Mike,
I agree with you. Another key aspect to the woes of high-grading
on private lots is educated concerned Foresters-like yourself. I spoke with
a landowner in Blandford with lots of wooded acreage currently in Chapter
61, when I was fresh out of the COVERTS program. They didn't know to hire a
consulting forester and took the word of the logger they hired locally.
They were appalled at what transpired from there, and said they'd never do
it again. It's too bad that everything revolves around the money issue,
instead of what's good for the benefit of us all.
Phil
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Mike Leonard
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:09 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants
Phil,
The problem with the Patrick Administration's energy policy is that they are
beholden to a renewable energy portfolio which requires a certain percentage
of our energy to come from renewable resources by a certain date so they
feel pressured to meet that deadline. I do appreciate the Governor's support
of Cape Wind but he appears ready to sacrifice good forest policy to show
he's doing something about our energy "problem".
The remaining mills in MA don't give a damn about good forestry; they only
want to extract as much value from our forests that they can get away with
while paying as little as possible. It's "Tragedy of the Commons" again and
again until most of our private woodlots have been highgraded to hell and
then they look to state land where most of the best timber in the state is
left.
So it is imperative to fix forest policy prior to building any more biomass
plants.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Timbewolves
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:37 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants
Mike,
While your course may not be adding to your friends from the
extremes on both sides, I applaud your approach. It has been my discovery
that extremists will only support and stay with you as long as you're
pushing their agenda. However, that isn't always the best way to proceed.
Both sides have good points, and everyone should be involved in the
solution-in my view.
I've noticed the timber industry working hard to increase their
profits, and not always thinking about the environment and the greater good.
Unfortunately, when politics are involved money talks as politicians are
always looking ahead to their next election. There should be much more
scientific input allowed and listened to, before policy is changed-affecting
large populations of creatures. I know for a fact that Russell Biomass has
had many meetings with the Patrick administration, and I don't hold much
hope that they will do the right thing.
Phil
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Mike Leonard
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:55 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants
Bob,
Yes but charting a reasonable and responsible "middle way" is earning me few
friends from the extremists on both sides. The industry groups have inflated
the amount of available supply and have not addressed the silvicultural
issues while the environmental Luddites are against all biomass period.
And the state is putting the cart before the horse by promoting these big
biomass plants prior to fixing forest policy.
Bob O'Connor is EOEA's Forest & Land Conservation Director and he let it
slip that the Forest Cutting Law reforms have been delayed going to public
hearing because they are trying to include something on biomass. Well this
is in violation of the law because only the MA Forestry Committee can
propose changes to the Forest Cutting regulations but there is no committee
now because Governor Patrick has not reappointed any of the present members
or appointed any new ones.
Even though I support responsible biomass, I don't like regulations being
written in secret (most likely with an assist from Hull and other big
biomass lobbyists) especially when it's a violation of the law. But this is
what will happen: the regulations will be promulgated and they'll have their
sham public hearings and big industry will get most everything they wanted.
Don't get me wrong, there will be improvements but not what is really needed
to help restore the 2.3 million acres of private forest land much of which
has been degraded due to state sanctioned highgrading. Instead we'll get a
lot more "kinder and gentler" highgrading being passed off as good forestry.
And the big biomass people will be promoting more clearcuts to increase the
amount of "early successional habitat" which there is supposedly a great
shortage of.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [ <mailto:[email protected]>
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 7:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants
Mike
Thanks. I trust your assessment of the pros and cons of biomass plants.
You and Joe are far more likely to give an honest assesment of the way
materials will be supplied to the plants.
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:59 AM, "Mike Leonard" <[email protected]> wrote:
Phil and Lee Ann,
I'm one of the few foresters in the state of MA who uses mechanized timber
harvesting crews to supervise biomass improvement cuttings on private forest
land.
All of the chipwood they produce goes to the clean burning 17MW Pinetree
Power plant in Fitchburg. Having a market for low grade timber is absolutely
essential to improve the productivity and species composition of private
woodlots especially those that have been subjected to devastating and
destructive DCR approved liquidation cuttings (aka high-grading). Because
the operators will take everything from a 1 inch crummy red maple up to a 30
inch big bully white pine, this market has given me the most freedom to mark
than I have ever had and has allowed me to practice the best silviculture
possible. A few weeks ago I recently gave a tour of some of my clients'
woodlots to show what a great job these biomass improvement cuttings can do
(See attachment). Other foresters who saw my work gave it an A (like the
great Forestmeister Joe Zorzin) while a noted ecologist said it was the best
she'd ever seen. Landowners love the way their woodlot looks afterwards and
I now have a waiting list for landowners who want a biomass improvement
cutting for their woodlots.
However, the proposed gargantuan 50 MW biomass plants in Russell and
Greenfield will need to draw wood from a radius of up to 70 miles which
means their radii will overlap each other. This might push the price of
chipwood up which would be a good thing but will there be enough supply? If
not, will these big plants resort to burning all sorts of construction
debris and other material which will give off toxic poisons like dioxin? In
addition, I don't trust Hull who won't pay enough for chipwood (he says
he'll pay $20/ton when we need at least $30/ton) and Hull is poised to earn
a profit of 1 billion dollars over a 20 year period!
