Attached please find a revised draft of the TSC recommendations report. In order to address this last round of comments before public release of the document, I'll need your comments by COB on Sunday, Jan. 17.
Tom
-- Thomas Walker P.O. Box 6308 12 Trapelo Road Lincoln, MA 01773 USA
My apologies for not getting these in until this morning. I hope that these comments meet the deadline as today is a holiday.
First, I believe that each of us should be clear about our affiliations, and I hope that we are each on the TSC in our individual capacity. If any of us is representing any organization or interest, we should make that clear. In that spirit, I wrote a letter in support of considering the biomass plant proposed for Greenfield. The principal in that is a former student of mine, Matt Wolfe. I have no financial interest in his company or in the project. Since that time, I have become concerned at the scale of multiple projects, which do not seem to me to be sustainable for the regrowth rates of this region. I am awaiting the study that is currently under way. In any case, I do not believe that the State should utilize wood taken from state lands for the purpose of biomass production.
I would like to be listed as William R. Moomaw, Professor of International Environmental Policy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University. If we are stating our interests, I have stated them above.
As for the report: 1. The introduction and the use of maps and data to set the context is an important setting for the report, as is the explanation for the need for the report. On 1/12/10 7:39 PM, "Thomas Walker" <twalker...@gmail.com> wrote: 2. The multiple appendices including a summary and commentary on the rules and regulations for managing the forests is an excellent addition that should inform the public about the laws and rules governing the management of state forest lands. The discussion of forest areas and types of potential zoning is very helpful. My only question is are we as TSC endorsing these proposals or are they illustrative? We should make this clear. This appendix is a valuable addition. 3. The context setting for Recommendation 1 is excellent on reframing for managing in terms of ecosystem services. The figure helps to put the nature of ecosystem services into a constructive context. The implementation guidelines emphasizing that the ability of public lands to provide these services sustainably into the long term future in lines 485-486 is exceedingly important. A sentence might be added just before this statement: ³ To maintain ecosystem services into the long term future requires that forest lands be managed with these goals in mind on time scales of centuries and longer.² All of the organizing principles on page 16 are clear and to the point that we have a sound basis for the recommendations that follow. The discussion of timber production needs to contain a clearer sense that this is to be limited to certain designated ³woodlands.² (line 522 ³on a restricted, designated portion of DCR lands²) The following discussion about not being primarily for economic reasons, but for educational reasons captures the justification of this. I propose that we also state that we recommend not utilizing DCR lands for supplying biomass fuels to commercial projects. 4. Recommendation 2. The list of duties and responsibilities that cut across all forests, public and private on page 18 is important in setting the tone. Is it clear that the authority of this position of Director of Forest Stewardship does indeed cut across existing agency structures? This may be adequately covered in the discussion section. 5. Recommendation 3. In the recommendation, line 624, could we replace ³signed off on² with ³reviewed and approved²? Line 628, should read as follows, ³requires increased leadership, education, public investment and alignment of incentives to ensure that these forests...² Line 643, should read as follows, ³costs of legislation to ensure Œno net loss¹ of forest canopy, acreage or delivery of forest ecosystem services in Massachusetts.² Line 644, replace forest canopy with ³forest canopy and acreage of comparable ecological value,² Line 662 should be Recommendation 2 Line 733 should read as follows, ³by DCR to have been harvested from long term sustainably managed forest lands that will return to forest following the harvest, and which is sold to a processor or end user less than 100 miles from ....² The 6 recommendations on page 22 are very well stated with the above suggestions. Line 753 and following. Rather than require just a signature, can this call for ³approval and signature²? Nowhere do we mention town forests, and working with towns to achieve these goals. Should that be in this section as well? 6. Recommendation 4. Lines 817-825 suggest that the ³emphasis for woodlands is ....² An initial reading suggests that timber production is the first among management goals. I would propose something to the effect that the goal of woodlands management is to enhance particular ecosystem services, and then list all of those included, but convey that these are all of comparable value in the goals for woodlands. These lands may be selected because they are well suited for management, possess conditions for certain services (including timber production), have been drastically altered in the past by previous management (including plantations of exotic species) , suffering damage by invasives, storms or whatever, and require management to restore the desired qualities. In other words, this can be about restorative management, managing for particular goods and services including timber, and to monitor and illustrate alternative management practices to achieve particular ecosystem service goals. Let me be clear, I favor doing these things, we just need to be clear that this is a real change from what is happening now. Line 838. I believe it is a serious mistake to set the limits of woodlands higher than reserves. Private woodlands can supply everything the state owned lands can, but will seldom supply the services of reserves. I do not see a clear justification for this imbalance, and suspect that his will be a focus of great discontent by the public. Parklands are also being managed to provide recreational and cultural services, so this tilts the balance of managed lands heavily away from allowing nature to take its course. (Note, I am receiving emails to this effect as I write my response!) Let me suggest that we not put an upper limit on any of the zones, but state what we see as essential minima for each. Line 890. I am not sure that I support 80%, but I do support a larger fraction than the table in line 838 suggests for reserves. I also think that it is not accurate to lump parklands with reserves. They are managed for recreation and in that sense are more like woodlands managed for specific services. Line 901 What does ³incorporation² mean? Does this mean coordinated management with land trusts or town forests, or does it mean actually taking them over by the state? Lines 911-913. As stated, this sounds as if we are emphasizing that this is a huge increase for reserves rather than emphasizing just how small existing reserves are as a portion of Massachusetts forests. Could we put in the percentage of all forested lands now in reserves, and the proportion of state lands that represents, and then how large these numbers would come with our recommendation? Many developing countries are trying to protect 10-25% of their forests (Surinam and Guyana are over 80%), while we are at the 1-2% level for reserves in Massachusetts. The proposed increase brings us up to 3-4% of statewide lands. I believe that these figures need to be in this section. 7. Recommendation 5 The points about the approach to reserves is comprehensive and appropriate. My only reservation is on the relatively small amount of area that we are recommending for reserves. We cannot get our 15,000 acre representative ecosystems with only 90,000 acres (this is just 6 reserves!). We should comment on this. 8. Recommendation 6. My only comment here is that Parklands do require management to meet recreational and aesthetic services and values. In this sense they are more like woodlands form a ³natural² ecosystem perspective. It is not just that no timber is to be harvested as one of the ecosystems services that is the defining characteristic. Could we just point that out? The rest seems fine. 9. Recommendation 7. The purpose of woodlands leads with timber production. This should be stated as one amongst many ecosystem services for which active management is appropriate. I like the idea of stating that woodlands are areas managed to enhance the sustainable production of ecosystem services that include timber, water, carbon sequestration, old growth, early succession and other ecosystem services. Line 1406 In other places, we specifically list carbon sequestration and old growth as ecosystem service. I propose that they be put on this list as well. Lines 1420-1432 is an excellent statement of the role of silviculture in the service of societal goals to maintain ecosystem services. The overall set of recommendations in this section seem appropriate to meeting the goals for woodlands. I also agree with the statements about FSC. We should use it as an external review of how DCR is doing on those lands that are producing timber. Lines 1658-1682. The statements about biomass removal for commercial projects seems clear in making the point that biomass production should not compromise other ecosystem services on DCR woodlands. So why don¹t we just say that TSC does not believe that it is appropriate for DCR lands to be seen as a fuel resource for such facilities. There are simply too few acres of forested lands providing the necessary ecosystem services to include this as a provision from DCR lands. If biomass plants prove viable, private lands should be able to meet the need, provided that they too are managed on a sustainable manner in which the removal rate does not exceed the recovery rate. 10. Recommendation 8. Lines 1783-1787 should state that the primary goal of DCR is the sustainable production of ecosystem services. It is
...
