Biomass in Oregon: Think 'farmers market of the energy sector'

By Guest Columnist


By Greg Blair and Wade Mosby

Much as our local farmers markets in Oregon provide local products, biomass facilities in Oregon use local products, too, converting them into energy that powers our homes and businesses.

This helps Oregon import fewer fossil fuels for energy, which most scientists stress is crucial for reducing pollution and promoting clean air. Also similar to vendors at a farmers market, most of Oregon's 16 biomass facilities are "mom-and-pop" operations: small but hearty local businesses providing local power and local jobs.

We are constantly surprised and puzzled by people in Oregon and elsewhere who attack biomass. Most of them don't understand our industry. But the science behind it speaks for itself. Virtually every study we have seen that has measured the carbon profile of waste wood -- as opposed to whole trees or forests -- has found biomass carbon emissions negligible, even going so far as to deem biomass "carbon neutral."

Just this summer, University of Washington environmental scientist Bruce Lippke released a study concluding that biomass releases only 4 percent of the emissions released by coal. This study looked comprehensively at carbon inputs and outputs resulting from biomass energy production, and found biomass "better than carbon neutral."

The materials used in biomass would not otherwise be utilized. They would decompose on forest floors where they would serve as fuel for the next forest fire, or they would rot in landfills, or they would be piled and burned. Each of these alternatives would release the ozone-harming methane gas that biomass facilities trap and contain. Carbon released from biomass energy production is easily and quickly reabsorbed by forests, completing the carbon cycle.

Meanwhile, while we are bickering about carbon profiles, biomass in Europe -- a far more environmentally conscious society -- is gaining in popularity and enjoying wide support from the public and government alike. It's time to clear up a few myths about the biomass industry here in Oregon. We do not contribute to pollution. We do not overharvest our national forests. We do not contribute to deforestation.

The facts are that our often-misunderstood industry is undeniably preferable to the use of fossil fuels for energy. We use wood materials that would be otherwise wasted to provide clean, renewable, "local" energy for Oregonians. We employ hundreds of Oregonians directly, and we support dozens of businesses statewide by purchasing unwanted wood waste and collecting slash from logging operations.

An effective energy program should responsibly utilize all sources of energy that we have at our disposal. Limiting or eradicating biomass because we are measuring its carbon profile inaccurately would be a huge mistake costing hundreds of jobs and an increase in fossil fuel use.

There's no reason that biomass and environmental advocates can't coexist peacefully. In fact, the two should be a natural partnership.

Greg Blair is the managing general partner at Biomass One in White City. Wade Mosby is senior vice president at the Collins Cos. in Portland.

Congress must maintain forest conservation

From the Statesman Journal

Written by

Clint Bentz

Along with Oregon's other 141,000 family forest owners, I am proud that my woodland property provides my community with clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and forest products.

Most people think the federal government or big industry owns most of America's forests; but in fact, most of the nation's forests are cared for by people like me.

Family forest owners know the threat to our land is real and growing every day. Invasive plants and pests, severe weather, loss of markets and development pressures are constant challenges. They threaten the livelihoods of many who rely on good paying rural jobs in forest communities. In Oregon, $4.1 billion of the state's economy comes from forests and related industries.

Because private forests provide such important economic and conservation benefits, it's important that there be tools available to woodland owners like me to combat threats and improve our forest stewardship. These programs help us remove diseased trees, protect streamside areas or create wildlife habitat. USDA Farm Bill conservation programs provide essential tools that forest owners use to match our dollars and sweat equity to keep our forests healthy and productive.

Congress is deciding the fate of these USDA Farm Bill conservation programs right now. Some of the federal deficit reductions are likely to come from conservation programs that help family forest owners. I realize that we can't be immune to what needs to be done to get the deficit down. It's important, though, to be sure that conservation programs don't take an unfair hit at the chopping block.
Rep. Kurt Schrader and others in the Oregon delegation have long been champions for family forest owners in Congress. Mr. Schrader is uniquely positioned, given his seat on the Agriculture Committee, to continue to fight this fight. We're glad to have a strong leader positioned to help ensure that forest conservation programs do not take disproportionate cuts in the budget process.

Comprising only a small percent of total Farm Bill funds, conservation programs are a great deal for Americans because they are so effective in ensuring the clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat and good paying jobs our forests produce. Maintaining these opportunities for forest owners in the Farm Bill is essential to preserve America's forest heritage. And that benefits all of us.

Clint Bentz of Scio is a second-generation Oregon family forestland owner and the chairman of the American Forest Foundation, the nation's oldest and largest family forestland conservation organization. He can be reached at (541) 928-6500 or cbentz@bcsllc.com.