Why are we taxpayers subsidizing him anyway??? The poor town of Russell will
be flooded with diesel trucks in their valley which could keep the pollution
there for a while during summer inversions. So bigger is not always better.
As I said, the operators I use sell their chipwood to the very clean burning
17 MW Pinetree Power plant in Fitchburg. These operators don't like to
travel too much farther than 30 miles from their base or from that plant
because of operating costs (especially diesel fuel). When diesel was
$5/gallon, they didn't want to travel much more than 15-20 miles away. Fuel
prices will be going way up again when the economy recovers so rather than
building these huge 50 MW biomass power plants, we should be building
smaller ones with the size capped at 20 MW to reduce the supply radii for
each. This will greatly reduce trucking distances and all that diesel
pollution from the diesel trucks that EOEA has not accounted for.
There are some people who think Massachusetts can build a biomass capacity
of 500 MW. I disagree. I think there is for perhaps 100 MW (5 20 MW plants
including Pinetree). Limiting total capacity and individual plant size to
these amounts for now will allow the industry to be built up slowly so we
can fix forest policy FIRST to insure that all chipwood comes from well
managed woodlots rather than from big clearcuts or liquidation cuttings.
It should also be noted that burning wood to generate electricity is far
less efficient than using wood for heat to displace oil (25% versus 75%), so
we should be thinking about using more wood for heat to displace oil rather
than to generate electricity. Although right now I don't care where the
chipwood goes as long as I can still sell improvement cuttings.
Lee Ann, I'll try and write a brief for the Greenfield Recorder opposing the
plant there by the end of the week.
Mike Leonard, Consulting Forester
www.northquabbinforestry.com
-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] [
<mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Timbewolves
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 10:45 PM
To: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants
Lee Ann,
While this group is Pro trees and I'm not educated about
the Greenfield project, in my humble opinion there are worse ways to create
energy. There is currently a project working on permitting in my town
(Russell Biomass) of which I am educated about. I Chaired a grassroots
citizens group tasked with educating the public with regards to both sides
of the coin, and was a member of the Planning Board. However, the
opposition here grossly misrepresented the facts and data and the media
wasn't interested in hearing otherwise-as confrontation sells.
Russell Biomass has undergone a MEPA review, and extensive
investigation by numerous Federal and State agencies. Along with the
Federal and State inquiries, the town of Russell hired an independent
company to investigate-and the committee responsible for choosing the
company and areas to research were represented by all interested parties,
including the opposition. The report came back with a few things to look at
but pretty much backing what the experts had been telling us. While burning
biomass will create air particulates-and of the small size that is harmful
to the respiratory tract-burning coal isn't any better for the air or
environment. It really gets me that sections of the public become up in
arms about burning biomass for the impacts to the environment, but nobody
mentions the coal plants. During research for a paper I was working on for
my degree in Environmental Science I discovered that Holyoke, MA possesses
the third dirtiest power plant in the state-burning coal-and yet there is
nothing mentioned in the media at all.
It's true that the biomass projects would create less energy
than currently being produced by other means (the Holyoke coal plant is
350kw and the biomass project in Russell is 50kw), but we need to start
somewhere. Nuclear plants run the risk of fall out and also create
hazardous materials at the same time. Coal is increasing the amounts of
mercury in our waterways. Burning any fossil fuels is detriment to the
environment. There is currently opposition to both wind and biomass energy
being produced, but in my view they are the lesser of the two evils-so to
speak.
I've conducted much research on the topic of biomass plants,
have spoken with Federal and State agencies, interviewed plant managers, and
toured a plant in New Hampshire. I know the opposition here was the cause
of a lot of the public confusion. I'm not saying I didn't catch the company
proposing the plant misrepresenting the facts, but they did to a much lesser
degree. I would be more than game to discuss this with you further, if you
desire.
Phil LaBranche
From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] [
<mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Lee Ann Warner
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:18 PM
To: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] help defeat biomass plants
Hello All, Sorry if you've seen this already. I tried sending last night
but potentially lost the message. Bob Leverett told me that there might be
some interest here at ENTS to learn more about the five biomass plants
proposed for western Massachusetts and to help defeat one currently before
the Greenfield Zoning Board of Appeals. These five plants will impact our
already dismally rated air quality and they could decimate our forests.
There simply is not enough "sustainably cut wood." Three of these plants
would provide less than 1% of MA energy needs and pour hundreds of thousands
of tons per year of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into our already
saturated atmosphere. Yet, these plants are going through without MEPA
review with the help of our tax dollars because this is considered a
renewable energy and carbon neutral. Please take a look at the info at
<http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org>
http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org for more info on this issue. If you
would like to help defeat the Greenfield plant, I invite you to take a look
at <http://www.greenfieldbiomass.info> http://www.greenfieldbiomass.info
for more information on how you can help locally. Letters to the editor of
the Greenfield Recorder before the June 15 ZBA meeting would also be most
helpful in educating a confused Greenfield citizens about the downsides of
biomass because It seems that most elected officials and the editor of the
Greenfield Recorder are for this plant. Letters to state and federal
representatives would be helpful too. If you have any questions, please
feel free to get back to me. Thanks for your review, Lee Ann Warner
<Field Tour.doc>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
