here - SCS Global Services

Certifi ed Environmental Product Declaration 

Dimensional Lumber Products Produced by Humboldt Redwood Company 

Highlights of Declaration: 

• Certified Restorative Forestry 

• Certified Net Carbon Storage Forest 

DRAFT, do not use, cite, copy or distribute 

© 2011 Scientific Certification Systems

Introduction 

This Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) 

summarizes the results of a life cycle assessment (LCA) 

of untreated dimensional lumber produced by the 

Humboldt Redwood Company (HRC). In this study, 

HRC forest management practices were compared to 

practices on the same lands under the prior owner, the 

Pacific Lumber Company (PALCO). 

The LCA was conducted by an independent third party 

certifier, Scientific Certification Systems (SCScertified). 

Based on the study results summarized herein, SCS has 

certified HRC as a Restorative Forestry Operation and its 

forest as a Net Carbon Storage Forest. 

HRC Certifi cation Highlights 

HRC’s practices have already: 

• Changed the forest from a net carbon source to a net carbon sink, mitigating the 

contribution to climate change, ocean acidification and ocean thermal changes 

• Reduced the use of toxic herbicides by almost 95% 

• Completely halted all cutting of old growth redwood and Douglas fir on the property 

Over time, HRC’s Restoration Forestry will recover: 

• 88,000 acres of previously disturbed forestland 

• Habitat for as many as 13 key species 

• Over 2,500 miles of disturbed rivers, across 7 major watersheds 

• Forest carbon storage removing over 6 million tons of CO2 from the atmosphere 

—equivalent to removing almost 1 million cars from the road 

An LCIA Comparison of Forestry Under PALCO and HRC 

A selective harvest site at HRC. 

Photo taken June 2011.

1860s - Forestry begins 

1931-86 - PALCO/Murphy selective forestry 

1986 - Hostile takeover of PALCO by Maxxam 

1986-99 - Extreme impact forest management 

1999 - Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Enacted 

2001- SFI Certification through 2007 

2007 - PALCO Bankruptcy 

2008 - HRC Acquisition 

2009 - FSC Certification 

2011- Projected long-term forest recovery 

History of the Forest 

The HRC forest covers approximately 209,000 acres in 

Humboldt County, California, approximately 250 miles 

north of San Francisco. The forest is composed primarily 

of coastal redwood, Douglas fir, and hardwoods such as 

tanoak. 

Forestry began on the property in the 1860s under PALCO 

when owned by the Murphy Family, which conducted a 

form of selective forestry. A major transition occurred in 

1986, when Maxxam Corporation acquired PALCO in 

a hostile takeover. PALCO/Maxxam engaged in highly 

destructive practices, incorporating widespread clear 

cuts and the liquidation of old growth trees. This led to extensive direct forest disturbance, 

indirect disturbance to seven major watersheds, and the loss of habitat for as many as 16 

threatened, endangered or rare species . 

Forestry At HRC 

A Douglas fir stand marked for 

selection harvest. 

(From the HRC website.) 

HRC’s purchase of the forest marked a new era in forest management practices. Forestry 

under HRC incorporates uneven-aged management and selective forestry, all geared 

towards restoring the forest to a healthier state. All clear cuts which had been planned were 

halted, and HRC management made the commitment to the local community to never cut 

another old growth tree. 

DRAFT, do not use, cite, copy or distribute ©2011 Scientific Certification Systems

Scope of the LCA 

The LCA study focused on HRC untreated dimensional lumber produced during the 

current calendar year (2011). HRC’s lumber is used for residential applications, including 

redwood decking (65% of total production) and Douglas fir structural beams (35% of total 

production). 

The study involved an examination of all impacts associated with this lumber production 

from cradle to gate, including forestland management, wood extraction, milling and 

distribution to retail. The study did not address impacts from the use and disposal of this 

product. 

An LCIA Comparison of Forestry Under PALCO and HRC

PALCO Reference Baseline 

Forestry practices under PALCO/Maxxam 

served as the baseline for comparison for this 

study. Before going bankrupt, PALCO was 

in the process of transforming the forest into 

a 35-year rotation “tree farm.” This type of 

A PALCO clear cut near the Headwaters Forest forestry suppresses less-profitable Douglas firs 

reserve. Photo from KRIS Photo Database. 

and tanoak, keeps redwoods in a permanently 

immature state, and reduces the landscape to 

a patchwork of clear cuts. This landscape is highly disturbed, with immature compositional 

structure and no suitable habitat for keystone species. 

Based on these practices, PALCO’s operations 

resulted in extreme, forest impacts including the 

irreversible loss of more than 380,000 old growth 

trees, complete disturbance to 66,000 acres of 

second growth forest resulting from 88,000 acres 

of cuts, high levels of disturbance to seven major 

watersheds on the property, the loss and disturbance 

of optimal habitat for as many as 16 species, and 

the elimination of millions of tons of carbon storage 

in old growth redwood and Douglas fir trees. 

The Northern Spotted Owl 


Impact Profi le of the PALCO Baseline 

The impacts shown in the table reflect the results of 21 years of PALCO forest management 

practices, based on average of 232 million Board-Feet (MMBF) each year. These values 

reflect the state of the forest in 2008, when HRC began operations. 

