railroad tie, for red oak and white oak logs. Five log grade combinations are used for illustration. Because the mills included in the database were more likely to saw pallet cants, the combinations selected were based in Figure 4. AHMI/AHC Hardwood Log Grading Table, with Select & Better Yields listed at the bottom of the Figure. Select & Better Yields by Log Grade Prime: ≥ 55.0% No.1: ≥ 25.0% and < 32.5% Select+: ≥ 47.5% and < 55.0% No. 2+: ≥ 17.5% and < 25.0% Select: ≥ 40.0 and < 47.5% No. 2: ≥ 10.0% and < 17.5% No. 1+: ≥ 32.5% and < 40.0% No. 3: <10.0% Figure 3. Pallet cant and railroad tie nominal pricing per mbf from the first quarter of 2001 through the fourth quarter of 2023. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 2001-01 2002-01 2003-01 2004-01 2005-01 2006-01 2007-01 2008-01 2009-01 2010-01 2011-01 2012-01 2013-01 2014-01 2015-01 2016-01 2017-01 2018-01 2019-01 2020-01 2021-01 2022-01 2023-01 $ per MBF Year-Quarter Cants Ties 2 Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers, Inc. 2019. Guidelines for the Scaling and Grading of Hardwood Logs. Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers, Inc., High Point, NC. 14pp.

FEATURED NEWS 14 West Virginia Forestry Association Mountain State Forestry | Spring 24 www.wvfa.org part on selecting diameter and clear face combinations with higher percentages of logs sawn into tie sized material. The five log grade combinations are: • 13-inch 0 clear faces (Grade No. 3, see Figure 4) • 12-inch 1 clear face (Grade No. 3, see Figure 4) • 13-inch 2 clear faces (Grade No. 2, see Figure 4) • 14-inch 3 clear faces (Grade No. 1, see Figure 4) • 15-inch 4 clear faces (Grade No. Select+, see Figure 4) Database logs were divided into 2 categories for this analysis: • Logs that only sawed out pallet cants (cross-sectional area of the cant <48 square inches). • Logs that sawed out a railroad tie or timber material only (crosssectional area of the cant/tie/timber >=48 square inches). This allows for consideration of 6” x 8” railroad ties in the analysis. Lumber and cant/tie prices are from a variety of sources and the prices used in the analysis are included in Table 1. Sawing cost is assumed to be $250/mbf and there is no profit consideration, resulting in breakeven pricing of logs to compare the two sawing strategies. That is, the breakeven price indicates what the mill could pay for logs delivered to the mill and not make or lose money on the transaction. Note, Select lumber is priced as 1 Common lumber and both 2B Common and 3B common lumber are priced as random width pallet lumber. Below Grade (BG) lumber is priced at $100 per mbf. RESULTS The log combination of 13 inches scaling diameter and 2 clear faces is used to illustrate the analysis, specifically for sawing a pallet cant plus boards, in Table 2. As indicated in Table 2, the analysis is based on 1 mbf of logs, Doyle scale. The first column identifies the NHLA grade, the second column provides the grade yields (based on the data collected by AHC). The third column provides lumber and cant pricing for January 2024 (Table 1), while column four provides the yield with overrun. The fifth column entries are determined by multiplying the percentage yield (column 2 in decimal form) times the lumber/cant price (column 3) times the yield with overrun (column 4) divided by 1,000, to provide the revenue for each lumber grade. The breakeven log cost is determined to be $492.68 per mbf, with a Select & Better yield of 13.6 percent and an overrun of 44.03 percent. Table 3 provides a summary of the results for the 5 combinations of scaling diameter and clear faces for both red oak and white oak. For the case of 13-inch, 2 clear face logs, the breakeven price for sawing ties from red oak is $923 per mbf versus the $493 per mbf for sawing a pallet cant and boards. The reason for this is that the Table 2. Breakeven pricing for 13-inch, 2 clear face Red Oak logs sawn for pallet cants. Log Pricing with 13 inch, 2 clear face logs With Pallet Cant Yields and Pricing Red Oak Pricing—January 2024 Pricing based on 1 mbf of logs Grade % Yield Lumber Prices $/mbf Yield with Overrun Revenue Overrun FAS 4.92% $1,010 1440.27 $71.58 44.03% F1F 7.34% $1,000 1440.27 $105.67 Select 1.32% $700 1440.27 $13.27 Sawing Cost $/mbf 1 Com 24.17% $700 1440.27 $243.70 $250 2a Com 21.02% $555 1440.27 $168.03 2b Com 0.78% $250 1440.27 $2.8 Profit (%) 3a Com 8.98% $515 1440.27 $66.60 $ - 3b Com 3.65% $250 1440.27 $13.14 BG 1.71% $100 1440.27 $2.47 Log Cost $mbf Cant 26.11% $440 1440.27 $165.48 $492.68 100.0% $852.75 No. Logs= 102 Sel & btr= 13.57% NHLA Grade Red Oak Price/mbf White Oak Price/mbf FAS $1,010 $2,900 One Face $1,000 $2,890 Select $700 $1,290 1 Common $700 $1,290 2A Common $555 $585 2B Common $250 $250 3A Common $515 $545 3B Common $250 $250 Below Grade $100 $100 Pallet Cant $440 $440 Railroad Tie $854 $854 Table 1. Lumber and cant pricing for red oak and white oak analysis of tie versus pallet cant production using January 2024 pricing.