Bill, A couple of comments on your comments. Thanks for questioning using timber management instead of forest management where management is assumed for all ecosystem services. I have tried to rid the document of timber mgt. but since many feel it must be our main concern it has stayed in. I don't share your concern about not producing stem wood that can be chipped for commercial biomass. In tending the forest, there are many low vigor and low quality trees that are cut to provide more space for the remaining trees to maintain their vigor and longevity. Stems of culled trees have been used for pulp (sent to another state) and maybe in the future as commercial biomass here in MA. We need local markets for low value wood that enable us to manage for all ecosystem services. To assume that providing stemwood for commercial biomass plants from state lands, is somehow not a good practice is lost on me. One thing that private lands do not produce and which state lands do, is large trees. Cutting only 1/4 of the growth makes it easy to for foresters to continue to manege for big trees. You have a comment which says that developing countries are trying to protect 10-25% of their forest. Could you elaborate on this, because often times developing countries are trying to maintain 10-25% of their original forest as forest and having difficulty doing this, especially in the tropics where palm oil is big. And finally, we continue to be far apart on the size and importance of reserves. Bruce
--- On Mon, 1/18/10, William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> wrote:
From: William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com, "Thomas Walker" <twalker01...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 12:44 PM
Re: Revised TSC Draft Report My apologies for not getting these in until this morning. I hope that these comments meet the deadline as today is a holiday.
First, I believe that each of us should be clear about our affiliations, and I hope that we are each on the TSC in our individual capacity. If any of us is representing any organization or interest, we should make that clear. In that spirit, I wrote a letter in support of considering the biomass plant proposed for Greenfield. The principal in that is a former student of mine, Matt Wolfe. I have no financial interest in his company or in the project. Since that time, I have become concerned at the scale of multiple projects, which do not seem to me to be sustainable for the regrowth rates of this region. I am awaiting the study that is currently under way. In any case, I do not believe that the State should utilize wood taken from state lands for the purpose of biomass production.
I would like to be listed as William R. Moomaw, Professor of International Environmental Policy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University. If we are stating our interests, I have stated them above.
As for the report:
1. The introduction and the use of maps and data to set the context is an important setting for the report, as is the explanation for the need for the report.
On 1/12/10 7:39 PM, "Thomas Walker" <twalker...@gmail.com> wrote:
2. The multiple appendices including a summary and commentary on the rules and regulations for managing the forests is an excellent addition that should inform the public about the laws and rules governing the management of state forest lands. The discussion of forest areas and types of potential zoning is very helpful. My only question is are we as TSC endorsing these proposals or are they illustrative? We should make this clear. This appendix is a valuable addition.
3. The context setting for Recommendation 1 is excellent on reframing for managing in terms of ecosystem services. The figure helps to put the nature of ecosystem services into a constructive context. The implementation guidelines emphasizing that the ability of public lands to provide these services sustainably into the long term future in lines 485-486 is exceedingly important. A sentence might be added just before this statement: “ To maintain ecosystem services into the long term future requires that forest lands be managed with these goals in mind on time scales of centuries and longer.” All of the organizing principles on page 16 are clear and to the point that we have a sound basis for the recommendations that follow.
The discussion of timber production needs to contain a clearer sense that this is to be limited to certain designated “woodlands.” (line 522 “on a restricted, designated portion of DCR lands”) The following discussion about not being primarily for economic reasons, but for educational reasons captures the justification of this. I propose that we also state that we recommend not utilizing DCR lands for supplying biomass fuels to commercial projects.
4. Recommendation 2. The list of duties and responsibilities that cut across all forests, public and private on page 18 is important in setting the tone. Is it clear that the authority of this position of Director of Forest Stewardship does indeed cut across existing agency structures? This may be adequately covered in the discussion section.
5. Recommendation 3. In the recommendation, line 624, could we replace “signed off on” with “reviewed and approved”?
Line 628, should read as follows, “requires increased leadership, education, public investment and alignment of incentives to ensure that these forests...”
Line 643, should read as follows, “costs of legislation to ensure ‘no net loss’ of forest canopy, acreage or delivery of forest ecosystem services in Massachusetts.”
Line 644, replace forest canopy with “forest canopy and acreage of comparable ecological value,”
Line 662 should be Recommendation 2
Line 733 should read as follows, “by DCR to have been harvested from long term sustainably managed forest lands that will return to forest following the harvest, and which is sold to a processor or end user less than 100 miles from ....”
The 6 recommendations on page 22 are very well stated with the above suggestions.
Line 753 and following. Rather than require just a signature, can this call for “approval and signature”?
Nowhere do we mention town forests, and working with towns to achieve these goals. Should that be in this section as well?
6. Recommendation 4. Lines 817-825 suggest that the “emphasis for woodlands is ....” An initial reading suggests that timber production is the first among management goals. I would propose something to the effect that the goal of woodlands management is to enhance particular ecosystem services, and then list all of those included, but convey that these are all of comparable value in the goals for woodlands. These lands may be selected because they are well suited for management, possess conditions for certain services (including timber production), have been drastically altered in the past by previous management (including plantations of exotic species) , suffering damage by invasives, storms or whatever, and require management to restore the desired qualities. In other words, this can be about restorative management, managing for particular goods and services including timber, and to monitor and illustrate alternative management practices to achieve particular ecosystem service goals. Let me be clear, I favor doing these things, we just need to be clear that this is a real change from what is happening now.
Line 838. I believe it is a serious mistake to set the limits of woodlands higher than reserves. Private woodlands can supply everything the state owned lands can, but will seldom supply the services of reserves. I do not see a clear justification for this imbalance, and suspect that his will be a focus of great discontent by the public. Parklands are also being managed to provide recreational and cultural services, so this tilts the balance of managed lands heavily away from allowing nature to take its course. (Note, I am receiving emails to this effect as I write my response!) Let me suggest that we not put an upper limit on any of the zones, but state what we see as essential minima for each.
Line 890. I am not sure that I support 80%, but I do support a larger fraction than the table in line 838 suggests for reserves. I also think that it is not accurate to lump parklands with reserves. They are managed for recreation and in that sense are more like woodlands managed for specific services.
Line 901 What does “incorporation” mean? Does this mean coordinated management with land trusts or town forests, or does it mean actually taking them over by the state?
