Out west, we have a major environmental problem. Millions of acres of forests are dead due to beetles. The sustainable forest initiatives--and an absolutely defensive strategy--is to log these trees. If the wood is covered with tarps for an entire year, the beetles are dead and the wood can be milled into beautiful products. I have several projects that want to use this wood for the entire project as it puts local mills back to work, cleans up the forest, reduces forest fire threats, etc.
Would this "fly" with LEED reviewers as meeting the intent of the FSC credit, that being outstanding forest stewardship?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Nadav Malin
PresidentBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
839 thumbs up
April 19, 2010 - 2:00 pm
Great question, Kath! I doubt that reviewers would feel authorized to allow this kind of exception. I think that it would have to approved through the LEED committees as an alternative compliance path. Maybe FSC would consider taking it on as well, which would also work.Either way, you'd have to have some reliable system of documenting that the wood used on a project actually came from these beetle-kill thinnings, which suggests that doing it through FSC and using their COC systems might be a good approach.That's my sense. Any other thoughts on this one?
Kath Williams
LEED Fellow 2011, PrincipalKath Williams + Associates
140 thumbs up
April 20, 2010 - 8:55 am
This might be more difficult than I thought. The evergreen forests have to be clear cut, all stumps removed. Any fir tree left standing, even partly dead, allows the beetles to thrive. They fly from tree to tree within 35 feet or so. What we need to stop them is a harsh, old-fashioned Montana winter with 10 degree C temperatures holding for several weeks. That did not happen again this year. We had to have three trees removed along the creek behind our house. Neighbors lost 12. Two more may be infected. The milled lumber is absolutely beautiful with beetle trails making incredible patterns and contrasts in the wood. I think I'll try the alternative compliance path to start with my projects. Thanks!
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11474 thumbs up
April 20, 2010 - 10:43 am
I would think that there are environmentally sensitive ways to harvest beetle-kill lumber, and environmentally insensitive ways. I think it would be good to be able to demonstrate the sensitivity of the harvesting for this path.
Kath Williams
LEED Fellow 2011, PrincipalKath Williams + Associates
140 thumbs up
April 20, 2010 - 11:00 am
Thanks, Tristan and Nadav, plus a correction to my comment...temperature must remain at minus 20C for at least 16 days.
Shevaun Barrie
Inland Technical Services Ltd.97 thumbs up
September 30, 2010 - 5:03 pm
We have the same issue in BC. The CaGBC has issued a CIR ruling that beetle-kill cannot be counted towards FSC wood, however; I really think they need to make the use this wood credit-able in some manner. Has anyone heard of an ID credit being issued on it's use?
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11474 thumbs up
October 1, 2010 - 1:17 am
Another way to look at this is whether ue of beetle-kill wood is standard practice that may be laudable but isn't particularly special, or whether it offers significant environmental benefits and is transforming the marketplace. The latter is what USGBC has aimed for with FSC (and many other aspects of the program). I don't know what the answer to that question is in this case—but I wanted to articulate it.
Nathan Benjamin
Founder + CEOPlanetReuse
8 thumbs up
October 1, 2010 - 8:14 am
Great questions and comments. I agree that there are a number of items that are in line with the sustainable goals of the LEED credits, but unfortunately don't help on the LEED scorecard.
Beetle-kill is a great example of a material worth making changes to allow and encourage. In addition to this beautiful material, the following are also examples of materials that are in line with the ultimate goals of reducing the amount of virgin material harvested for new projects, but unfortunately "count against you" if used in a project as they don't count as reused, FSC-certified, or help with recycled content:
1. Salvaged, sunken sinker logs (pine, cypress, etc.) that sunk to the bottom of bayous or rivers 100+ years ago, are pulled-up, and milled into siding, flooring and wall covering.
2. Katrina-reclaimed cypress wood material came from trees that died when blown over in the storm, were set aside, and later milled into siding and other usable materials.
I'm sure there are many more instances where subtle changes and exceptions seem to make sense. The project that used the Katrina-reclaimed material discussed going for an ID credit, but had others that were pursued instead. The ID credit may be the best route for now for Beetle-kill and other materials. Obviously there needs to be some process to hold people accountable for sources of materials (to prevent abuse), but as more and more discussions like this develop, I am certain that modifications can be made.
Doug Pierce, AIA
Architect / Sustainability StrategistPerkins+Will
235 thumbs up
October 1, 2010 - 11:16 am
For the Beatle kill timber and timber from other similar conditions - an analysis needs to be made around the ecological impacts of harvesting OR not harvesting OR partially harvesting the timber....Meaning: How much, if any should be left in place to provide nutrients for regrowth or habitat, etc? For example - Fire is essential to the the regeneration of many western forests - would leaving the timber in place (or some of the timber) as source material for a Fire be beneficial to regenerating the forest?
Given that the MR7 Credit is about ecologically based Forestry Management (I.E. FSC), there are questions that range beyond the simple idea that this wood should be harvested and used because it is dead. What if harvesting it is the wrong choice?
If a project was going to try to claim that harvested beatle kill timber is ligitamately 'sustainable' and an equivalent to FSC, then some form of scientifically based proof would be needed to support what is essentially an alternative compliance path. Does anyone know of a thoughtful, legitimate study on how to handle the beatle kill timber?
The near future will be filled with issues like this as climate change manifests itself...
Best,
Doug