FEATURED NEWS www.wvfa.org Spring 24 | West Virginia Forestry Association Mountain State Forestry 15 railroad tie option accomplishes two things: increases overrun by over 22 percent from 44.0 percent to 66.2 percent and applies a significantly higher price to the tie than to the pallet cant (almost double from $440 per mbf to $854 per mbf). On the other hand, the production of Select & Better lumber is higher for the pallet cant/board option (13.6 percent) than the railroad tie option (8.8 percent). However, this difference does little to offset the increase in overrun and the accompanying price of railroad ties. In this particular market scenario, it is always better to saw a railroad tie than to saw a pallet cant and boards. For all the red oak options summarized in Table 3, it is more profitable to saw a railroad tie than a pallet cant and boards. It is important to note that as log diameter and the number of clear faces increases, the margins in favor of the railroad tie option decreases. For instance, the 15 inch, 4 clear face difference in breakeven prices shrinks to $140 per mbf. This is primarily due to the increased percentage of higher grade lumber. In the case of white oak, (while the grade yields and overrun are the same as red oak, the AHMI grading system, like individual mill grading systems, treats logs of a given diameter and clear faces the same in terms of lumber grade yields and overrun and differentiates based on species and price), lumber pricing has a much greater impact on breakeven pricing and therefore the return to the mill. Thus, Table 3 presents a somewhat different picture for white oak. For the 2 clear face and poorer logs, the outcome is the same as with red oak; the best option is to saw and market a railroad tie. However, for the 14-inch, 3 clear face and 15-inch 4 clear face logs the better option is to saw a pallet cant and boards. For these two diameter/ clear face combinations (highlighted in Table 3), the production of Select & Better lumber offsets any advantage in overrun and tie price, as the Common and Better lumber pricing dominates. SAWING COST It is important to provide a caveat with respect to sawing cost. Because this analysis uses cost/mbf to develop breakeven costs, one should be aware of the impact this has. The sawing cost in this analysis is calculated from the board footage produced from one thousand board feet of logs (Doyle scale). Therefore, the railroad tie option results in a higher sawing cost because of the higher overrun, when in fact the cost should be lower because the number of sawlines is fewer and the time to process through the mill is less. The more accurate sawing cost would be based on the time it takes to process a log through the mill times the cost per unit time. Of course, this requires more detailed analysis of sawing times, which few mills have undertaken. The upshot of this anomaly is that the railroad tie option is penalized, resulting in a lower breakeven price. The impact can be illustrated with the 14-inch, 3 clear face, white oak logs. The difference in breakeven price is $33 per mbf ($1,615 vs. $1,582). While it is not necessarily an accurate assumption, using the sawing cost difference between the two options and adding it to the breakeven price of the railroad tie option results in an additional $39 per mbf to the tie option, bringing the BE price to $1,621 per mbf vs. $1,615 per mbf, essentially a toss-up in terms of choice. CONCLUSION Obviously, the selection of sawing strategies should be a dynamic process where all the factors are routinely updated, in order to maximize revenue to the mill. As lumber and cant/tie prices change mills should revisit their sawing strategies. From an historic perspective, railroad tie production has been a reasonable option for mills, especially when grade lumber markets are depressed and even when grade markets are stable because of the impact of railroad tie vs. pallet pricing, combined with superior overruns with railroad ties. Table 3. Breakeven pricing for red oak logs of varying scaling diameters and clear faces when producing pallet cants and boards versus railroad ties. Diameter/ Clear Faces Pallet Cant or Railroad Tie Produced Sel & Better Yield (%) Overrun (%) Red Oak Breakeven Price per mbf White Oak Breakeven Price per mbf 13 in. & 0 CF* Pallet Cant 5.2 42.1 $354 $595 Railroad Tie 1.2 56.0 $796 $923 12 in. & 1 CF Pallet Cant 7.9 48.4 $402 $736 Railroad Tie 3.5 79.9 $973 $1,219 13 in. & 2 CF Pallet Cant 13.6 44.0 $493 $1,056 Railroad Tie 8.8 66.2 $923 $1,328 14 in. & 3 CF Pallet Cant 32.2 39.4 $599 $1,615 Railroad Tie 20.0 55.0 $906 $1,582 15 in. & 4 CF Pallet Cant 52.7 38.6 $737 $2,238 Railroad Tie 25.1 44.4 $877 $1,659 *CF = Clear faces.

MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST UPDATE 16 West Virginia Forestry Association Mountain State Forestry | Spring 24 www.wvfa.org USDA FOREST SERVICE Monongahela National Forest Update New Acting Forest Supervisor The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service selected Tracy Calizon as Monongahela National Forest’s Acting Forest Supervisor. She will lead the 920,000-acre forest until April 2024, replacing Shawn Cochran, who is now Forest Supervisor for Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota. Calizon began her Forest Service career in Washington, D.C., where she worked for Research and Development as a national litigation coordinator and with the Office of Tribal Relations as lead author on the USDA/ Forest Service Synthesis on Sacred Sites. Her next post was on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in southwestern Washington State, where she led efforts in sustainable recreation, public affairs, heritage, tribal relations, special uses, and partnerships as the Community Engagement Staff Officer. Most recently, she served as the Assistant Director for Recreation, Lands, and Minerals in the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Regional Office, supporting all national forests in Oregon and Washington. “I’ve heard fantastic things about the Monongahela and West Virginia and am very happy to be here,” said Calizon. “I’m excited to put my skills to work alongside all of you who love the Mon!” Calizon holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental science from University of Virginia and a law degree, with a concentration in natural resources and public lands law, from University of Colorado. She grew up camping, hiking, and skiing in the parks, forests, and beaches of Virginia and the surrounding area, and enjoys cooking, gardening, reading, and traveling with her favorite travel buddies, her husband Bobby and their two teenage kids. The process of hiring a permanent Forest Supervisor is underway. Tracy Calizon will serve as Monongahela National Forest’s Acting Forest Supervisor until April 2024. (Photo by USDA Forest Service.) Overhead view of the Capitol Christmas Tree harvest.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==