An Environmental Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing - Leading Anti-Biomass Proponent Tied to Oil/Gas/Coal and Mining Industry

An Environmental Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing:

Leading Anti-Biomass Proponent Tied to Oil/Gas/Coal and Mining Industry 

Journalist, Genevieve Fraser

By Genevieve Fraser

 Margaret Sheehan, a lawyer with EcoLaw, a volunteer group promoting renewable energy policy and chair of the Stop Spewing Carbon Campaign, which sponsored a proposed 2010 ballot initiative aimed at stripping biomass-derived energy of its label as renewable, has ties to world-wide oil, gas, coal and mining industries as well as with the world's largest producer of vinyl compounds and a leading North American producer of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), through her association with the Sheehan Family Foundation, according to tax records on file at the National Center for Charitable Statistics. 

Along with shares from corporations such as Merck and Abbot Laboratories, the Foundation has millions of dollars in shares tied to fossil fuels and other polluting industries.  The Foundation also receives major donations from family members and the L. Knife & Sons, a family owned corporation.  Their tax records can be viewed electronically at http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/orgs/profile/043197325?popup=1#forms  

The Sheehan Family Foundation was established in 1992, according to a Foundation press release, “Its mission is to protect the environment and enhance the quality of education including youth serving programs.”  Though the Foundation has a geographic focus in eastern Massachusetts, it has expanded in recent years to include Haiti and other international projects.   Grants made by the Foundation from 1992 to 2007 totaled over $10 million.  But despite the obvious good it does, many of the Foundations financial dealings run counter to its expressed mission.

The Foundation’s mining interests include 2,200 shares from the Newmont Mining Corporation, recipient of the “Hall of Shame 2009 Public Eye Award” for its Akyem project in Ghana. “According to the jury it had destroyed unique natural habitats, carried out forced resettlement of local people and polluted soil and rivers,” the Public Eye states.  Newmont was also the subject of a 2005 Frontline expose of South American activities, “Peru – The Curse of Inca Gold.”  That same year, the company was cited for illegal toxic waste dumping in Indonesia. The Foundation sold its shares in 2007.

 

Trees dying at the Quabbin Reservoir from Red Pine Scale.
These trees need to be taken downed and incinerated as biomass.
There is currently a moratorium on cutting trees at the Quabbin

The Foundation also has maintained over 10,500 shares of the Southern Copper Company which is 75 percent owned by Mexican mining conglomerate Gropo Mexico. The company is a major producer and refiner of copper, molybdenum, zinc, silver, lead, and gold, and operates mines and smelters in Mexico and in Peru, in the Andes mountains southeast of Lima.  In 2003, a lawsuit was filed (02-9008. Docket No.)  under the Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATCA”), 28 U.S.C. in which plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's conduct violates the “law of nations”-commonly referred to as “international law” or, when limited to non-treaty law, as “customary international law.” They brought personal injury claims “alleging that pollution from SPCC's copper mining, refining, and smelting operations in and around Ilo caused plaintiffs' or their decedents' severe lung disease.  Plaintiffs in this case are residents of Ilo, Peru, and the representatives of deceased Ilo residents. In particular, they asserted that defendant infringed ---upon their customary international law “right to life,” “right to health,” and right to “sustainable development.”  

Harvard Forest logging operation

Anti-biomass activist Margaret Sheehan is a native of Plymouth and former Executive Director of the Sheehan Family Foundation which has also provided grants to the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars to environmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, Massachusetts Audubon Society, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, and Earthwatch among others. 

In 2008, with Sheehan serving as Executive Director, the Sheehan Family Foundation lists their “net value of non-charitable use assets” at $7,655,764, according to their 2009 tax return.  A significant portion of these assets were derived from sales of coal, oil and gas industry stocks.  In 2007, the Foundation’s 24,970 shares of Exxon Mobile stock sold for $2,016,55; their 1,295 shares of Chevron Corporation stocks commanded a sale price of $104,718, while their 1,240 Occidental Petroleum Corporation shares netted $61,510.  


By 2008, the Sheehan Family Foundation sold 5,125 shares of Yanzhou Coal Mining Co Ltd stocks, which they had held since 2006, for $77,573, but the sale listed a net loss of $21,758.  The Chinese-based company, the forth largest in China, is mainly engaged in coal production, preparation and processing, marketing and railway transportation.  According to their website, two large coalfields of Yanzhou and Jinig East owned by the Company contain six large-scale modern coal mines. In 2007, the Company produced 34.66 million tones of raw coal, of which 7.25 million tones were exported.  Though China’s coal mining industry is considered to be the largest and deadliest in the world in terms of human safety, the Yanzhou Company claims that they are in compliance with all safety regulations; however, pollution emanating from China’s coal burning power plants is notorious.