Using Oregon's forests for bioenergy production has a down side: increased carbon emissions

By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian

View full size 

Matthew Preusch/The OregonainWood chips are piled next to a biomass burner at the D.R. Johnson Company's Prairie City power plant.

 

Oregon's blue-sky thinking on alternative energy envisions the state's forests as a terrific source of biomass. Woody debris from thinning, brush clearing and removing dead trees could generate electricity, heat manufacturing plants and be turned into biofuels.

 

Better yet, the thinking goes, such work could restore forest health and provide jobs in rural communities in addition to helping the state meet its renewable energy goals. The Oregon Forest Resources Institute calls it the "woody biomass triple win."

 

Researchers at Oregon State University rain on that notion.

 

In a four-year study OSU describes as the largest and most comprehensive to date, researchers say managing the forests for biofuel production will increase carbon dioxide emissions from the forests by at least 14 percent.

 

"Most people assume that wood bioenergy will be carbon-neutral, because the forest re-grows and there's also the chance of protecting forests from carbon emissions due to wildfire," researcher Tara Hudiburg  said in an OSU news release. But the study shows removing forest debris for bioenergy use will release more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than current practices burning it or leaving it in place, she said.

 

The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, involved 80 types of forests in 19 regions of Oregon, Washington and California, ranging from wet coastal forests to semi-arid woodlands.

 

Hudiburg and OSU forestry professor Beverly Law, co-author of the report, said the implications of managing forests for energy production have not been fully considered. "If our ultimate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, producing bioenergy from forests will be counterproductive," Law said in the news release.

 

Others believe the researchers examined the issue from too narrow a view.

 

Paul Barnum, executive director of the forest research institute, said Oregon's dry eastern forests have "unnaturally high levels of biomass" that can be used to generate electricity and heat.

 

"If we don't actively manage these forests, we run the risk of catastrophic wildfire" that would be disastrous to wildlife, water quality and buildings, he said in an email.

 

Norm Johnson, also a forestry professor at Oregon State, is a biomass supporter. Burning wood doesn't produce energy as efficiently as burning fossil fuels. But new tree growth will recapture the excess carbon emissions from biomass over time, he said.

 

"In the long run, it's better" than burning fossil fuels, Johnson said. "In the short run, yes, we'd probably conclude it's not as efficient."

 

At this point, Oregon burns "slash," mainly branches and tree tops, left over from logging to reduce fire risk. Using it to produce energy in place of fossil fuels is a better alternative for the environment, Johnson said.

 

The idea has bipartisan political backing in Oregon and nationally. Gov. John Kitzhaber, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., are among its strong supporters.

 

Oregon treats biomass as renewable power, the same as solar and wind, when it comes to meeting green power generation requirements. Oregon and the federal government also subsidize forest biomass energy projects.

 

Kitzhaber remains committed to developing biomass energy for the wide range of benefits it provides, said Tim Raphael, the governor's communications director.

 

Rural economic development, forest health, reducing the use of fossil fuels and even international energy security are among the factors, Raphael said.

 

"That's really the filter that we've looked at it through, and I'm not sure that was the filter of the study," he said.

 

"I don't know much about producing jobs, habitat restoration or wildlife restoration -- I know a lot about carbon," Hudiburg responded in a telephone interview. "If your goal is reduce carbon emissions, then it will not help. But if you have other goals, then yes, maybe."

 

"It's never going to be a win-win situation for everything," she said.

--Eric Mortenson

Ninth Circuit decision further hamstrings Oregon's economy

By Arnie Roblan and Bruce Hanna Guest Columnists

The Oregonian reported on a decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that overturns 35 years of established Environmental Protection Agency policy for regulating forest roads under the Clean Water Act ("Oregon will appeal ruling aimed at curbing logging road pollution," July 25). This court case decision creates immediate problems for Oregon's timber economy – problems which our state simply cannot afford.

As Co-Speakers of the Oregon House, we know that Oregon has a rich history of responsible use of its natural resources, and has in place a strong regulatory system through the Oregon Forest Practices Act and various administrative rules. In Oregon, we have a very successful track record of protecting water quality and aquatic habitat. These "Best Management Practices" are updated regularly and strengthened in  response to new scientific research. We take great pride in the way private landowners and foresters are protecting our state's natural resources.

The 9th Circuit court decision would put new burdens on both the small and large owners of Oregon's 11 million acres of private forestlands. The forest products industry is a vital part of Oregon's economic survival. With unemployment lingering close to ten percent statewide, and up in to the teens in our forestry-dependent counties, the threats presented by the 9th Circuit Court's short-sighted opinion will only further depress economic recovery.