Lines 911-913. As stated, this sounds as if we are emphasizing that this is a huge increase for reserves rather than emphasizing just how small existing reserves are as a portion of Massachusetts forests. Could we put in the percentage of all forested lands now in reserves, and the proportion of state lands that represents, and then how large these numbers would come with our recommendation? Many developing countries are trying to protect 10-25% of their forests (Surinam and Guyana are over 80%), while we are at the 1-2% level for reserves in Massachusetts. The proposed increase brings us up to 3-4% of statewide lands. I believe that these figures need to be in this section.
7. Recommendation 5 The points about the approach to reserves is comprehensive and appropriate. My only reservation is on the relatively small amount of area that we are recommending for reserves. We cannot get our 15,000 acre representative ecosystems with only 90,000 acres (this is just 6 reserves!). We should comment on this.
8. Recommendation 6. My only comment here is that Parklands do require management to meet recreational and aesthetic services and values. In this sense they are more like woodlands form a
...
----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Spencer To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:25 PM Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report
Bill, A couple of comments on your comments. Thanks for questioning using timber management instead of forest management where management is assumed for all ecosystem services. I have tried to rid the document of timber mgt. but since many feel it must be our main concern it has stayed in. I don't share your concern about not producing stem wood that can be chipped for commercial biomass. In tending the forest, there are many low vigor and low quality trees that are cut to provide more space for the remaining trees to maintain their vigor and longevity. Stems of culled trees have been used for pulp (sent to another state) and maybe in the future as commercial biomass here in MA. We need local markets for low value wood that enable us to manage for all ecosystem services.
***** Markets for low value wood is a good thing- but the lack of a market for biomass hasn't held back good forestry in this state where that's been the actual goal. Often loggers would cut the poor quality trees for the fuelwood market or in the absence of that, most foresters require that the logger girdle the undesirable trees to kill them. Though that long sought market for low value wood will be a nice thing if we can find one that doesn't add to our global warming problem- what forestry far more desperately needs is a market for high value timber- now severely damaged thanks to the collapse of the economy due to Republican values having run the country since the Reagan era. When the market for high value timber is very good, loggers don't mind having to girdle the poorer trees since they'll make enough money on the good timber. The few nickles and dimes private owners will get from biomass- how will that motivate them to be great land stewards? That's what I read every day - that biomass will be the salvation of forestry- no it won't!
To assume that providing stemwood for commercial biomass plants from state lands, is somehow not a good practice is lost on me. One thing that private lands do not produce and which state lands do, is large trees.
***** Bruce, many private forests produce large trees, too. For you to categorically say that they don't is indicative perhaps of your lack of familiarity with private forestry.
Cutting only 1/4 of the growth makes it easy to for foresters to continue to manege for big trees.
***** the public will have to see this new fangled "manage for big trees forestry" having seen the state's lust for early succession habitat....
You have a comment which says that developing countries are trying to protect 10-25% of their forest. Could you elaborate on this, because often times developing countries are trying to maintain 10-25% of their original forest as forest and having difficulty doing this, especially in the tropics where palm oil is big. And finally, we continue to be far apart on the size and importance of reserves.
***** Bruce, next time you take a trip into orbit, look down on the planet from say 200 miles up and try to find any reserves- you'll see lots of greenery from way up there, millions of square miles of forest in Siberia and in the tropics, plenty of green across America and even Europe, but you'll have difficulty in seeing any reserves because from that altitude they would be far too small to see, the few that exist on this planet. Joe
Bruce
--- On Mon, 1/18/10, William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> wrote:
From: William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com, "Thomas Walker" <twalker01...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 12:44 PM
My apologies for not getting these in until this morning. I hope that these comments meet the deadline as today is a holiday.
First, I believe that each of us should be clear about our affiliations, and I hope that we are each on the TSC in our individual capacity. If any of us is representing any organization or interest, we should make that clear. In that spirit, I wrote a letter in support of considering the biomass plant proposed for Greenfield. The principal in that is a former student of mine, Matt Wolfe. I have no financial interest in his company or in the project. Since that time, I have become concerned at the scale of multiple projects, which do not seem to me to be sustainable for the regrowth rates of this region. I am awaiting the study that is currently under way. In any case, I do not believe that the State should utilize wood taken from state lands for the purpose of biomass production.
I would like to be listed as William R. Moomaw, Professor of International Environmental Policy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University. If we are stating our interests, I have stated them above.
As for the report: 1. The introduction and the use of maps and data to set the context is an important setting for the report, as is the explanation for the need for the report. On 1/12/10 7:39 PM, "Thomas Walker" <twalker...@gmail.com> wrote: 2. The multiple appendices including a summary and commentary on the rules and regulations for managing the forests is an excellent addition that should inform the public about the laws and rules governing the management of state forest lands. The discussion of forest areas and types of potential zoning is very helpful. My only question is are we as TSC endorsing these proposals or are they illustrative? We should make this clear. This appendix is a valuable addition. 3. The context setting for Recommendation 1 is excellent on reframing for managing in terms of ecosystem services. The figure helps to put the nature of ecosystem services into a constructive context. The implementation guidelines emphasizing that the ability of public lands to provide these services sustainably into the long term future in lines 485-486 is exceedingly important. A sentence might be added just before this statement: “ To maintain ecosystem services into the long term future requires that forest lands be managed with these goals in mind on time scales of centuries and longer.” All of the organizing principles on page 16 are clear and to the point that we have a sound basis for the recommendations that follow. The discussion of timber production needs to contain a clearer sense that this is to be limited to certain designated “woodlands.” (line 522 “on a restricted, designated portion of DCR lands”) The following discussion about not being primarily for economic reasons, but for educational reasons captures the justification of this. I propose that we also state that we recommend not utilizing DCR lands for supplying biomass fuels to commercial projects. 4. Recommendation 2. The list of duties and responsibilities that cut across all forests, public and private on page 18 is important in setting the tone. Is it clear that the authority of this position of Director of Forest Stewardship does indeed cut across existing agency structures? This may be adequately covered in the discussion section. 5. Recommendation 3. In the recommendation, line 624, could we replace “signed off on” with “reviewed and approved”? Line 628, should read as follows, “requires increased leadership, education, public investment and alignment of incentives to ensure that these forests...” Line 643, should read as follows, “costs of legislation to ensure ‘no net loss’ of forest canopy, acreage or delivery of forest ecosystem services in Massachusetts.” Line 644, replace forest canopy with “forest canopy and acreage of comparable ecological value,” Line 662 should be Recommendation 2 Line 733 should read as follows, “by DCR to have been harvested from long term sustainably managed forest lands that will return to forest following the harvest, and which is sold to a processor or end user less than 100 miles from ....” The 6 recommendations on page 22 are very well stated with the above suggestions. Line 753 and following. Rather than require just a signature, can this call for “approval and signature”? Nowhere do we mention town forests, and working with towns to achieve these goals. Should that be in this section as well? 6. Recommendation 4. Lines 817-825 suggest that the “emphasis for woodlands is ....” An initial reading suggests that timber production is the first among management goals. I would propose something to the effect that the goal of woodlands management is to enhance particular ecosystem services, and then list all of those included, but convey that these are all of comparable value in the goals for woodlands. These lands may be selected because they are well suited for management, possess conditions for certain services (including timber production), have been drastically altered in the past by previous management (including plantations of exotic species) , suffering damage by invasives, storms or whatever, and require management to restore the desired qualities. In other words, this can be about restorative management, managing for particular goods and services including timber, and to monitor and illustrate alternative management practices to achieve particular ecosystem service goals. Let me be clear, I favor doing these things, we just need to be clear that this is a real change from what is happening now. Line 838. I believe it is a
Bruce, My apologies for not getting back sooner, but I have been traveling again.
