Joe, I certainly wasn't blaming the owner, but was showing that there is a need to educate the public with regards to the needs of using a consulting forester. This happened about 5-7 years ago. They could have thought hiring a forester was an un-needed expense, but quickly changed their minds. I agree with you about the need for a forester. If you take the word of the logger you're assisting him in clearing only what he deems worth his time and money. However, if you go with a consulting forester you're assisting the very woodlands on your property.
Phil -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of JZ Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 11:14 AM To: ENTSTrees Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants I have trouble understanding how any forest owner under Chapter 61 could not understand how to hire a consulting forester to handle their timbe sale. For beginners, that forest owner had to retain a consulting forester to prepare his chapter 61 mgt. plan. Perhaps the situation you described happened many years ago- but in the past several years, it's been a requirement for land under Chapter 61 to have a licensed forester manage timber sales on chapter land. Or, did that all happen before the owner put the land in Chapter 61? I don't blame the owner for their failure to hire a consultant- I blame the state because the state has strongly supported the timber industry's resistence to requiring a license forester to prepare all cut plans. About a decade ago, when forester licensing began in Mass.- the Director of Forests and Parks, Todd Frederick, wrote in a letter to a consultant that the state won't require a forester to prepare the cut plans because "it would be a revolutionary act against industry"- so, in my opinion, every forest owner who has had his property wrecked and who probably didn't get paid a fair price- should blame the state! Joe On Jun 2, 5:37 pm, "Timbewolves" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