The Court's decision potentially creates legal paralysis threatening 120,000 forest related jobs (with payroll totaling $4 billion) and $130 million in state income and severance tax revenues that pay for vital public services. The new court ruling will not achieve its intended environmental benefits. The uncertainty could force some forest landowners to convert their forests to other uses, like commercial or residential developments. And perhaps most importantly, if this decision stands, Oregon's forestry industries and those employed by it will lose market share to competitors overseas or in other regions of the country who are not subject to these burdensome permit requirements and their resulting legal exposure.

We cannot imagine a worse time to implement unnecessary and bureaucratic regulations on such a critical contributor to our state's economy. Senator Ron Wyden and Congressmen Kurt Schrader and Greg Walden have stepped up for Oregon and introduced federal legislation aimed at correcting this flawed court decision. Their legislation will restore the long-standing, sensible, state oversight that has encouraged sound stewardship and provided good jobs and clean water for Oregonians.

It is our hope that Congress will pass this legislation, and that the Obama administration will work with Congress to protect much needed jobs in our state.

Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, and Bruce Hanna, R-Roseburg, are co-speakers of the Oregon House of Representatives.

Are the Moon and the Stars aligned?

To date President Obama and Congress have shown a distinct inability for accomplishing anything that would help the economy and generate jobs.  However, in these bleakest of economic times, could restoring scientifically sound forest management to our publically-owned forests be a possibility over twenty years after the Northern Spotted Owl was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act leading to the destruction of rural communities in Oregon, Washington and Northern California

The recent release of the NSO Recovery Plan and Critical Habitat may provide a line that allows us to move on.  In 1973, world-renowned spotted owl biologist Eric Forsman estimated that there were only 25 spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest.  After the owl was listed in 1990, estimates ranged from 10,000 pairs in Oregon, Washington and Northern California.

Now, after reducing timber harvests by over 90% from our federal forests, Northern Spotted Owl numbers are declining, not from logging, but because the larger, more aggressive Bared Owl is taking over Northern Spotted Owl habitat.

Ok, back to possible alignment of the Moon and the Stars.  Oregon Congressman Greg Walden, R-Hood River, told the membership of the Oregon Forest Industries Council that maybe, just maybe, Congress will return forest management for to produce economic activity and to restore the health of hundreds of thousands of acres of federal forests that are in a condition which makes them vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire.

Congressman Walden recently put a placeholder in a piece of legislation as he works to generate widespread support for his idea.  Since the Debt Crisis, Walden has been ready to add federal forest management language to any Congressional vehicle that is moving.

Would President Obama also support restoring forest management activities knowing that timber sales return millions to the federal treasury and to ailing rural counties.  Not to mention the 18 jobs every 1 Million Board Feet harvested generate for loggers, mill workers, grocery clerks and schoolteachers.

Many have tried in the past, but failed.  In fact, a former Congressman said the timber issue was the “worst issue” he had to deal with.  While Congress has to deal with abortion, stem-cell research and world peace, how could this be?  Well those critical matters are either black or white, for or against.  The forest/timber wars are grey, elected officials can’t be for or against; they have to carve out a position somewhere in the middle.

Here’s hoping the economy, celestial alignment, or the President’s desire for reelection will lead to putting forest management back into our federal forests.

EPA signs off on new Oregon water quality rules -- strictest in the nation

Published: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 1:23 PM     Updated: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 1:38 PM

By Scott Learn, The Oregonian

View full sizeJamie Francis, The OregonianThe Environmental Protection Agency has added the Columbia River to its list of priority great water bodies, in large part because of toxic pollution. Pollutants of concern include mercury, the now-banned pesticide DDT and fire retardants released to the river from sewage treatment plants.

The Environmental Protection Agency has approved Oregon's new standards for toxic water pollution, the strictest in the United States.

The new standards, approved Monday by the EPA's Seattle office, are designed to protect tribal members and others who eat large amounts of contaminated fish.

Oregon's current water quality standards are built on an assumption that people eat 17.5 grams of fish a day, about a cracker's worth and typical of most states. The proposed standard boosts that to 175 grams a day, just shy of an 8-ounce meal.

The change dramatically tightens Oregon's human health criteria for a host of pollutants, including mercury, flame retardants, PCBs, dioxins, plasticizers and pesticides.

That could boost cost for industry such as paper mills and for municipal sewage treatment plants, increasing sewer rates.