You are right that Malaysia and Indonesia are deforesting rapidly to produce palm oil. However in the past year, a number of American and European purchasers have ended contracts because of the deforestation.
On the effort of developing countries conserving 10-25% of forests, there are many examples. Costa Rica (25%0, Brazil has set a goal of 50% protected or sustainably managed) , Surinam and Guyana (currently 90% of original forest remains. I am currently working with Surinam, and had a Master¹s student from Guyana. Norway is providing $250 million to Guyana to help them protect mostly in reserves their present forested lands. Over 50 forested tropical countries have put forward a proposal where carbon sequestration would be the primary ecosystem service of much of their remaining forests.
I have written a letter before this process started making exactly your comments on the use of low quality wood and waste material for a specific biomass plant in Greenfield. In looking at the numbers, there is not sufficient material to support more than perhaps one of these and there are now several on the docket. Since the DCR lands are such a small part of the total forested lands of Massachusetts, and there are plenty of private lands, I would propose that the state work with landowners to provide the combination of high quality timber and low quality wood that could support a biomass plant. I just do not think that the state lands should get into supplying fuel for biomass facilities. The low quality wood that is harvested can be used for firewood in local area.
Bruce, let me reassure you that I support taking wood from forests to produce wood products. I agree that this is an important ecosystem service. I prefer wood products in many cases to the alternatives, and built my house using a good deal of lumber. I also believe that you really know how to manage forested areas for timber production on a sustainable basis, and under our framework will be able to incorporate the sustainable production of other ecosystem services as well. Where we disagree is over the issue of how to manage state lands relative to privately owned lands.
To me the long term ownership of state lands allows us to do things there that are simply not possible on private lands. The rare valuable aspect of state lands is that we can protect reserves and give the highest priority to biodiversity, old growth and other values that are far less likely to be achieved on other private lands. As I suggested to Tom, it is true but incomplete to state that we are proposing to double or triple the amount of DCR lands in Reserves. Current reserves are just over 1% of forested lands, and will increase to 3-4% if our goal is achieved. This is really small. If our number is 90,000 acres for reserves, we will be able to designate 6 reserves of 15,000 acres. That is not enough to meet the full range of forest ecosystem types in the Commonwealth. Even if we put all DCR lands into reserves, this would amount to just 10% of total forest lands, and yet, we are losing forested lands by the day to development. We can certainly agree that we need a more aggressive state program to halt that trend!
So, Bruce, let¹s continue our discussion on this. I think that we are not in such disagreement as it may seem.
In any case, this has been a fascinating process, and I would very much like to get you out here to Williamstown at some point.
Bill
Perhaps we could agree on a recommendation that raised the current amount of land in reserves and suggested that a larger proportion of future land purchases could be woodlands. On 1/19/10 2:25 PM, "Bruce Spencer" <treewor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bill, > A couple of comments on your comments. > Thanks for questioning using timber management instead of forest > management where management is assumed for all ecosystem services. I have > tried to rid the document of timber mgt. but since many feel it must be our > main concern it has stayed in. > I don't share your concern about not producing stem wood that can be > chipped for commercial biomass. In tending the forest, there are many low > vigor and low quality trees that are cut to provide more space for the > remaining trees to maintain their vigor and longevity. Stems of culled trees > have been used for pulp (sent to another state) and maybe in the future as > commercial biomass here in MA. We need local markets for low value wood that > enable us to manage for all ecosystem services. To assume that providing > stemwood for commercial biomass plants from state lands, is somehow not a good > practice is lost on me. > One thing that private lands do not produce and which state lands do, is > large trees. Cutting only 1/4 of the growth makes it easy to for foresters to > continue to manege for big trees. > You have a comment which says that developing countries are trying to > protect 10-25% of their forest. Could you elaborate on this, because often > times developing countries are trying to maintain 10-25% of their original > forest as forest and having difficulty doing this, especially in the tropics > where palm oil is big. > And finally, we continue to be far apart on the size and importance of > reserves. > Bruce
> --- On Mon, 1/18/10, William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> wrote:
>> From: William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> >> Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report >> To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com, "Thomas >> Walker" <twalker01...@gmail.com> >> Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 12:44 PM
>> Re: Revised TSC Draft Report My apologies for not getting these in until this >> morning. I hope that these comments meet the deadline as today is a holiday.
>> First, I believe that each of us should be clear about our affiliations, and >> I hope that we are each on the TSC in our individual capacity. If any of us >> is representing any organization or interest, we should make that clear. In >> that spirit, I wrote a letter in support of considering the biomass plant >> proposed for Greenfield. The principal in that is a former student of mine, >> Matt Wolfe. I have no financial interest in his company or in the project. >> Since that time, I have become concerned at the scale of multiple projects, >> which do not seem to me to be sustainable for the regrowth rates of this >> region. I am awaiting the study that is currently under way. In any case, I >> do not believe that the State should utilize wood taken from state lands for >> the purpose of biomass production.
>> I would like to be listed as William R. Moomaw, Professor of International >> Environmental Policy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University. If we are >> stating our interests, I have stated them above.