Despite the 2007 coal, oil and gas divestments, the following year the Foundation lists 4,400 shares of ConocoPhilips corporate stock with a book value of $348,844.  ConocoPhilips boasts of extracting hydrocarbons from Canada’s oil sands which constitutes “one of the largest proven oil reserves in the world,” according to their website.  


On the topic of oil sands, Joseph J. Romm, author of Hell and High Water, the Global Warming Solution points out, "Making liquid fuels from oil sands requires energy for steam injection and refining. This process generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of final product as the production of conventional oil." Bob Weber, writing for the Moose Jaw Herald, is even more pessimistic.  "If combustion of the final products is included, the so-called "Well to Wheels" approach, oil sands extraction, upgrade and use emits 10 to 45% more greenhouse gases than conventional crude," he wrote.


In 2009, The Nature Conservancy received a $110,000 contribution from the Foundation, while the Massachusetts Audubon Society received a $160,000 grant.  This was in addition to the hundreds of thousands from years past. For example, in 2008, The Nature Conservancy received $210,696 from the Foundation, and MA Audubon received $80,000; whereas, in 2007, The Nature Conservancy received $85,000, and MA Audubon received $80,000.  Whether or not these funds impacted their receptivity to Sheehan’s anti-biomass message and whether or not these environmental organizations knew of the source of much of the Foundation’s wealth can only be assessed by the many agencies who were the recipients of the Foundation’s largess.


In addition to coal, oil and gas companies, the Sheehan Family Foundation maintains millions of dollars worth of shares in companies that provide infrastructure and transport to these industries.  Their vast holdings include DryShips, Inc., owner and operation of a world-wide drybulk carrier and offshore oil deep water drilling operations; National Oilwell Varco, a multinational, Texas-based corporation which manufactures land-based and off-shore oil drilling rigs as well as all the major mechanical components for such rigs; Pioneer Natural Resources Co., an Irving, Texas-based oil and gas company that has expanded internationally and has made major investments in Tunisia and South Africa and is also active in Alaska; and Pride International, Inc., which provides contract drilling and related services to oil and gas companies worldwide and operates a global fleet of 26 rigs. In 2009, SeaHawk Drilling was added to the Sheehan Family Foundation assets.

On November 10, 2009, Sheehan sent a letter addressed to the president of the Manomet Center, John M. Hagan regarding the “Biomass Study.”  The Manomet biomass report was released seven months later on June 10, 2010, without peer review, and became the basis of the Administration’s about-face regarding their support of biomass as a green, renewable energy resource. 

In her letter to the Manomet director, Sheehan closed with the following, “...As I indicated in my phone message to you, I am a native of Plymouth and former Executive Director of the Sheehan Family Foundation of Kingston, which has provided grants to MCCS over the years.  It would be unfortunate if MCCS proceeded with this study without an understanding of full range of public health and environmental impacts of biomass burning as a means of generating electricity.  Even though these impacts may be beyond the scope of work for the study, the study is intertwined with critical policy and regulatory issues that effect the future of our citizens and the planet.”

An electronic copy of the Sheehan correspondence to the MCCS director was submitted to Ian Bowles, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by electronic mail, and to his Chief of Staff at EOEEA, Jane Corr.  The correspondence has since circulated widely.

Following the firestorm of support and protest which erupted after the release of the Center’s “Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study,” Manomet released a statement which reads, in part, “There has been much press coverage of our study about using forest biomass for energy in Massachusetts.  This study was commissioned and funded by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER).  Many of the resulting press articles have oversimplified the results.  Indeed, a key lesson of the study is that understanding the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts and benefits of using wood for energy is more complex than most people have assumed, and that a lifecycle assessment is needed in order to assess these GHG costs and benefits...”

“One commonly used press headline has been ‘wood worse than coal’ for GHG emissions or for ‘the environment.’  This is an inaccurate interpretation of our findings, which paint a much more complex picture.  While burning wood does emit more GHGs initially than fossil fuels, these emissions are removed from the atmosphere as harvested forests re-grow.  ....the timing and magnitude of the recovery is a function of forest productivity, land management choices, and technology and fuel characteristics...”

Despite the Manomet Center’s attempt to clarify the report and end the controversy surrounding its release. The Stop Spewing Carbon Campaign collected over 130,000 signatures from Massachusetts’ voters after spending about $270,000, mostly to collect signatures.  


Sheehan, as Chair of the Campaign issued a statement on July 7, 2010.  “Today, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles issued a letter saying his agency will change our state laws to bring them in line with current science and public policy requiring biomass incinerators to meet strict standards for forest protection, greenhouse gas emissions, and efficiency,” Sheehan stated. 

