Re: COMMENT on TSC Forestry Report Feb 20 by SKaiser

[Joseph Zorzin]

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ted Cady

To: Joseph Zorzin

Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:46 AM

Subject: Re: COMMENT on TSC Forestry Report Feb 20 by SKaiser

Joe,

As you know, because you did it, years ago about the only way to do forest improvement was to use federal timber stand improvement money to girdle or kill unwanted trees.  This is a fairly expensive process and was only financially viable for a landowner with the government subsidy.  During the energy crisis in the 1970s the forest improvement work in hardwood stands could be done with fuelwwod cuts, which were done with small, relatively light equipment.  If I were a forester now I would relish the thought of being able to weed and thin both hardwoods and softwoods as a break even proposition on private lands.  Of course, this is not an issue on public lands where the goals are different than on private land.  Such light thinnings might be difficult to do using whole tree chipping, but if it were possible, the light cut probably would not result in significant calcium depletion (if I understand the research correctly).  So, from a forest management point of view, I am comfortable with biomass as a forest management tool. 

Schools and businesses, and the like, need heat in winter and some require process heat.  Many of these heat with fuel oil which in our area is imported (I am against sending fuel dollars to mid east countries that spend some of that money supporting groups that my tax dollars are used to fight against).  No matter how much conservation we practice we will still need to heat buildings in winter and still need process heat, so I feel that small, high efficiency plants have their place in our energy matrix.  Regarding large electrical plants, we could save 10% of our electrical energy by installing smart meters, while the biomass fired plants would only supply 1%.  It is a no-brainer to put the money into conservation.

 

 

Ted,

 

My biomass attitude is similar to Mike Leonard's- a modest number of Pinetree like biomass plants is just fine. But not dozens of them or any of the very large electric plants.

 

But, not having biomass plants never kept me from doing good work in the woods.

 

Comparing precommercial thinning (chainsaw girdling) to biomass harvesting: for the forest, the precommercial thinning is actually superior as no machines go in the woods- and it's not necessary to cut as heavily. I've seen Mike's biomass harvesting and they are very nice- but it's still heavier than I prefer and you still have to deal with the operator- setting up log landings- filing cutting plans, worrying about operators "going bad on you"- all sorts of problems you don't face when just going in with a chain saw and girdling the undesirable trees. Personally, I prefer the old fashioned way- precommercial thinning. The difference either way from the owner's point of view isn't much. As for the cost-share to do the work- it's peanuts compared to salaries for state workers and their pensions. Getting rid of one 6 figure income "no show job" in the state bureaucracy- and we all know there are many- would pay for more precommercial thinning than has ever been done in this state in any year. Also, precommercial thinning leaves all those dead/dying trees which are good for wildlife. You know, bugs in the wood, birds eat the bugs- hawks eat the little birds.

 

Also, I like the exercise- keeps me in shape.

 

In conclusion: comparing me going into the woods with a chainsaw, or sending a giant harvester and chipper - I'll do it myself, when possible and feasible. I have yet to do a biomass harvest- though I'm considering a few small ones- after all, the North Quabbin Region, as I now see it contains many thousands of acres of high graded forests, thanks to half a century of tolerance by the forestry establishment and most forestry organizations ranting about landowner rights, meaning the right of the wood industry to high grade.

 

Joe

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Zorzin
Sent: Mar 1, 2010 9:53 AM
To: Bill Hull , Mike Leonard , Stephen Kaiser
Cc: Dave Gafney , MODRD...@umb.edu, sharl Heller , Chris Matera , Bob Leverett , Dawson Alexandra , Ray Weber , "Mary S. Booth" , Bill Sammons , Claudia Hurley , Chicoine John , Ellen Moyer , John Kontekakis , jasinclair , Jane Winn , Michael Kellett , Mike Ryan , Meg Sheehan , Nan , Loraine Della Porta , "robert.rizzo" , Paul Catanzaro , Mike Mauri , Thomas Walker , Tom Ryan , Lisa Vernegaard , Matthew Wolfe , Dave Kittredge , Charles Thompson , Mary and Robert Wigmore , Gordon Boyce , William VanDoren , Whit Beals , Ted Cady , Roger Plourde , Robert O'Connor , James Rassman , Bob Perschel , David Cash , Dick Cross , Rick Sullivan , Ian Bowles , Bill Logue , "Cooper, Stephanie (DCR)" , "Crawford, Conrad (DCR)" , "Larosa, Thomas (DCR)" , Bruce Spencer , Stephen Long , "Briere, Gary (DCR)" , "Davis, Gary (DCR)" , "Kimmell, Ken (EEA)" , Fred Heyes , Kathryn Fernholz , Greg Cox , leo Garneau , Keith Ross , Willia...@state.ma.us, Eric.S...@state.ma.us, Steve Harrington
Subject: Re: COMMENT on TSC Forestry Report Feb 20 by SKaiser

To Bill Hull,

 

Bill- glad to hear that you might support the requirement than only lic. foresters can prepare cut plans- which means only foresters can practice forestry the way only doctors can practice medicine, the way only lawyers can practice law, the way only teachers can teach....

