4 min read

State Guidelines for Biomass Harvesting

State Guidelines for Biomass Harvesting

A handful of states have their own biomass harvesting guidelines. It is no surprise that Maine, Wisconsin and Minnesota are on the list of states that do, considering the fact that these states have high levels of certification and best management practice compliance. Also making the list are Pennsylvania and Missouri. The following table outlines the guidelines for these states:

states with biomassharvesting guidelines

As the above table shows, some states are more prescriptive in nature than others, indicating specific amounts of biomass that should be left on harvested tracts. Others, like Maine, have taken a different approach. Maine's guidelines provide timberland owners with the information they need to make informed decisions about biomass retention. Because the actual numbers may vary by tract, Maine recommends its guidelines be used as follows:

"The guidelines are intended to be adapted and incorporated into site-specific silvicultural prescriptions developed by a licensed forester. Implementation of the guidelines will rely on the professional judgment, knowledge, and skill of the logger conducting the harvest operation and they are intended to inform the landowners’ decision-making as they review the forester’s prescription. Pre-harvest planning among all three parties is an important part of the process. The recommendations in this report are intended to be used by loggers, foresters, and landowners in this context."

Compare these harvest guidelines to those recently released by the Forest Guildfor the US South. In many cases, the harvesting guidelines in the northern states require more material be left post-harvest than those in the South. In general, Minnesota and Wisconsin all require that significantly more harvest residuals be left in all categories of biomass.

Differences between species, rotation ages, soil quality and terrain all contribute to the amount of biomass the experts recommend be left in a forest after harvest. As Maine's guidelines suggest, biomass retention should be an integral part of a landowner's forest and harvest management plans.

Whether you're from the North, the South or the Northwest, if you have specific examples of how these characteristics help foresters quantify biomass harvest guidelines, share them with our readers in the comments section.

Note: This post has been revised from an earlier version, based on additional information from Jeffrey Benjamin at the University of Maine, one of the authors of Maine's biomass harvesting guidelines.


Comments

Forest Guild Report on Biomass Retention and Harve

04-12-2012

[...] In an effort to “identify how expanding markets for bioenergy can enhance forests while meeting the social and economic needs of society,” the Forest Guild Southeast Biomass Working Group recently published Forest Biomass Retention and Harvesting Guidelines for the Southeast. For this publication, the Guild investigated best practices for four types of Southeast forests: Southern Appalachian hardwoods, Upland hardwoods and Mixed pine–hardwoods, Bottomland hardwoods  and Piedmont and Coastal Plain pinelands. (Read our post outlining state level harvesting guidelines in the US.) [...]


Comments

Dennis Hazel

04-13-2012

We have just posted this pub on our Biomass website for NCSU Extension Forestry:

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/forestry/biomass/pubs/RB0001.pdf


Comments

Steve Webster, Ph D

04-17-2012

The NCSU Extension Forestry publication mentioned by Dennis Hazel states “The total amount of biomass that may be sustainably harvested is unknown”, which is correct. Dead on.  Never-the-less, the Forest Guild, many states, and many other “natural resources professionals and environmental experts” are frantically developing guidelines, which invariable become regulations, based on “gut feel” and very little science,  restricting harvesting decisions for privately-owned forestland.  Suz-Anne Kinney’s article on the newly issued Forest Guild guidelines for biomass removals begins by stating “For foresters and landowners, one of the top concerns about the rise of the wood bioenergy industry over the last five years has been the effect of biomass removal on the health of the forest.”  What total rubbish.  The paranoia about biomass removal is not coming from landowners or the forestry community.  It is coming from those segments of our society that view all forests as public domain, and within the rights of the public to design management strategies for privately-owned forests, as well as publicly-owned.  Foresters and landowners want knowledge, not regulations, based on peer-reviewed research on forest nutrient cycling and soil organic matter dynamics, which are at the heart of long-term forest productivity.  I am a forester, a forest soil scientist and tree farmer.  I want the knowledge necessary to make my own decisions about the health and productivity of my tree farm.  I bloody-well don’t want others making those decisions for me.


Comments

Ann Jones

04-17-2012

Dr. Webster:  You are entirely correct.  Too much government in too many places.


Comments

Suz-Anne Kinney

04-19-2012

At Forest2Market, we spend a lot of time advocating for forest landowners and providing them with access to research and information about managing their forests for timber production. Your comment points out just how important it is for landowners to have 1) fact-based knowledge about research on forest management, 2) an understanding of what is going on at both the federal and state level that may affect their ability to remain in control of their own management decisions.

Forest2Market covers these types of reports not because we believe they should be regulations instead of guidelines (quite the contrary, in fact). Here’s our rationale.

Not every timberland owner is a forester or forest soil scientist. Most cannot afford to hire this type of expert to help them run through the ramifications of new developments and modify their management plans. In our view, these types of guidelines are helpful information for forest owners who don’t have the kind of background and knowledge that others, like you, have.

We are also concerned that without reports like these, policy makers will make decisions affecting privately owned forests in a vacuum, without input from landowners and industry professionals. By disseminating information about these reports, Forest2Market is simply providing landowners with an opportunity to evaluate them on their own—as you have—and to then get involved in any legislative process that may arise so that they may impact the outcome as they see fit.

Our view is that new guidelines should follow Maine’s example. Not only do they avoid setting specific limits, which are easier targets for legislators, but their process included the analysis of 170+ sources, the majority of them published in peer-reviewed journals.


Comments

Dan Rider

04-23-2012

Maryland tackled this by developing a roster of BMPs for biomass harvesting that are land-based. In other words, we don’t “tell” the landowner or the harvester what he can cut or not cut, but rather we provide the tools needed for the manager to make site specific decisions. Part of our toolbox is a map that shows low-risk and high risk areas, and provide guidelines for planning a harvest based on those risk factors. Decide for yourself if we hit the mark.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/pdfs/MDBiomassGuidelines.pdf