“This is a groundbreaking development that means an end to commercial biomass electric power plants in Massachusetts.  Science confirms that the greenhouse gas emissions of burning forests are worse than coal and there’s no reason to subsidize this form of energy,” Sheehan said.  Sheehan had won the battle and so withdrew the 2010 Ballot Petition from consideration.

On May 2, 2011 Final regulations were issued by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources which would severely restrict Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)—a taxpayer and ratepayer funded subsidy under the state Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)—for biomass electricity.  Meg Sheehan once again took credit for the DOER restrictions.

Proposed Palmer Renewable Energy: Springfield Biomass Plant

On May 17, 2011, union laborers were out in force to jeer biomass opponents who were holding a protest rally on the steps of Springfield City Hall during a public hearing on a proposal to revoke a special permit granted in 2008 to Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE).  Despite a written legal opinion presented by City Solicitor Edward Pikula — who warned the 13-member City Council that it doesn’t have “just cause” to revoke a special permit issued in 2008 for a proposed 35-megawatt biomass power plant — the City Council voted 10-2 against the project.

“We’ve got $5 million in development costs invested here,” Lawyer Frank Fitzgerald, speaking for Palmer Renewable Energy stated. “And we’ve played by the rules.” The economic benefits to the City of Springfield were estimated to be in excess of one million dollars a year, and would have provided 50 full-time employment opportunities.  PRE plans to litigate the matter which may prove quite costly to the city.

Along with creating havoc within the biomass industry, the regulatory restrictions have had a significant economic impact on the wood products industry which claims that if they are to avoid “high grading,” cutting only the most valuable trees, they need to integrate forest improvement cuttings to the mix.  Biomass, when harvested within the forest is typically low grade wood that can be costly to remove unless there is a market for it. The use of biomass as a fuel source creates an economic value that helps justify the cost of its removal. 

Foresters and the wood products industry also argue that sustainably harvested wood allows for new growth and provides vitally needed wildlife habitat.  Most species are wholly or partially dependent on early successional or young forest growth.  Also, diseases and insects are now infesting the forest.  Over 90% of the Massachusetts forest is now mature forest cover (older trees).  These woods are badly in need of thinning with infested wood burnt and destroyed, not left in place or transported and sold as wood chips or other products.

Biomass is also created from power line and roadside cuttings as well as land clearings for development.  When disposed of in landfills, woody biomass generates methane, a major greenhouse gas.  Decomposition in forests also releases CO2.

Meanwhile fossil fuels, which are not sustainable because they were created eons ago and are not a living, breathing part of our atmosphere, continue to spew carbon, hydro-chemicals, radionuclides and heavy metals that impact air quality, soil and water.  Though renewables such as hydro, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal are now part of the energy mix, for the most part, fossil fuels still power electrical generation, cars, buses, trucks, trains, planes, boats, plus most of our homes and industry in the United States and across the globe.   

According to a recently released report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), “Energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010 were the highest in history.”

“After a dip in 2009 caused by the global financial crisis, emissions are estimated to have climbed to a record 30.6 Gigatonnes (Gt), a 5% jump from the previous record year in 2008, when levels reached 29.3 Gt. In addition, the IEA has estimated that 80% of projected emissions from the power sector in 2020 are already locked in, as they will come from power plants that are currently in place or under construction today,” the report stated.

In terms of fuels, 44% of the estimated CO2 emissions in 2010 came from coal, 36% from oil, and 20% from natural gas, according to the IEA.

And though Margaret Sheehan talks an environmental talk, she has, through the Foundation, financially supported to the tune of millions and millions of dollars, companies that pollute the earth in every conceivable fashion. 

Take for instance the Foundation’s 100,000 shares of the Geon Company, the leading producer of vinyl compounds, including polyvinyl chloride (PVC), that have been linked to exposures in the womb.  Hyperactivity, learning disabilities, asthma, reproductive health issues, obesity and a host of other ills including cancer are believed to be linked to these products. 

As for the environmental impact of coal, oil and natural gas extractions which destroy forests, remove mountaintops, and pollute our waters, these concerns have been the subject of thousands of research projects, books and articles, and now movies such as “Gasland” which explores the many problems associated with choosing natural gas as an alternative to oil.  Yet the Sheehan Family Foundation supports these and other industries such as the cigarette giant Philip Morris (SFF owned 5,147 shares valued at $223,945 in 2008) that have pitted adverse impacts to human health and the planet against the greater good of increased profits.

What Sheehan’s real motives are only time will tell. But for the record, humans have been building with, cooking with, and heating with wood since the dawn of creation. Our homes, furniture, paper and a myriad of other products are created with wood.  If the impact of woody biomass is as bad as Sheehan and her cohorts claim it is, man would be extinct!