It could also lower the health risks for those who eat a lot of local fish -- an estimated 100,000 Oregonians, including 20,000 children, according to a committee set up to consider the health effects of the new standard.

The Department of Environmental Quality, which will implement the new standards, has said waivers will be available for industry and treatment plants that can't meet them right away.

EPA endorsed DEQ's approach on variances, but said it will review each variance request. Polluters getting variances will also have to submit a pollution reduction plan.

DEQ has assured farmers and foresters -- and concerned legislators -- that it will continue to allow the departments of agriculture and forestry to take the lead on enforcement of water quality violations for polluted runoff from farms and forests.

The concessions worry environmental groups, who say the new rules could end up being a paper exercise.

But EPA declined to weigh in on regulation of farm and forest pollution, saying it's a state matter.

The agency also said it understands reaching the tough new standards won't happen overnight.

"The EPA understands that the implementation of these standards is on a long-term path," wrote Michael Bussell, director of the EPA's Office of Water and Watersheds in Seattle.

Processing variance requests and addressing other issues arising from the more stringent standards is "a high priority," Bussell said.

The standards take effect immediately, DEQ said, but will only be applied as water pollution permits come up for renewal.

-- Scott Learn

Spotted owl advocates pipe up over Whistling Ridge wind farm proposal

From Bill Dryden <billdryden.fra@gmail.com>:

Oct 06, 2011 (The Columbian - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- 

Five conservation groups have asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to formally reconsider its finding that a proposed wind project in Skamania County would not harm the northern spotted owl. In a letter to the agency sent Wednesday, the groups cite a biologist's report that nine owl sightings near the proposed wind turbine sites were documented in surveys last year.

Washington's Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council is scheduled to announce its recommendation on the controversial wind project at a special meeting in Stevenson on Thursday. The meeting is scheduled for 2 to 6 p.m. at the Hegewald Center. The agency has not released a final environmental impact statement, and no testimony will be taken.

Gov. Chris Gregoire will have the final say on whether the wind project goes forward. She has 60 days to announce her decision.

The Whistling Ridge project, first proposed by SDS Lumber Co. of Bingen in 2008, would erect as many as 50 turbines on 1,152 acres of industrial forestland owned by the company in Skamania County, just outside the north boundary of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, about seven miles northwest of White Salmon. The southernmost turbines would be located just north of the scenic area boundary.

The project would generate 75 megawatts of electricity.

SDS President Jason Spadaro initially hoped to expand the wind farm to the north by leasing 2,560 acres of adjacent state forest trust land. But in August 2009, the Department of Natural Resources announced it was no longer considering leasing the land because it was required to manage the stands of mixed old growth and second-growth forest as a "spotted owl emphasis area," with restrictions on logging.

In July 2010, Ken Berg, director of the service's Western Washington office, concurred with the Bonneville Power Administration's conclusion that the project "is not likely to affect" the owl. In order for the project to go forward, SDS Lumber must also win agreement from the BPA that it will connect energy produced by the wind turbines to its electrical grid.

Because the BPA is a federal agency, it is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service before taking any action that might harm a threatened or endangered species.

Wednesday's letter was signed by Seattle Audubon, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Conservation Northwest, the American Bird Conservancy and the Gifford Pinchot Task Force. It said the Fish and Wildlife Service made "multiple factual errors" in its earlier finding.

Among them: The agency implied that the owl documented in 2010 in the vicinity of the project was detected only three times. In fact, conservationists say, the owl, likely the same male adult, was documented at nine distinct locations, indicating that it was actively moving around the site of the proposed wind farm and might attempt to fly through it.

The agency also misstated how close the owl flew to the proposed site of the northernmost turbines and erroneously concluded that the area does not contain suitable spotted owl habitat, conservationists said. In fact, they said, the site contains a patchwork of stands, including some more than 80 years old, that can support foraging owls. They noted that the DNR itself stated in formal comments that "this project may interfere with a spotted owl's ability to disperse" from two designated owl circles on state land.

A revised recovery plan for the owl, issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service in June, recommends that in the face of its continued decline, state and private lands must play a larger role in its recovery.
Fish and Wildlife officials said Thursday afternoon they had not yet seen the letter and could not respond.

Kathie Durbin: 360-735-4523; Twitter: col_politics; kathie.durbin@columbian.com.
.

___ (c)2011 The Columbian (Vancouver, Wash.) Visit The Columbian (Vancouver,
Wash.) at www.columbian.com Distributed by MCT Information Services

Kathie Durbin
Copyright (C) 2011, The Columbian, Vancouver, Wash.