>> As for the report: >> 1. The introduction and the use of maps and data to set the context is an >> important setting for the report, as is the explanation for the need for the >> report. >> On 1/12/10 7:39 PM, "Thomas Walker" <twalker...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2. The multiple appendices including a summary and commentary on the rules >> and regulations for managing the forests is an excellent addition that should >> inform the public about the laws and rules governing the management of state >> forest lands. The discussion of forest areas and types of potential zoning is >> very helpful. My only question is are we as TSC endorsing these proposals or >> are they illustrative? We should make this clear. This appendix is a >> valuable addition. >> 3. The context setting for Recommendation 1 is excellent on reframing for >> managing in terms of ecosystem services. The figure helps to put the nature >> of ecosystem services into a constructive context. The implementation >> guidelines emphasizing that the ability of public lands to provide these >> services sustainably into the long term future in lines 485-486 is >> exceedingly important. A sentence might be added just before this statement: >> ³ To maintain ecosystem services into the long term future requires that >> forest lands be managed with these goals in mind on time scales of centuries >> and longer.² All of the organizing principles on page 16 are clear and to the >> point that we have a sound basis for the recommendations that follow. >> The discussion of timber production needs to contain a clearer sense that >> this is to be limited to certain designated ³woodlands.² (line 522 ³on a >> restricted, designated portion of DCR lands²) The following discussion about >> not being primarily for economic reasons, but for educational reasons >> captures the justification of this. I propose that we also state that we >> recommend not utilizing DCR lands for supplying biomass fuels to commercial >> projects. >> 4. Recommendation 2. The list of duties and responsibilities that cut across >> all forests, public and private on page 18 is important in setting the tone. >> Is it clear that the authority of this position of Director of Forest >> Stewardship does indeed cut across existing agency structures? This may be >> adequately covered in the discussion section. >> 5. Recommendation 3. In the recommendation, line 624, could we replace >> ³signed off on² with ³reviewed and approved²? >> Line 628, should read as follows, ³requires increased leadership, education, >> public investment and alignment of incentives to ensure that these >> forests...² >> Line 643, should read as follows, ³costs of legislation to ensure Œno net >> loss¹ of forest canopy, acreage or delivery of forest ecosystem services in >> Massachusetts.² >> Line 644, replace forest canopy with ³forest canopy and acreage of comparable >> ecological value,² >> Line 662 should be Recommendation 2 >> Line 733 should read as follows, ³by DCR to have been harvested from long >> term sustainably managed forest lands
Bill, Thanks for your reply, it helps me focus. First, I am not a supporter of the Greenfield 50MW plant. It is simply too large and inefficient! But I do support a 10MW CH&P plant in Greenfield that would be used for district heating and local electricity, and would also dry its fuel prior to burning, which reduces CO2 emissions. I would like to see more local hardwood used for heating houses, schools, business, etc, but that seems off until oil becomes more expensive and stays there. But we still have a surplus, especially of the softwoods (pine and hemlock) which can be used in commercial operations like the CH&P plant, but not in home heating (at least no one has asked me for softwood firewood). I support removing low quality hardwood and softwood stem wood for use in commercial CH&P or thermal heating plants from DCR lands. On reserves, I am not sure anyone knows the number of acres in private ownership (including environmental organizations and land trusts) that will not be cut in MA. I know there are large acres of difficult terrain around state forest in the rural counties that will not be logged and are in private ownership. So I think the 1% is way too low. I commented on Andy's e-mail, concerning the sections on reserves, that they needed to be more honest and clearly state what are natural processes. Do natural processes include invasive insects and diseases? If they do state it! In addition since we have had the first recorded die off of thousands of acres of an oak forest, in the Freetown-Fall River bio-reserve we need to openly discuss what this means to the ecosystems services/values of this area. Without this kind of discussion plus removing legislative protection of reserves, I cannot support more then the min. of 90,000 acres. Bruce
--- On Sun, 1/24/10, William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> wrote:
From: William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 3:51 PM
Re: Revised TSC Draft Report Bruce,
My apologies for not getting back sooner, but I have been traveling again.
You are right that Malaysia and Indonesia are deforesting rapidly to produce palm oil. However in the past year, a number of American and European purchasers have ended contracts because of the deforestation.
On the effort of developing countries conserving 10-25% of forests, there are many examples. Costa Rica (25%0, Brazil has set a goal of 50% protected or sustainably managed) , Surinam and Guyana (currently 90% of original forest remains. I am currently working with Surinam, and had a Master’s student from Guyana. Norway is providing $250 million to Guyana to help them protect mostly in reserves their present forested lands. Over 50 forested tropical countries have put forward a proposal where carbon sequestration would be the primary ecosystem service of much of their remaining forests.
I have written a letter before this process started making exactly your comments on the use of low quality wood and waste material for a specific biomass plant in Greenfield. In looking at the numbers, there is not sufficient material to support more than perhaps one of these and there are now several on the docket. Since the DCR lands are such a small part of the total forested lands of Massachusetts, and there are plenty of private lands, I would propose that the state work with landowners to provide the combination of high quality timber and low quality wood that could support a biomass plant. I just do not think that the state lands should get into supplying fuel for biomass facilities. The low quality wood that is harvested can be used for firewood in local area.
Bruce, let me reassure you that I support taking wood from forests to produce wood products. I agree that this is an important ecosystem service. I prefer wood products in many cases to the alternatives, and built my house using a good deal of lumber. I also believe that you really know how to manage forested areas for timber production on a sustainable basis, and under our framework will be able to incorporate the sustainable production of other ecosystem services as well. Where we disagree is over the issue of how to manage state lands relative to privately owned lands.
To me the long term ownership of state lands allows us to do things there that are simply not possible on private lands. The rare valuable aspect of state lands is that we can protect reserves and give the highest priority to biodiversity, old growth and other values that are far less likely to be achieved on other private lands. As I suggested to Tom, it is true but incomplete to state that we are proposing to double or triple the amount of DCR lands in Reserves. Current reserves are just over 1% of forested lands, and will increase to 3-4% if our goal is achieved. This is really small. If our number is 90,000 acres for reserves, we will be able to designate 6 reserves of 15,000 acres. That is not enough to meet the full range of forest ecosystem types in the Commonwealth. Even if we put all DCR lands into reserves, this would amount to just 10% of total forest lands, and yet, we are losing forested lands by the day to development. We can certainly agree that we need a more aggressive state program to halt that trend!
So, Bruce, let’s continue our discussion on this. I think that we are not in such disagreement as it may seem.
In any case, this has been a fascinating process, and I would very much like to get you out here to Williamstown at some point.
Bill
Perhaps we could agree on a recommendation that raised the current amount of land in reserves and suggested that a larger proportion of future land purchases could be woodlands.
On 1/19/10 2:25 PM, "Bruce Spencer" <treewor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
A couple of comments on your comments.
Thanks for questioning using timber management instead of forest management where management is assumed for all ecosystem services. I have tried to rid the document of timber mgt. but since many feel it must be our main concern it has stayed in.
I don't share your concern about not producing stem wood that can be chipped for commercial biomass. In tending the forest, there are many low vigor and low quality trees that are cut to provide more space for the remaining trees to maintain their vigor and longevity. Stems of culled trees have been used for pulp (sent to another state) and maybe in the future as commercial biomass here in MA. We need local markets for low value wood that enable us to manage for all ecosystem services. To assume that providing stemwood for commercial biomass plants from state lands, is somehow not a good practice is lost on me.
One thing that private lands do not produce and which state lands do, is large trees. Cutting only 1/4 of the growth makes it easy to for foresters to continue to manege for big trees.
You have a comment which says that developing countries are trying to protect 10-25% of their forest. Could you elaborate on this, because often times developing countries are trying to maintain 10-25% of their original forest as forest and having difficulty doing this, especially in the tropics where palm oil is big.
And finally, we continue to be far apart on the size and importance of reserves.
Bruce
--- On Mon, 1/18/10, William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> wrote:
To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com, "Thomas Walker" <twalker01...@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 12:44 PM
Re: Revised TSC Draft Report My apologies for not getting these in until this morning. I hope that these comments meet the deadline as today is a holiday.
First, I believe that each of us should be clear about our affiliations, and I hope that we are each on the TSC in our individual capacity. If any of us is representing any organization or interest, we should make that clear. In that spirit, I wrote a letter in support of considering the biomass plant proposed for Greenfield. The principal in that is a former student of mine, Matt Wolfe. I have no financial interest in his company or in the project. Since that time, I have become concerned at the scale of multiple projects, which do not seem to me to be sustainable for the regrowth rates of this region. I am awaiting the study that is currently under way. In any case, I do not believe that the State should utilize wood taken from state lands for the purpose of biomass production.