Alan Page Sounds Off on Forestry, Climate Change, and Farm Banking Strategies

Alan Page Sounds Off on Forestry, Climate Change, and Farm Banking Strategies

Dr. Alan Page

As a forester for the past 44 years, I have watched the things I have tried in forests and with people change with time. Most of these have been in the small to medium scale as allowed by the central New England landscape and ownership patterns. The conclusions formed from these reflections have changed my view of what should be normal and what is possible with and without substantial change, and the rate at which this change must occur to save life as we know it.

The opportunities offered by many small applications of particular practices include the possibility of isolating those things that really work from those that are or were wishful thinking. Much of current forestry thought is wishful thinking. For one thing, we are in a climate crisis that will soon be driven by uncontrollable methane releases from sources recently thought to be stable (polar and deep oceanic).

Our embrace of cheap sourcing of labor has its origin in pathological designs by those who believe that they are entitled to a larger share of global resources than anyone else. The primary design has been the depletion of the common good by enabling only short term investment and demanding payment for a medium of exchange that should come from within the sovereignty of the occupants of each region. This fraudulent set of policies has caused all of forestry to be non-economic. When in fact it provides a major component of life maintenance just because of the forest being healthy. The provision of local jobs, local renewable energy, local renewable materials have been made obsolete by the adoption of foreign sources for everything. The error of this mode of operation will play out within my short remaining tenure here, and the children of the region where I operate will not have had the chance to become familiar with the things I should have imparted and will not have the benefit of the value of truly healthy forests because we are in the process of destroying their stability.

Green Diamond Systems

May 21, 2011                     

To Whom It May Concern:

Dear Sir or Madam:

RE: FARM BANKING STRATEGIES

Farm Credit Service Bureau

I have been a Farm Credit (FC) client for over forty years and am a new member of Farm Bureau.  I manage long term forest land for private owners in MA and NH.  Over that 40 year time frame I was puzzled because no matter how proficient or productive my forest or forest practices were I was never able to do anything unless I or my clients had a regular income from oil stocks or the like. I am now 69 years old and would like to pass on the good things I know about managing highly productive forests to high school and college age youths, but I can find no interest in such a program from any local banks including FC.

You may have already guessed that the problem is that trees have no debt service capability, are at severe climatic risk, are a long term investment, and I will be engaged in training youths who have been brainwashed by consumer logic and have no common sense.  Of course, on the other side. the things I do are always carbon neutral, can be carbon negative, generally improve the stability of ecosystems in our area, provide local employment and seek to pay more than competitive wages... 

Being a slow learner, I only recently realized that this stems from the way currency and credit are formed in most countries. More particularly here in the US, the problem stems from the way the Federal Reserve System was formed in 1913.  After 1913 our fiat currency was made available as needed through an unnecessary debt transaction between the US government, a sovereign entity (the payer/debtor), and a private entity (the payee).  Of course, this works very well for the private banking system, but the rest of us are continually focused only on those projects that can be formed to produce a regular payment that would qualify as a "performing loan".  This short term focus allows all of us to feel comfortable in that there is nothing that we can do simply because we can not figure out how to fund the proactive measures to do the things we all understand must be done to hold the human ecosphere together.

The real issue is that this important community based opportunity can provide no regular interest or principle payment to a bank since the trees generate no intermediate income, and are always a ‘mark to market’ asset since there are no guarantees of true value until the trees and or the products are sold.  Normal banks must maintain a competent "performing loan portfolio".  So the question is: ‘is FBB any different from normal non-farm banks?’  Is there a way for any private bank to legally invest in long term rural community infrastructure style projects?  If not, why not?, and what can be done to change this situation?  (You may not recognize infrastructure in forest maintenance, but you can surely see it in retaining top soil, maintaining soil carbon levels, good soil structure, retaining all possible nutrients, reducing pollution from sprays, hormone and antibiotic use, etc.)

Could this bunch of farmers, the Farm Bureau in aggregate, come up with a way to do things right?  

Could their determination stand the test of toxic efforts of the Bank for International Settlements to maintain their extremely effective hold on the short term focus of all normal people?  Is Farm Bureau the entity from which these constructive possibilities will flow?

The recipients of this note are all some how connected and understand the issues in one way or another.  Your and their answers will be communicated to our youth in many different ways.  You might almost believe that they are not terribly important to me, but you would be wrong.  I suggest that you check out the Bank of North Dakota – a very successful 97 year old public bank formed by angry farmers and a very effective aid to their heirs.  BND however, does not appear to fund infrastructure appropriately at this time.

Sincerely yours,

Alan C. Page Ph.D., Research Forester

MA License #184, NH License #218 

Specialties

Forest growth analysis, second opinions for existing forest management programs, long term carbon sequestration, economic review of local options for long term projects, supply of renewable materials from local forests, expert witness testimony regarding timber.

