Harvesting Woody Biomass in Kentucky – results of this summers biomass workshops. August 12, 2011
Three biomass harvesting workshops conducted by the UK Department of Forestry Extension in July attracted over 300 participants. Results of participant surveys and input from logging and woodland owner focus groups participating at the meeting provided valuable insight into how a woody biomass market and its harvesting are viewed by woodland owners and what opportunities and impediments exist for loggers.
Woodland Owners Sixty-five percent of woodland owners indicated that they thought that woody biomass harvesting might be in their future. Only 8.9 percent indicated that in no way, shape, or form would they allow the harvesting of biomass from their woodlands. Woodland owners clearly understood that woody biomass is a high volume product with little margin associated with its harvesting and transportation and therefore cannot be viewed as huge moneymaker. This was news to many woodland owners participating. However, it was also clear that a woody biomass market would provide opportunities for some low quality woods to be regenerated and/or improved commercially whereas only the availability of a government program would allow for this to occur now. Woodland owners also realized that the use of proper harvesting guidelines for woody biomass is important to maintain the health and productivity of their woods. These guidelines are currently under development by a committee developed by the Kentucky Division of Forestry.
Loggers While less than 10 percent of the loggers present were currently harvesting biomass approximately 60 percent thought that it might be in their future. When asked to rank a set of factors that might affect their interest in biomass harvesting the results was as follows: market prices and stability was their top concern followed closely by equipment cost. Government programs, loans, and workers compensation insurance were significantly less important.
Where Do We Go From Here? While woody biomass initiatives have not developed as quickly as many thought they might, there are some developments in Kentucky. The wood burning facility that is developing steam for industrial use in Louisville is under construction and will provide an opportunity for a few loggers. There is currently some biomass chipping going on for limited markets in the northeast and limited markets in western and west-central Kentucky. EcoPower’s initiative in Hazard Kentucky is still proposed and they are working hard to get agreements in place that will allow them to proceed with development. Their current timeline is wood procurement in 2012/13. But that egg has not yet hatched. When it does it will definitely provide and opportunity for loggers to bring in round wood (with similar specifications as pulpwood) to the facility. The plans are that most loggers would not have to have in-woods chippers.
The loggers that will be most able to respond to woody biomass markets are those that are able to skid whole trees and process small diameter wood like pulpwood. This requires mechanized harvesting, grapple skidding or forwarding, and mechanized delimbing. This can and has been done in steep terrain, but there will minimum acreage requirements that will be dictated by terrain and location that may limit some woodland owners from benefiting from a woody biomass market. Further haul distances will be critical. Haul distances from the woods will probably remain in the 50 or 60 mile range and will probably be relegated to high capacity hauling with 18 wheelers.
So we are still generally in a holding pattern. BCAP rules for woody biomass have still not come out and no large scale woody biomass initiatives have developed. Regardless, the potential is still there and loggers and woodland owners should stay tuned for developments over the next 1 to 3 years.
This is the blog* of the University of Kentucky Department of Forestry Extension group.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
EPA – Haul Road Ruling Clarification - Sort Of. August 11, 2011
Clarifications have begun to emerge relative to the recent decision in the NEDC vs. Brown case by the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals (Ninth) removing the silvicultural exemption from the Clean Water Act associated with constructed logging roads in this region. This ruling opened up the possibility of classifying forest roads (as generally defined as constructed harvesting roads that collect storm water runoff, channel it, and deliver it directly or indirectly to streams and rivers) as a point source of pollution nationwide, thus requiring permitting (general or otherwise).
In May, 44 members of congress submitted a letter to Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator indicating their concern over the ruling, how the EPA may respond, and requesting that the EPA reaffirms that the BMP approach to managing runoff from responsible forest management is the appropriate response to take in lieu of the Ninths ruling (Kurt Schrader_Letter to EPA).
EPA’s response dated July 1, (EPA_Response Letter) while not directly reaffirming the BMP approach as a blanket response dealing with forest management runoff it did so indirectly and did provide some clarification on the definition of forest roads that was encompassed by the Ninth’s ruling. The latter was helpful for Kentucky. The EPA indicated that the ruling pertained to constructed logging roads that intentionally diverted muddy water runoff into ditches, channels and culverts that directly flowed into waters (streams, rivers, etc.). Further the EPA acknowledged that forest road standards (BMPs) that provided for stormwater flow diversion onto porous forest soils for infiltration so they do not flow into waters were not covered by the Ninth’s ruling. Further the EPA indicated that if logging roads were properly located, designed and maintained to meet the criteria provided above they would not fall under NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permitting jurisdiction.