I would like to be listed as William R. Moomaw, Professor of International Environmental Policy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University. If we are stating our interests, I have stated them above.
As for the report:
1. The introduction and the use of maps and data to set the context is an important setting for the report, as is the explanation for the need for the report.
On 1/12/10 7:39 PM, "Thomas Walker" <twalker...@gmail.com> wrote:
2. The multiple appendices including a summary and commentary on the rules and regulations for managing the forests is an excellent addition that should inform the public about the laws and rules governing the management of state forest lands. The discussion of forest areas and types of potential zoning is very helpful. My only question is are we as TSC endorsing these proposals or are they illustrative? We should make this clear. This appendix is a valuable addition.
3. The context setting for Recommendation 1 is excellent on reframing for managing in terms of ecosystem services. The figure helps to put the nature of ecosystem services into a constructive context. The implementation guidelines emphasizing that the ability of public lands to provide these
...
Re: Revised TSC Draft ReportThere is hardly any acreage too difficult to have timber harvests on private lands. Skidders can go just about anywhere. I doubt there are many private acres "protected" due to being too difficult to harvest- if there is good timber in there and enough of it.
Many acres were left uncut in pre skidder days because horses and dozers couldn't get into some of the rougher terrain. I found many such stands over the years- which I was able to "work" because skidders could get into them
Almost all of the timber on private land that hasn't been cut hasn't been cut because the owners don't want it cut or because the owners don't know about it and/or loggers and procurement foresters haven't yet found it.
I think it's fine if much of that relatively difficult forest is left uncut- but I wouldn't plan on it- especially when the next big timber boom happens- the more valuable the timber becomes the more difficult stands become economically feasible to cut- so concluding that some/much private land is equivalent to reserves is wishful thinking.
I don't know if any CRs are set up precluding timber harvesting? Perhaps that should be an option for the CR purchaser? Perhaps the value of the CR could be enhanced if the owner agrees to a "reserves CR"?
I predict that a few centuries from now- what old forests still exist will be considered a precious gift to the people of that time form THIS time. They won't be thrilled by heavily cut over stands.
----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Spencer To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report
Bill, Thanks for your reply, it helps me focus. First, I am not a supporter of the Greenfield 50MW plant. It is simply too large and inefficient! But I do support a 10MW CH&P plant in Greenfield that would be used for district heating and local electricity, and would also dry its fuel prior to burning, which reduces CO2 emissions. I would like to see more local hardwood used for heating houses, schools, business, etc, but that seems off until oil becomes more expensive and stays there. But we still have a surplus, especially of the softwoods (pine and hemlock) which can be used in commercial operations like the CH&P plant, but not in home heating (at least no one has asked me for softwood firewood). I support removing low quality hardwood and softwood stem wood for use in commercial CH&P or thermal heating plants from DCR lands. On reserves, I am not sure anyone knows the number of acres in private ownership (including environmental organizations and land trusts) that will not be cut in MA. I know there are large acres of difficult terrain around state forest in the rural counties that will not be logged and are in private ownership. So I think the 1% is way too low. I commented on Andy's e-mail, concerning the sections on reserves, that they needed to be more honest and clearly state what are natural processes. Do natural processes include invasive insects and diseases? If they do state it! In addition since we have had the first recorded die off of thousands of acres of an oak forest, in the Freetown-Fall River bio-reserve we need to openly discuss what this means to the ecosystems services/values of this area. Without this kind of discussion plus removing legislative protection of reserves, I cannot support more then the min. of 90,000 acres. Bruce
--- On Sun, 1/24/10, William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> wrote:
From: William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 3:51 PM
Bruce, My apologies for not getting back sooner, but I have been traveling again.
You are right that Malaysia and Indonesia are deforesting rapidly to produce palm oil. However in the past year, a number of American and European purchasers have ended contracts because of the deforestation.
On the effort of developing countries conserving 10-25% of forests, there are many examples. Costa Rica (25%0, Brazil has set a goal of 50% protected or sustainably managed) , Surinam and Guyana (currently 90% of original forest remains. I am currently working with Surinam, and had a Master’s student from Guyana. Norway is providing $250 million to Guyana to help them protect mostly in reserves their present forested lands. Over 50 forested tropical countries have put forward a proposal where carbon sequestration would be the primary ecosystem service of much of their remaining forests.
I have written a letter before this process started making exactly your comments on the use of low quality wood and waste material for a specific biomass plant in Greenfield. In looking at the numbers, there is not sufficient material to support more than perhaps one of these and there are now several on the docket. Since the DCR lands are such a small part of the total forested lands of Massachusetts, and there are plenty of private lands, I would propose that the state work with landowners to provide the combination of high quality timber and low quality wood that could support a biomass plant. I just do not think that the state lands should get into supplying fuel for biomass facilities. The low quality wood that is harvested can be used for firewood in local area.
Bruce, let me reassure you that I support taking wood from forests to produce wood products. I agree that this is an important ecosystem service. I prefer wood products in many cases to the alternatives, and built my house using a good deal of lumber. I also believe that you really know how to manage forested areas for timber production on a sustainable basis, and under our framework will be able to incorporate the sustainable production of other ecosystem services as well. Where we disagree is over the issue of how to manage state lands relative to privately owned lands.
To me the long term ownership of state lands allows us to do things there that are simply not possible on private lands. The rare valuable aspect of state lands is that we can protect reserves and give the highest priority to biodiversity, old growth and other values that are far less likely to be achieved on other private lands. As I suggested to Tom, it is true but incomplete to state that we are proposing to double or triple the amount of DCR lands in Reserves. Current reserves are just over 1% of forested lands, and will increase to 3-4% if our goal is achieved. This is really small. If our number is 90,000 acres for reserves, we will be able to designate 6 reserves of 15,000 acres. That is not enough to meet the full range of forest ecosystem types in the Commonwealth. Even if we put all DCR lands into reserves, this would amount to just 10% of total forest lands, and yet, we are losing forested lands by the day to development. We can certainly agree that we need a more aggressive state program to halt that trend!
So, Bruce, let’s continue our discussion on this. I think that we are not in such disagreement as it may seem.
In any case, this has been a fascinating process, and I would very much like to get you out here to Williamstown at some point.