 

As for biomass, it's a confusing subject for me- some parts of the problem I just don't understand. Perhaps you can help.

 

Do you believe in climate warming or are you a "denier"? I think Mike Leonard is a denier but that's OK, that's  his opinion. Most people respect Mike because with Mike, you get what you see, he tells you what he really thinks, he argues his case, right or wrong- he's upfront and honest about his beliefs.

 

So, if you think we do have a man caused climate problem- do you understand that biomass plants will emit more carbon than coal? Do you consider that a problem or do you just like warm weather?

 

Do you really believe that the forests of the region can produce enough wood for the biomass plants without resorting to clearcutting on a large scale? Do you think that the low value that will be paid for the wood will encourage large numbers of private forest owners to part with their trees? Of course you believe it's the right of private owners to not sell their trees because of their property rights?

 

Do you think the public also has property rights? That is, what if the public via the democratic process decides to not sell THEIR trees for biomass?

 

As a forester for 37 years I too like better markets for wood- but I don't get excited about a market for an extremely low value COMMODITY which will give peanuts to the forest owners and their foresters while fortunes are made by biomass power plant owners.

 

Wouldn't we all be better off if instead we put all this effort, energy and financial resources into enhancing the market for HIGH VALUE wood products such as veneer timber and premium sawlogs ON PRIVATE LANDS- which we can do if we all try harder to do great forestry? And that great forestry means having highly educated and trained foresters managing the forests for the long term, right? And yes, I suppose cutting low value trees for biomass might be part of long term high quality forestry- but at the risk of the climate? The fact is that great forestry has been around for generations WITHOUT a biomass market.

 

Putting aside the issue of burning trees for biomass- I only wish the wood industry put 1% as much thought, energy and money into long term forestry as they do in ferociously fighting to create this market for extremely low value trees. Instead I've seen tremendous resistance- as the wood industry and their buddies in the bureaucracies have fought to prevent the simple requirement that all cut plans be prepared by a lic. forester with the pretense that this is a property rights issue. Don't you think it's time to give up on that one?

 

Instead of arguing that the state should be self sufficient in wood- shouldn't we be fighting hard to build the world market for premium New England timber? Since we import almost everything we should be exporting premium timber to help pay for those imports. Trying to keep the wood within the state is an incredibly dumb idea.

 

And if our goal became great long term forestry- just think if the hundreds of millions to be spent on biomass plants was spent on MANAGING private forests lands for the future- with that money we could turn most private forests lands in this state into extremely productive and valuable timber lands which would do a lot more for the wood industry and the state's economy than all the biomass plants put together- 100 times more. And, we wouldn't need to manage state lands as tree farms- instead, they could be producing even more value per acre in ecosystem services not produced on private lands. Wouldn't it be nice if 200 years from now the citizens of this state could be proud that state forest land has hundreds of thousands of acres of old growth forest, so beautiful and ecologically valuable that a huge tourist industry is based on it?

 

It's all about the future- a real vision. Burning trees so we can watch our big screen TVs is a sign of a dying, depraved nation.

 

Another consideration- just think if the several hundred million dollars for the biomass plants went into building solar panels? We could probably put solar panels and small wind turbines on every roof in the state.

 

Joe

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Bill Hull

To: Mike Leonard ; Stephen Kaiser

Cc: Dave Gafney ; MODRD...@umb.edu ; Joseph Zorzin ; sharl Heller ; Chris Matera ; Bob Leverett ; Dawson Alexandra ; Ray Weber ; Mary S. Booth ; Bill Sammons ; Claudia Hurley ; Chicoine John ; Ellen Moyer ; John Kontekakis ; jasinclair ; Jane Winn ; Michael Kellett ; Mike Ryan ; Meg Sheehan ; Nan ; Loraine Della Porta ; robert.rizzo ; Paul Catanzaro ; mike...@crocker.com ; Thomas Walker ; tom....@state.ma.us ; Lisa Vernegaard ; Matthew Wolfe ; Dave Kittredge ; cthomp...@comcast.net ; Mary and Robert Wigmore ; gordon...@state.ma.us ; william_r...@yahoo.com ; wbe...@newenglandforestry.org ; ted....@peoplepc.com ; Roger Plourde ; Robert O'Connor ; James Rassman ; Bob Perschel ; David Cash ; Dick Cross ; Rick Sullivan ; Ian Bowles ; Bill Logue ; Cooper, Stephanie (DCR) ; Crawford, Conrad (DCR) ; Larosa, Thomas (DCR) ; Bruce Spencer ; Stephen Long ; Briere, Gary (DCR) ; Davis, Gary (DCR) ; Kimmell, Ken (EEA) ; Fred Heyes ; Kathryn Fernholz ; gc...@crocker.com ; nc...@mindspring.com ; kr...@landvest.com ; Willia...@state.ma.us ; Eric.S...@state.ma.us

Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:00 AM

Subject: RE: COMMENT on TSC Forestry Report Feb 20 by SKaiser

Mike:

 

                I believe your thinking on licensed forester signing off on cutting plans might work.  I am also glad to hear you are willing to work against the biomass ballot initiative.  However please understand that should it pass, all biomass of any size will be outlawed in MA, including any new technology’s  under development such as wood chips to ethanol.  This would also prohibit any new small scale biomass plants that typically go into schools, hospitals, colleges etc. The initiative is a sledge hammer approach that reminds me of the beaver trapping ballot measure some years age.  We all know the trouble that caused and continues to cause.