Alan Page's Education

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Ph.D., Tree Physiology, Forest Management

1967 – 1973

Yale University

MF, Silviculture and Management

1964 – 1966

The last class at the Yale School of Forestry that had a summer field camp requirement.

Cornell University

BS, Conservation

1960 – 1964

How Manomet got it Backwards: Challenging the “debt-then-dividend” axiom

How Manomet got it Backwards:

Challenging the “debt-then-dividend” axiom

with a reply by Forest Guild director Bob Perschel

By Dr. William Strauss,

President, FutureMetrics

May, 2011

Dr. William Strauss

This short paper challenges the assumption that there is always a carbon debt incurred first before there is a carbon dividend to be accrued later when using woody biomass for energy (we call that logic their debt-then-dividend assumption).

The Manomet authors have that assumption so deeply ingrained into their logic that it is presented as axiomatic.  In complex systems theory one of the points of study is the concept that “selection is information”.  By presenting the debt-then-dividend assumption as an axiom, the Manomet authors have limited the scope of their view of the world and thereby have removed information from the system.  Their model allows no conclusion other than those that accrue from their debt-then-dividend framework. 

The paper begins with some of the already published criticisms of the Manomet study.  This brief paper however primarily focuses on the self-evident (axiomatic) presupposition of the study’s authors’ assumptions regarding carbon sequestration and release.

See:  http://www.futuremetrics.net/papers/Manomet%20Got%20it%20Backwards.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A Reply by Robert Perschel
Forest Guild, Eastern Forests Director

Robert Perschel

With any research it is important to be clear about the question that is being asked of the research.   In Dr. William StrauRss’ recent critique of the Manomet study –“How Manomet got it Backwards” - he gets the answers right, but not to the question posed to the Manomet study team and the one relevant to policy makers who decide on how to pass out incentives for renewable energy.

Dr Strauss appears to be answering the following question:

Can our forests, when sustainably managed and operated as a system, produce energy and not contribute to the buildup of atmospheric carbon?   His answer is affirmative and the data in the Manomet study confirms that answer to be true over certain time periods.  However, that is not the question that a good policy maker should be asking.

Policy makers have a limited pool of money available to incentivize renewable energy and lower, stabilize or minimize the build up of atmospheric carbon.  It is their job to choose among various alternatives and invest those limited dollars to the greatest effect.  These particular policy makers don’t just want to know what is good- they want to know what they can make better by investing in it.  So the fact that forest systems have operated or will operate to produce energy in ways that minimize atmospheric carbon is immaterial to their legislative responsibility.  The question they are asking is:  If we invest dollars in this sector what will be the rate of return in minimizing carbon as compared to other alternatives?  If the rate of return is negative over some relevant time period they would likely not invest.  In addition, if the rate of return for biomass is less than for other forms of renewable energy they also would likely not invest in biomass.  So essentially Massachusetts DOER asked the Manomet team to analyze the return on potential investment.

In order to do this analysis you need to make assumptions about the business as usual scenario.  Obviously, if a practice was going to happen anyway – or already happened - then using your limited dollars doesn’t buy you anything.  You need to know what will happen differently if you do invest.  Therefore, the Manomet study looked at what would happen if funding was used to increase the harvest of biomass and how atmospheric carbon levels would change and flux as a result of that investment.

The study found that initially there was more carbon in the atmosphere from an investment that increased the harvest but over time that investment would pay off in the form of less carbon in the atmosphere.  This type of analytical approach is scientifically sound and valid to the particular question being asked.  The conclusions regarding policies that might be formed from the debt and payback time periods  was beyond the scope of the Manomet report and are now being actively debated. 

So, in summary, we agree with Dr. Strauss’ assessment of forest systems’ long term ability to mitigate atmospheric carbon.  It indicates that an appropriate investment in forest conservation and sustainable forestry is good general forest policy. However, his assessment does not provide the information needed for the kinds of investment decisions challenging policy makers with a limited pool of money to mitigate carbon.  The Manomet approach does provide a framework for this analysis and is now being replicated elsewhere to provide the region- specific numbers necessary to make good policy.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strauss as keynote speaker at conference in Austria
Check out: www.FutureMetrics.com

 Reply by Dr. Strauss:

The discussion over what policy makers should know and understand is important.  I certainly do not want to confuse anyone.  But the foundation for the discussion has to be built upon a factual understanding of the reality of what wood-to-energy means.  There are folks at every point on the continuum in this mix.  At one end of the spectrum are advocates for never cutting a tree for any reason and regaining a land of old growth forests.  At the other end are folks that would ignore the ecological and environmental disaster that would accrue from cutting and taking all of the trees for short term gain.  I hope that a reasoned discussion can lead to a reasoned understanding of how to best manage the use this renewable and sustainable energy resource.