Bill
Perhaps we could agree on a recommendation that raised the current amount of land in reserves and suggested that a larger proportion of future land purchases could be woodlands. On 1/19/10 2:25 PM, "Bruce Spencer" <treewor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill, A couple of comments on your comments. Thanks for questioning using timber management instead of forest management where management is assumed for all ecosystem services. I have tried to rid the document of timber mgt. but since many feel it must be our main concern it has stayed in. I don't share your concern about not producing stem wood that can be chipped for commercial biomass. In tending the forest, there are many low vigor and low quality trees that are cut to provide more space for the remaining trees to maintain their vigor and longevity. Stems of culled trees have been used for pulp (sent to another state) and maybe in the future as commercial biomass here in MA. We need local markets for low value wood that enable us to manage for all ecosystem services. To assume that providing stemwood for commercial biomass plants from state lands, is somehow not a good practice is lost on me. One thing that private lands do not produce and which state lands do, is large trees. Cutting only 1/4 of the growth makes it easy to for foresters to continue to manege for big trees. You have a comment which says that developing countries are trying to protect 10-25% of their forest. Could you elaborate on this, because often times developing countries are trying to maintain 10-25% of their original forest as forest and having difficulty doing this, especially in the tropics where palm oil is big. And finally, we continue to be far apart on the size and importance of reserves. Bruce
--- On Mon, 1/18/10, William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> wrote:
From: William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com, "Thomas Walker" <twalker01...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 12:44 PM
Re: Revised TSC Draft Report My apologies for not getting these in until this morning. I hope that these comments meet the deadline as today is a holiday.
Cathy, thanks for that explanation. So, Zimmer could have put in a phrase restricting timber harvesting but not doing so doesn't grant the right to the state to do it, right? After all, as you say, for the property to be legal as to harvesting, it would have to specifically say so.
And, just so I get this issue straight, regardless of what's written in the CR deed, after 30 years it's not worth the paper its written on? Joe
(4) Cutting, removing or otherwise destroying trees, grasses or other vegetation;
with the note:
Parties to the CR may want to add other prohibitions, tailored to their circumstances. If the parties want to allow a use that is prohibited in this section, it should go in the Reserved Rights section, rather than here. So, if forestry and cutting cordwood is allowed, you would still leave item #4 here, and then just allow the desired activity, tailored to the agreement of the parties, in the reserved rights section.
yes, that is the same line, only back then numbered 3, as the Zimmer deed restriction which DCR timber harvested. the wise thing to have done on the Zimmer restriction, I think, would have been to include a phrase about prohibiting timber harvesting in the Reserved Rights section that allowed cutting for Mr. Zimmer's personal use. but hindsight is always better when you are writing a document to protect land into perpetuity and you have no idea what those coming after the land will dream up decades and longer down the road.
Cathy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- From: Joseph Zorzin <jjzor...@verizon.net> To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com Cc: ForestFuturesTSCandAGS@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 3:26:48 PM Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report
There is hardly any acreage too difficult to have timber harvests on private lands. Skidders can go just about anywhere. I doubt there are many private acres "protected" due to being too difficult to harvest- if there is good timber in there and enough of it.
Many acres were left uncut in pre skidder days because horses and dozers couldn't get into some of the rougher terrain. I found many such stands over the years- which I was able to "work" because skidders could get into them
Almost all of the timber on private land that hasn't been cut hasn't been cut because the owners don't want it cut or because the owners don't know about it and/or loggers and procurement foresters haven't yet found it.
I think it's fine if much of that relatively difficult forest is left uncut- but I wouldn't plan on it- especially when the next big timber boom happens- the more valuable the timber becomes the more difficult stands become economically feasible to cut- so concluding that some/much private land is equivalent to reserves is wishful thinking.
I don't know if any CRs are set up precluding timber harvesting? Perhaps that should be an option for the CR purchaser? Perhaps the value of the CR could be enhanced if the owner agrees to a "reserves CR"?
I predict that a few centuries from now- what old forests still exist will be considered a precious gift to the people of that time form THIS time. They won't be thrilled by heavily cut over stands.
Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Spencer To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report
Bill, Thanks for your reply, it helps me focus. First, I am not a supporter of the Greenfield 50MW plant. It is simply too large and inefficient! But I do support a 10MW CH&P plant in Greenfield that would be used for district heating and local electricity, and would also dry its fuel prior to burning, which reduces CO2 emissions. I would like to see more local hardwood used for heating houses, schools, business, etc, but that seems off until oil becomes more expensive and stays there. But we still have a surplus, especially of the softwoods (pine and hemlock) which can be used in commercial operations like the CH&P plant, but not in home heating (at least no one has asked me for softwood firewood). I support removing low quality hardwood and softwood stem wood for use in commercial CH&P or thermal heating plants from DCR lands. On reserves, I am not sure anyone knows the number of acres in private ownership (including environmental organizations and land trusts) that will not be cut in MA. I know there are large acres of difficult terrain around state forest in the rural counties that will not be logged and are in private ownership. So I think the 1% is way too low. I commented on Andy's e-mail, concerning the sections on reserves, that they needed to be more honest and clearly state what are natural processes. Do natural processes include invasive insects and diseases? If they do state it! In addition since we have had the first recorded die off of thousands of acres of an oak forest, in the Freetown-Fall River bio-reserve we need to openly discuss what this means to the ecosystems services/values of this area. Without this kind of discussion plus removing legislative protection of reserves, I cannot support more then the min. of 90,000 acres. Bruce
--- On Sun, 1/24/10, William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> wrote:
From: William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 3:51 PM
Bruce, My apologies for not getting back sooner, but I have been traveling again.
You are right that Malaysia and Indonesia are deforesting rapidly to produce palm oil. However in the past year, a number of American and European purchasers have ended contracts because of the deforestation.
On the effort of developing countries conserving 10-25% of forests, there are many examples. Costa Rica (25%0, Brazil has set a goal of 50% protected or sustainably managed) , Surinam and Guyana (currently 90% of original forest remains. I am currently working with Surinam, and had a Master’s student from Guyana. Norway is providing $250 million to Guyana to help them protect mostly in reserves their present forested lands. Over 50 forested tropical countries have put forward a proposal where carbon sequestration would be the primary ecosystem service of much of their remaining forests.
I have written a letter before this process started making exactly your comments on the use of low quality wood and waste material for a specific biomass plant in Greenfield. In looking at the numbers, there is not sufficient material to support more than perhaps one of these and there are now several on the docket. Since the DCR lands are such a small part of the total forested lands of Massachusetts, and there are plenty of private lands, I would propose that the state work with landowners to provide the combination of high quality timber and low quality wood that could support a biomass plant. I just do not think that the state lands should get into supplying fuel for biomass facilities. The low quality wood that is harvested can be used for firewood in local area.
Bruce, let me reassure you that I support taking wood from forests to produce wood products. I agree that this is an important ecosystem service. I prefer wood products in many cases to the alternatives, and built my house using a good deal of lumber. I also believe that you really know how to manage forested areas for timber production on a sustainable basis, and under our framework will be able to incorporate the sustainable production of other ecosystem services as well. Where we disagree is over the issue of how to manage state lands relative to privately owned lands.
To me the long term ownership of state lands allows us to do things there that are simply not possible on private lands. The rare valuable aspect of state lands is that we can protect reserves and give the highest priority to biodiversity, old growth and other values that are far less likely to be achieved on other private lands. As I suggested to Tom, it is true but incomplete to state that we are proposing to double or triple the amount of DCR lands in Reserves. Current reserves are just over 1% of forested lands, and will increase to 3-4% if our goal is achieved. This is really small. If our number is 90,000 acres for reserves, we will be able to designate 6 reserves of 15,000 acres. That is not enough to meet the full range of forest ecosystem types in the Commonwealth. Even if we put all DCR lands into reserves, this would amount to just 10% of total forest lands, and yet, we are losing forested lands by the day to development. We can certainly agree that we need a more aggressive state program to halt that trend!