So What? This indicates that Kentucky’s current Forestry BMP minimum criteria and recommendations, if adhered to would allow forest and logging road construction and use (under most common circumstances) to be undertaken without permitting (NPDES). It is critical that in all materials, including educational and administrative products, clear wording indicates the need for construction, maintenance and use of forest and logging roads to provide for water control that results in the deposition of stormwater runoff onto porous soils including forest soils and avoids delivery of stormwater runoff directly or indirectly (i.e. through a ditches or ephemeral channels) into waters (streams, rivers, etc.). Surface water occurring from seeps and springs that naturally flow into other waters can and certainly should be allowed to continue to drain directly into streams and other waters and provisions should be used allow for proper crossing of these surface flows. Logic would indicate that we continue to stress this in KML logger education and training and in KFCA timber harvesting inspections.
There may be other ramifications of this ruling that will emerge both within the Ninth’s region and beyond. It certainly would be prudent to ensure that in Kentucky we are developing and maintaining proper BMP use and keep abreast of information coming from EPA either directly through policy change or indirectly through changes in regulatory response.
Clarifications have begun to emerge relative to the recent decision in the NEDC vs. Brown case by the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals (Ninth) removing the silvicultural exemption from the Clean Water Act associated with constructed logging roads in this region. This ruling opened up the possibility of classifying forest roads (as generally defined as constructed harvesting roads that collect storm water runoff, channel it, and deliver it directly or indirectly to streams and rivers) as a point source of pollution nationwide, thus requiring permitting (general or otherwise).
In May, 44 members of congress submitted a letter to Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator indicating their concern over the ruling, how the EPA may respond, and requesting that the EPA reaffirms that the BMP approach to managing runoff from responsible forest management is the appropriate response to take in lieu of the Ninths ruling (Kurt Schrader_Letter to EPA).
EPA’s response dated July 1, (EPA_Response Letter) while not directly reaffirming the BMP approach as a blanket response dealing with forest management runoff it did so indirectly and did provide some clarification on the definition of forest roads that was encompassed by the Ninth’s ruling. The latter was helpful for Kentucky. The EPA indicated that the ruling pertained to constructed logging roads that intentionally diverted muddy water runoff into ditches, channels and culverts that directly flowed into waters (streams, rivers, etc.). Further the EPA acknowledged that forest road standards (BMPs) that provided for stormwater flow diversion onto porous forest soils for infiltration so they do not flow into waters were not covered by the Ninth’s ruling. Further the EPA indicated that if logging roads were properly located, designed and maintained to meet the criteria provided above they would not fall under NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permitting jurisdiction.
So What? This indicates that Kentucky’s current Forestry BMP minimum criteria and recommendations, if adhered to would allow forest and logging road construction and use (under most common circumstances) to be undertaken without permitting (NPDES). It is critical that in all materials, including educational and administrative products, clear wording indicates the need for construction, maintenance and use of forest and logging roads to provide for water control that results in the deposition of stormwater runoff onto porous soils including forest soils and avoids delivery of stormwater runoff directly or indirectly (i.e. through a ditches or ephemeral channels) into waters (streams, rivers, etc.). Surface water occurring from seeps and springs that naturally flow into other waters can and certainly should be allowed to continue to drain directly into streams and other waters and provisions should be used allow for proper crossing of these surface flows. Logic would indicate that we continue to stress this in KML logger education and training and in KFCA timber harvesting inspections.
There may be other ramifications of this ruling that will emerge both within the Ninth’s region and beyond. It certainly would be prudent to ensure that in Kentucky we are developing and maintaining proper BMP use and keep abreast of information coming from EPA either directly through policy change or indirectly through changes in regulatory response.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
KY Forestry and Water Quality Permits?
Kentucky Loggers and Woodland Owners Can You Say "Permit"?