One thing is certain; there is a secular shift in world demand for paper for printed media.  If you talk to people in the printed media business, there is great uncertainty.  The data backs that up.  Paper demand for newspapers, magazines, catalogues, books is declining at an increasing rate.  If the forest products industry is to adapt to the inevitable decline in demand for pulpwood, it will have to find other markets.  There is an opportunity here to save this valuable industry and help contribute to our energy independence and mitigate GHG emissions from fossil fuels.

Working forests that provide an annuity to their owners remain forests.  Idle forests, particularly in urbanized states like MA, get cleared for urban development and disappear forever.  That is another dynamic that seems to be missing from the study.

I am troubled by one sentence in the comment that Bob makes: "Therefore, the Manomet study looked at what would happen if funding was used to increase the harvest of biomass...”  If one starts with the premise that wood-to-energy requires an increase in the harvest then of course the balance of growth to harvest changes and there will be net increase in carbon emissions (but only by the incremental increase over the long term equilibrium growth rate NOT by the entire harvest).  The central thesis of my paper, supported by the entire last section of the paper showing data for Maine, is that many large working forest systems have been in growth to harvest equilibrium for a long time.  Given that equilibrium (or growth to harvest greater than one as Maine exhibits) there is no carbon debt.  The whole idea of my paper is that if harvest is about the same every year in the past and in the future, there is no debt.  All this concern about increased carbon emissions is in error if those conditions are met.  The premise that harvest has to increase due to some “funding” may be correct for MA which, as the paper points out, has a much more limited forest products industry.  But wise policy should not approve any funding that would allow unsustainable practices. 

Some might say that this is a slippery slope.  Once we go down the wood-to-energy path, we will cut down all of the woods. One can look to Austria to see a model of a country with a strong policy for wood-to-energy that has been in place for decades where the forests are not only not shrinking but are getting healthier because of regular thinning due to the demand for so-called low grade wood for energy (see my article in Pellet Mill Magazine that discusses the Upper Austrian leadership in this area  http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5464/learning-from-austriaundefineds-biomass-thermal-success-story ). 

The policy battle here should not be whether or not wood-to-energy is a good idea, but should be how to make sure that our working forest resources are managed for health and maximum sustainable energy yield forever while preserving an ecological foundation for habitat and human visitors.

There is a lot of good work in the Manomet study specific to MA.  But continuously lurking in the shadows is the assumption that every bit of wood that is harvested and converted to energy is depleting the net stock of wood in the forest system (at least until those trees regrow over decades).  That assumption flies in the face of facts.  In Maine at least the net stock of wood is getting larger every year in spite of 16 million tons per year every year for the last 30 years being harvested from across almost 18 million acres of forested land. 

So my paper I think is not only right but is an important bit of information to help our policy makers make good policy.

Forest Guild Preliminary Review of New MA DOER Rules on Forest-Derived Biomass Removal

To: Colleagues dedicated to Massachusetts forestry and forest conservation


Re: A preliminary review of the new Massachusetts DOER rules on Forestry Sustainability and Restrictions on Forest-Derived Biomass Removal

From:  Bob Perschel, Forest Guild Director of Eastern Forests

Date:  May 12, 2011

Background

Massachusetts DOER has issued rules that restrict the amount of biomass eligible for renewable energy credits.  If enacted these rules would affect electrical generating facilities that currently are eligible for RECs.  However, since these rules are designed to protect forest soils we should expect the same rules would apply to community scale thermal or combined heat and power facilities should the Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Standard be extended to thermal uses.  It is important that any forest policy encourage excellent forestry, be based on sound science, practical in application and successful in protecting ecological values.

We are in the process of determining the course of these proposed rules and the opportunity to respond.  Apparently they are now in legislative committee and there is a short window of a few weeks to offer written comments. There may also be public hearings.  The Forest Guild intends to offer comments to this process and we encourage others in the forestry sector to add their voice to this important issue. 

The information in this preliminary review is not a Forest Guild position statement at this time.  Your feedback to this preliminary review is appreciated (bob.perschel@verizon.net, 978-562-2777) and you are welcome to use this review to craft your own response.

A review of the current regulations indicates that some positive changes were made to the initial proposals that provide more flexibility to removals and incorporate soil types as a retention determinate.  However, the original method of using weight calculations at the biomass facility to assure retention of material in the woods is compromised by four fundamental flaws which will render it ineffective. These flaws are identified in a summary list.  Then each of the four points is reviewed in greater detail with suggestions for alternate approaches to protect the full suite of ecological values when harvesting biomass.

Summary

1. The fundamental approach – to ensure appropriate amounts of downed woody material be left in the forest by tracking the amount of biomass that arrives at the biomass facility and is eligible for renewable energy credits- is an indirect and ineffective method to solving the ecological goal of soil protection. The focus needs to be on what is retained in the woods and verifications, certifications or measurements of the material retained are the appropriate metric.   This has been affirmed by other efforts such as the University of Maine’s multi year process for the State of Maine and the Forest Guild’s Biomass Retention and Harvest Guidelines for the Northeast.