So, Bruce, let’s continue our discussion on this. I think that we are not in such disagreement as it may seem.
In any case, this has been a fascinating process, and I would very much like to get you out here to Williamstown at some point.
Bill
Perhaps we could agree on a recommendation that raised the current amount of land in reserves and suggested
(4) Cutting, removing or otherwise destroying trees, grasses or other vegetation;
with the note:
Parties to the CR may want to add other prohibitions, tailored to their circumstances. If the parties want to allow a use that is prohibited in this section, it should go in the Reserved Rights section, rather than here. So, if forestry and cutting cordwood is allowed, you would still leave item #4 here, and then just allow the desired activity, tailored to the agreement of the parties, in the reserved rights section.
yes, that is the same line, only back then numbered 3, as the Zimmer deed restriction which DCR timber harvested. the wise thing to have done on the Zimmer restriction, I think, would have been to include a phrase about prohibiting timber harvesting in the Reserved Rights section that allowed cutting for Mr. Zimmer's personal use. but hindsight is always better when you are writing a document to protect land into perpetuity and you have no idea what those coming after the land will dream up decades and longer down the road.
Cathy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- From: Joseph Zorzin <jjzor...@verizon.net> To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com Cc: ForestFuturesTSCandAGS@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 3:26:48 PM Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report
There is hardly any acreage too difficult to have timber harvests on private lands. Skidders can go just about anywhere. I doubt there are many private acres "protected" due to being too difficult to harvest- if there is good timber in there and enough of it.
Many acres were left uncut in pre skidder days because horses and dozers couldn't get into some of the rougher terrain. I found many such stands over the years- which I was able to "work" because skidders could get into them
Almost all of the timber on private land that hasn't been cut hasn't been cut because the owners don't want it cut or because the owners don't know about it and/or loggers and procurement foresters haven't yet found it.
I think it's fine if much of that relatively difficult forest is left uncut- but I wouldn't plan on it- especially when the next big timber boom happens- the more valuable the timber becomes the more difficult stands become economically feasible to cut- so concluding that some/much private land is equivalent to reserves is wishful thinking.
I don't know if any CRs are set up precluding timber harvesting? Perhaps that should be an option for the CR purchaser? Perhaps the value of the CR could be enhanced if the owner agrees to a "reserves CR"?
I predict that a few centuries from now- what old forests still exist will be considered a precious gift to the people of that time form THIS time. They won't be thrilled by heavily cut over stands.
Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Spencer To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report
Bill, Thanks for your reply, it helps me focus. First, I am not a supporter of the Greenfield 50MW plant. It is simply too large and inefficient! But I do support a 10MW CH&P plant in Greenfield that would be used for district heating and local electricity, and would also dry its fuel prior to burning, which reduces CO2 emissions. I would like to see more local hardwood used for heating houses, schools, business, etc, but that seems off until oil becomes more expensive and stays there. But we still have a surplus, especially of the softwoods (pine and hemlock) which can be used in commercial operations like the CH&P plant, but not in home heating (at least no one has asked me for softwood firewood). I support removing low quality hardwood and softwood stem wood for use in commercial CH&P or thermal heating plants from DCR lands. On reserves, I am not sure anyone knows the number of acres in private ownership (including environmental organizations and land trusts) that will not be cut in MA. I know there are large acres of difficult terrain around state forest in the rural counties that will not be logged and are in private ownership. So I think the 1% is way too low. I commented on Andy's e-mail, concerning the sections on reserves, that they needed to be more honest and clearly state what are natural processes. Do natural processes include invasive insects and diseases? If they do state it! In addition since we have had the first recorded die off of thousands of acres of an oak forest, in the Freetown-Fall River bio-reserve we need to openly discuss what this means to the ecosystems services/values of this area. Without this kind of discussion plus removing legislative protection of reserves, I cannot support more then the min. of 90,000 acres. Bruce
--- On Sun, 1/24/10, William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> wrote:
From: William Moomaw <william.moo...@tufts.edu> Subject: Re: Revised TSC Draft Report To: forest-futures-technical-steering-committee@googlegroups.com Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 3:51 PM
Bruce, My apologies for not getting back sooner, but I have been traveling again.
You are right that Malaysia and Indonesia are deforesting rapidly to produce palm oil. However in the past year, a number of American and European purchasers have ended contracts because of the deforestation.
On the effort of developing countries conserving 10-25% of forests, there are many examples. Costa Rica (25%0, Brazil has set a goal of 50% protected or sustainably managed) , Surinam and Guyana (currently 90% of original forest remains. I am currently working with Surinam, and had a Master's student from Guyana. Norway is providing $250 million to Guyana to help them protect mostly in reserves their present forested lands. Over 50 forested tropical countries have put forward a proposal where carbon sequestration would be the primary ecosystem service of much of their remaining forests.
I have written a letter before this process started making exactly your comments on the use of low quality wood and waste material for a specific biomass plant in Greenfield. In looking at the numbers, there is not sufficient material to support more than perhaps one of these and there are now several on the docket. Since the DCR lands are such a small part of the total forested lands of Massachusetts, and there are plenty of private lands, I would propose that the state work with landowners to provide the combination of high quality timber and low quality wood that could support a biomass plant. I just do not think that the state lands should get into supplying fuel for biomass facilities. The low quality wood that is harvested can be used for firewood in local area.
Bruce, let me reassure you that I support taking wood from forests to produce wood products. I agree that this is an important ecosystem service. I prefer wood products in many cases to the alternatives, and built my house using a good deal of lumber. I also believe that you really know how to manage forested areas for timber production on a sustainable basis, and under our framework will be able to incorporate the sustainable production of other ecosystem services as well. Where we disagree is over the issue of how to manage state lands relative to privately owned lands.
To me the long term ownership of state lands allows us to do things there that are simply not possible on private lands. The rare valuable aspect of state lands is that we can protect reserves and give the highest priority to biodiversity, old growth and other values that are far less likely to be achieved on other private lands. As I suggested to Tom, it is true but incomplete to state that we are proposing to double or triple the amount of DCR lands in Reserves. Current reserves are just over 1% of forested lands, and will increase to 3-4% if our goal is achieved. This is really small. If our number is 90,000 acres for reserves, we will be able to designate 6 reserves of 15,000 acres. That is not enough to meet the full range of forest ecosystem types in the Commonwealth. Even if we put all DCR lands into reserves, this would amount to just 10% of total forest lands, and yet, we are losing forested lands by the day to development. We can certainly agree that we need a more aggressive state program to halt that trend!
So, Bruce, let's continue our discussion on this. I think that we are not in such disagreement as it may seem.
In any case, this has been a fascinating process, and I would very much like to get you out here to Williamstown at some point.