Forest management under PALCO led not only to a high rate of disturbance for many 

indicators, but also to accumulating disturbance and emissions due to lack of active 

mitigation efforts. Many of these indicators are irreversible in nature, and cannot be 

reversed. 

The restoration forestry practiced by HRC is working to mitigate these impacts to the 

degree that is possible. 

An LCIA Comparison of Forestry Under PALCO and HRC

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

Table Footnotes 

* Accumulated disturbance from 1986-2007 due to PALCO forestry. 

** Calculated as a range by comparing peak years for sediment load under PALCO, before the protections of the 

Habitat Conservation Plan with those after. 

*** Comparing the average non-peak sediment loads, pre-HCP and post-HCP. 


Equivalent acres of 

fully disturbed forest 

Disturbance Dynamics during the PALCO and HRC Eras 

Forest Biome Disturbance 

Top Line: Northern Spotted Owl – Disturbance to Optimal Nesting Habit 

Bottom Line: 2nd Growth Forest Biome Disturbance 

The disturbance arising from PALCO cutting and HRC restoration practices is normalized 

to units of equivalent fully disturbed acres of forest, which correspond to forest areas that 

provide no ecosystem services for any species. While a large area of forestland was disturbed 

by PALCO over 21 years, it will take as long as a century for HRC to recover it back to a 

mature state. 

The rate of accumulating 

disturbance increased during 

SFI certification years. 


Widespread clear cutting led 

to high levels of disturbance 

in the second growth forest. 

HRC’s recovery efforts will 

restore the forest, but not for 

100 years. 

The Northern Spotted Owl 

needs mature forest to nest. 

It would not be able to nest in 

an even-aged rotation forest. 

HRC’s recovery efforts will 

bring back habitat in second 

growth forest.

Accumulated Old Growth Tree Removal 

Top line: Total Loss of Old Growth Trees 

Bottom line: Loss of old growth Douglas fir trees 

PALCO cut old growth trees to the extent it was legally able to do so throughout the 21-year 

period. While the habitat conservation plan (HCP) stopped the cutting in 1999, it resumed at a 

slower rate during the SFI certification years from 2001-2007. 

Number of trees 

remaining on property 

After the HCP protected a large 

number of trees, cutting of old 

growth tree resumed under SFI 

certification. PALCO continued 

to cut old growth trees to the 

extent it was legally able to 

do so. 

The Pacific Fisher, Marbled Murrelet, 

can use any old growth tree for 

habitat; the Somona Tree Vole can 

only use old growth Douglas fir. 


Disturbance Dynamics during the PALCO and HRC Eras 

Riverine Biome Disturbance 

Top line: Bear Creek sediment load 

Bottom line: Elk River sediment load 

PALCO clear cutting practices and poor road design resulted in high levels of sedimentation. 

The HCP requirements helped to recover the rivers very quickly, a restoration trajectory 

which continues today under HRC management. 

Annual Sediment Load 

(m^3) 

A storm in 1997 caused a spike in sediment loads in Bear 

Creek, causing the river to be completely buried in sediment. 

This was caused by clear cutting on steep slopes and poor 

road design by PALCO. 

Forest Carbon Storage Loss 

PALCO’s widespread cutting of old growth forest eliminated the 2,000-year carbon storage 

of these trees. The carbon storage loss due to these cutting practices is equivalent to putting 

as many as 5 million cars on the road in a year. HRC’s recovery efforts are leading to a 

recovery of carbon storage in the growing forest. However, the lost carbon storage due to 

PALCO will take decades to restore. 

Metric Tons of Aboveground 

CO2 Storage 


��

Comparing the Impact Profi le of HRC to the PALCO Baseline 

The 2011 Life Cycle Impact Profile for HRC is shown below. Bars that fall short of the baseline 

represent lower impacts, while bars to the right of the baseline represent higher impacts. As 

reflected here, HRCs restorative forestry efforts have begun to reverse the effects of previous 

destructive forestry practices; however, the recovery trajectory is a slow one, given the extent of 

disturbance that had occurred prior to HRC’s ownership. The projected 2025 impact profile, 

shown on the back, provides an indication of the likely recovery timeline. 

Impact category indicators determined to be not relevant to this study, and therefore not listed on this 

impact profile, were as follows: Water Resource Depletion, Mineral / Metal Resource Depletion, Arctic 

GHG/BC Loading, Stratospheric ODC Loading, Ecotoxic Chemical Potentials, Aquatic Eutrophication, Toxic 

Chemical Ingestion Loadings (Carcinogenic), Accumulated Risks from Indoor Chemical Exposures, Risks 

from Untreated Hazardous Waste, Risks from Radioactive Waste. 


Looking Ahead 

Assuming that HRCs continues to manage the forest in accordance with its current restorative 

forestry policies, impact levels will continue to fall. The projected 2025 impact profile is shown 

below. 

More Details Online 

A detailed study report will be published in the fall of 2011, and made publicly available online. It 

will include LCI and LCIA results, study assumptions and data uncertainty requirements as required 

for environmental product declarations by the committee draft national LCIA standard, SCS-002. 

SCIENTIFIC CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS 

2000 Powell St, Emveryville, CA 94608 • T: +1.510.452.8000 

www.SCScertified.com

here - SCS Global Services

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?