2. The current approach – focused mostly on protecting soil nutrient levels -does not address the full range of ecological values threatened by increased biomass harvests.   The focus on indirect restrictions to retain lying dead wood neglects the ecological values of standing dead and dying material essential for wildlife and biodiversity protection. 

3. The current approach does not provide full eligibility for timber stand improvement operations that are examples of excellent forestry.  These silviculturally sound practices improve the quality and production of forest products that offset carbon intensive fossil fuel based products, maintain high levels of forest stand carbon, and provide extra income to landowners that might encourage them to keep forests as forests.

4. The integrity of the current approach relies exclusively on the trust and honesty of field foresters to report total volume removal accurately.  Therefore, the numbers that are generated for eligible biomass and the indirect relationship to what may or may not have been retained assure no more accurate accounting then reliance on forester assurances of best management practices.  If the state is willing develop an approach based on foresters trust and honesty there are alternative approaches that do better to assure the protection of a fuller range of ecological values.

Detailed Review

1. The current restrictions only account for material that reaches the biomass facility. Solution: Shift the measurement and accountability to where it belongs- on what is actually retained in the forest.

.  .

The approach that is being proposed relies on foresters and biomass users to verify what percentage of a total harvest is eligible and then to issue RECs for no more than that amount.  This is an indirect method that doesn’t assure the appropriate amount of material is actually left in the woods. The material not eligible for RECs can be removed and sold to other outlets that don’t need or accept RECs.  Or, potentially the tops and slash which contain much of the nutrients of the tree can be removed and other less nutrient rich material could be left on the ground or standing to meet the weight percentage requirements.

There are no instructions in the regulations to actually retain adequate material in the forest, nor is there monitoring, verification or certification that adequate material was retained.  Soils aren’t replenished because we have restricted payments to limits of what theoretically should have been removed; they are replenished when we account for what is actually retained in the forest.  National assessments done by the Forest Guild of biomass guidelines, regulations or guidelines indicate the only practical approach is to focus on what is retained rather than what is harvested, let alone what is tallied at one biomass facility.  

Experience throughout the country on water quality regulations indicates the best way of solving these kinds of challenges is to establish a set of guidelines, get a commitment to follow the guidelines and then do an appropriate amount of monitoring to ensure the objectives are being achieved.  This it the approach used in New Hampshire which has had many biomass facilities operating for 30 years.  Forestry and biomass harvesting in New Hampshire is guided by voluntary acceptance of the best management practices indicated in Good Forestry in the Granite State.

2. The current restrictions only target soil nutrient concerns and neglect other ecological values of concern.  Solution:  Protect the full suite of ecological values and what is most threatened in the most critical time periods.

The concern over increased biomass harvesting encompasses standing dead and dying material as well as lying dead wood; effective retention guidelines would cover both categories.  The Massachusetts approach only attempts to cover the lying dead wood component in an attempt to address a potential soil nutrient problem.  But the best science indicates that on most sites if biomass removals were to cause a problem it would not be realized for a number of rotations, meaning we would have 100-500 years before there were accountable effects on forest productivity.  Since our forest soils are the foundation of forest ecosystems this problem should be taken very seriously and addressed with reasonable retention guidelines.  But, in the case of soils, we do have some time to increase our scientific understanding of the problem and take adaptive actions.  

It would seem more prudent to also focus the restrictions on the existing amounts of standing dead and dying material in the forest that are now providing wildlife and biodiversity habitat because these ecological values could be eliminated immediately with a poorly designed harvest.  The Forest Guild Retention and Harvesting Guidelines suggest target numbers of trees that should be retained on all harvests.

3. The current restrictions do not provide for full eligibility for biomass derived from examples of excellent forestry.  Solution: Provide full eligibility for carbon friendly timber stand improvement harvests.

The current regulation provides for biomass eligibility for all sorts of un-ecological and carbon negative harvests but denies eligibility for the most ecologically sound forestry practices.  For example, all the sawtimber can be removed in a high grade or clearcut and on good sites all the tops and slash are eligible under the weight requirements. Or we can clearcut for a housing development and get RECs for the biomass. But the biomass from a timber stand improvement operation or intermediate thinning that harvests none or very little sawtimber is not fully eligible because it is almost all biomass by weight and can’t meet the percentage requirements.  This is ironic because these improvement harvests are carbon friendly.  They retain high stocking of carbon, enhance the value of the timber crop and the quantity of timber products that can offset carbon intensive products.  In addition they provide many landowners with extra income and an earlier start date on revenue streams essential to maintaining their forests as forests.    