 

Bill

 

From: Mike Leonard [mailto:mi...@northquabbinforestry.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:12 PM
To: Bill Hull; Stephen Kaiser
Cc: Dave Gafney; MODRD...@umb.edu; Joseph Zorzin; sharl Heller; Chris Matera; Bob Leverett; Dawson Alexandra; Ray Weber; Mary S. Booth; Bill Sammons; Claudia Hurley; Chicoine John; Ellen Moyer; John Kontekakis; jasinclair; Jane Winn; Michael Kellett; Mike Ryan; Meg Sheehan; Nan; Loraine Della Porta; robert.rizzo; Paul Catanzaro; mike...@crocker.com; Thomas Walker; tom....@state.ma.us; Lisa Vernegaard; Matthew Wolfe; Dave Kittredge; cthomp...@comcast.net; Mary and Robert Wigmore; gordon...@state.ma.us; william_r...@yahoo.com; wbe...@newenglandforestry.org; ted....@peoplepc.com; Roger Plourde; Robert O'Connor; James Rassman; Bob Perschel; David Cash; Dick Cross; Rick Sullivan; Ian Bowles; Bill Logue; Cooper, Stephanie (DCR); Crawford, Conrad (DCR); Larosa, Thomas (DCR); Bruce Spencer; Stephen Long; Briere, Gary (DCR); Davis, Gary (DCR); Kimmell, Ken (EEA); Fred Heyes; Kathryn Fernholz; gc...@crocker.com; nc...@mindspring.com; kr...@landvest.com; Willia...@state.ma.us; Eric.S...@state.ma.us
Subject: Re: COMMENT on TSC Forestry Report Feb 20 by SKaiser

 

Bill,

 

I've been reading some of the interesting comments on the Vision Draft and I came across yours. As you know I've been pushing for years to have all Forest Cutting Plans signed off by a Licensed Forester and you explained why you are against it. Attached is my testimony for the hearing that was held this week for my bill that would do this. I also noted Jay Healy's comments about how he owns 500 acres and can't afford to hire a Licensed Forester to do plans for him. How about if we had a landowner exemption where landowners could do their own cutting plans for their property (that weren't under Ch.61, etc). Would this compromise be acceptable to you? I'm not really sure if I would go for that because an operator could do the plan and have the landowner sign off on it and say he did it and it still devalues the forestry profession. What do you think?

 

I noted Cinda Jones's comments on the recommendation for "no net loss of forest land" but isn't that just a suggestion by the TSC? I don't see how you could accomplish that anyway with a growing population and people wanting to build their own houses, etc. We should encourage forest protection (Ch.61, CRs, etc.) by landowners but not mandate it. Landowners have enough restrictions with all the wetlands and natural heritage rules not to mention oppressive property taxes and no compensation for the ecosystem benefits they provide society. .

 

Finally, I'm a big supporter of biomass but I think Russell Biomass is too big and with the proposed plant in Greenfield, I think that's too much capacity to build all at once. Someone told me the reason they have to be built so big is because the regulatory hurdles are so arduous that it doesn't make sense to build smaller plants. But I wish that both proposals could be downsized to about the size of Pinetree Power (15 - 20 MW)and see the industry be built up slowly. Smaller plants would also reduce trucking distances. Anyway, while I think 100 MW is too much to build all at once, I'll be working to defeat the anti-biomass referendum when it comes up.

 

These are the kind of debates that MODR should have been facilitating. Instead we got a process where the public was shut out except for the comment period. The same thing was true for the Manomet study. MODR and Manomet should be answering all of the public's concerns and questions.

It appears there are two opposing sides here and nobody wants to compromise. I think my positions are very moderate and in the best interest of everybody.

 

Mike Leonard, Consulting Forester

 

 

Steve:

 

                The A frame type shed at Pine Tree Power holds several days of wood chip storage.  It is not designed to be a drying shed but does keep any new snow etc off the wood before it is used.    Their primary storage pile is down the road a half mile or so south where they own sufficient land to have a truck dumper and enough room for a large outside storage pile.  They then reload and truck the chips  back up the road to the plant as needed.  This amounts to double handling but is necessary because the entire plant sits on only a few acres so there is not room on site for the needed outside storage pile.

 

                I am confident if you asked Pine Tree Power they would be glad to give you a tour of the site and the plant.  Russell Biomass took a bus load of Russell residents there a few years ago for an informative tour. 

 

Best Regards,

 

Bill Hull

 

 

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com