Fortunately, if Massachusetts is going to stick to its fundamentally flawed accounting approach, this perverse roadblock for timber stand improvements can be addressed through the accounting procedures.  Since the objective is to leave adequate amounts of tops and slash this should apply to timber stand improvement operations as well as mixed sawtimber and improvement operations.  We can rectify the accounting problems by accounting for the non sawtimber trees and sawtimber sized trees independently of each other.

Sawtimber:  The total sawtimber is calculated by weight and the allowable weight of eligible biomass is factored out according to the soil specifications chart already provided.  If we wanted to leave 50% of the tops on this site then 15% of the weight in this category would be eligible. (15% by weight would be the tops we hope would be left in the woods and 70% of the weight is coming out in sawtimber form.)

Non sawtimber trees:   The remaining live trees not useable as sawtimber and destined for a biomass market are tallied separately.  If we wanted to also leave 50% of the tops of these trees on the site 85% of the weight would be eligible for RECs. (the 15% by weight not eligible would be the tops left in the woods) The combined eligible weight from the two categories would give us the total eligible weight for the harvest and the remainder would equal the equivalent of 50% of tops left in the woods.  As we noted earlier we all hope the tops and slash will be left in the woods but under the current regulation there is no assurance they won’t come out and sold into a non REC market.

The concern over the longer carbon debt and payback periods for live trees may have tainted the development of these restrictions to the point where legitimate examples of excellent forestry are only partially eligible.  However, the debt and payback periods and carbon friendliness of harvests are accounted for in the portions of the regulations that deal with efficiency and life cycle reporting requirements.  The carbon payback period should not be of concern here and since it is quite easy to account for adequate top retention of non sawtimber trees there is no reason that timber stand improvement operations should not be fully eligible for RECs.

4. The current restrictions ultimately rely on the honesty, trust and professionalism of licensed or certified foresters.  Solution:  Acknowledge this as the foundation of the current approach and use that foundation to design an alternative approach that actually meets our ecological goals without the administrative overhead.

The current approach gathers a lot of data and produces a number of reports that tend to obscure the fact that the entire verification system hinges upon the forester reporting accurate numbers for the total harvest.  The eligible biomass totals that would receive RECs and the hoped for amount left in the woods are both calculated from the total volume. In practice the forester can report any volume and it will not be easy or feasible to verify those amounts.  Essentially it all comes back to the forester.  This is not an approach that provides the kind of iron clad accountability that seems to be objective of policy makers.  A blizzard of numbers and paperwork do not change that fact that the primary accountability over what is retained in the woods lies in the hands of the professional forester.  

If this is the case then let’s imagine other more effective ways of protecting the ecological values of the forest by relying on the professionalism of foresters.

Replacing the current approach

We can keep it simple and get the same accountability while we protect a broader and more threatened suite of ecological values. Massachusetts could produce an updated version of the Forest Guild Retention and Harvesting Guidelines tailored to the specific needs of Massachusetts REC eligibility.  The current version of the regulations makes a good start by inserting soil type retention requirements.   Complete the process and use those revised, tailored guidelines for REC eligibility.  Require that the forester certify that the harvest will follow the guidelines. Leave some room in the process for flexibility and foresters to describe any deviation or alteration from the guidelines.  This is not an iron clad guarantee that every harvest will be perfect, but it is no less of a guarantee then the currently proposed regulations.  Furthermore, it is well directed toward the actual retention goal, covers all the ecological concerns regarding biomass harvest and is a scientifically validated approach that does not overburden the system with paperwork. The State can monitor the results and perform selective sampling to gauge whether we are on the right track and make adjustments to the requirements as needed.  

Additional thoughts on fixing the current approach

Achieving more precise retention targets

The Forest Guild guidelines pointed out that retention needs vary by soil types, intensity of harvest and frequency of harvest. The MA regulations only deal with the soil types.  The variable relating to the frequency of harvest is problematic to regulate because it is mostly forward looking.   The goal should be to get foresters thinking about the frequency and plan retention accordingly.  They could report when they expect the next harvest, but this is a very soft number.

However, the intensity variable is easy to accommodate.  Some appropriate residual stocking level is identified. All harvests that leave more are considered light thinnings with plenty of residual material left standing to replenish lying woody debris and can probably be accommodated with modest retention requirements and reporting with no fear of immediate soil problems.  Any harvest moving the residual stocking level below some threshold is a heavier cut, leaves less residual standing stock and is of immediate concern.  This should trigger adequate retention requirements integrated with requirements for the soil types extant on the site.   These sites would come under closer scrutiny, reporting and monitoring.  This approach would also overcome the perverse obstacles the current regulations present for timber stand improvement operations that involve little or no sawtimber by total weight.  Adjusting retention levels to harvest intensity might also obviate the need for the change to the accounting system suggested in #3