May 11, 2011
Background
The recent decision in the NEDC vs. Brown by the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals (Court) has been widely distributed throughout the forestry community in the U.S. It functionally removes the silvicultural exemption from the Clean Water Act (CWA) and determines that forest roads that collect storm water runoff, channel it, and deliver it directly or indirectly to streams and rivers are a point source of pollution. This requires that logging operations that contain forest roads (see Kentucky Situation below) would be required to have a discharge permit. However, additional judges on the Court will be hearing (rehearing) this case and until that time the ruling will not take effect. Of course the Ninth District Court does not cover KY. However, the EPA has indicated that if the appeal is denied it will have far reaching effects. Reading between the lines, silvicultural activities or at least activities that create and/or use forest roads would potentially be required to have a discharge permit nationwide. While this clearly impacts logging it could also be interpreted to include woodland owners that have woods roads.
There are several means by which this permitting can be achieved. This includes a general permit that is developed by the state requiring the use of specific practices or requirements and this is probalby how this permitting would be handled. Until the general permit has been developed or if it is not handled this way each logger would need to obtain a permit for each logging job what would construct roads that would potentially impact water. The same could potentially be true for woodland owners. In either case the States water quality agency, in Kentucky the Kentucky Division of Water, would have jurisdiction over forest road issues.
Kentucky's Situation - Loggers and Woodland OwnersTo truly understand the potential impact of this ruling on Kentucky logging the definition of forest road should be understood. In Kentucky we differentiate between a haul road and skid trail. However, in situations where the skid trails are constructed with a dozer by cutting into a side slope, or where an old retired woods road is used as a skid trail or haul road these situations would be classified as a forest road by northwest standards (which is where the Ninth Circuit Court is located). Further it is not inconceivable that skid trails developed by significant skidder trafficking that creates disturbed mineral spoil over its entire width and that collects water would be considered a forest road. Since Kentucky logging is predominately ground skidding (which is true for much of the eastern U.S.) requiring the development of haul roads and constructed skid trails, and the majority (over 88 percent) of the logging jobs encounter streams or drainage channels (ephemeral channels) indicates that the majority of Kentucky’s loggers and logging jobs might required a discharge permit.
Also woodland owners that have forest roads that are trafficked would potentially be subject to the requirement for a discharge permit. This could occur whether you are actively using a road or are allowing a road to be used during a timber harvest for skidding or hauling.
Moving Forward ... or not?
It is prudent for Kentucky’s woodland owners, forest industry, and loggers to be attuned to the developments in this case. The outcome of the Court’s rehearing is uncertain at this time as are potential changes in EPA regulations, not to mention hearing by other federal district courts or the US Supreme Court. However, this is a significant enough case that preliminary discussions within the forestry community and between the forestry community and effected agencies such as the Division of Water would be justified.
To get more information on this issue Google "Ninth District Court of Appeals Forest Road Ruling" or other similar keys words on this issue and check out the following:
NEDC v. BROWN.pdf (the Ninth District Appeals Court Case)
Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads Require Clean Water Act Permit. pdf (a good summary from a law firm out west)
By Jeff Stringer
Professor of Hardwood Silviculture and Forest Operations
University of Kentucky, Department of Forestry, Extension
Peer Reviewed, A. Stainback, May 11, 2011
 |
| Best Management Practices are required to be used on commercial timber harvests in Kentucky and many other states. |
May 11, 2011
Background
The recent decision in the NEDC vs. Brown by the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals (Court) has been widely distributed throughout the forestry community in the U.S. It functionally removes the silvicultural exemption from the Clean Water Act (CWA) and determines that forest roads that collect storm water runoff, channel it, and deliver it directly or indirectly to streams and rivers are a point source of pollution. This requires that logging operations that contain forest roads (see Kentucky Situation below) would be required to have a discharge permit. However, additional judges on the Court will be hearing (rehearing) this case and until that time the ruling will not take effect. Of course the Ninth District Court does not cover KY. However, the EPA has indicated that if the appeal is denied it will have far reaching effects. Reading between the lines, silvicultural activities or at least activities that create and/or use forest roads would potentially be required to have a discharge permit nationwide. While this clearly impacts logging it could also be interpreted to include woodland owners that have woods roads.
There are several means by which this permitting can be achieved. This includes a general permit that is developed by the state requiring the use of specific practices or requirements and this is probalby how this permitting would be handled. Until the general permit has been developed or if it is not handled this way each logger would need to obtain a permit for each logging job what would construct roads that would potentially impact water. The same could potentially be true for woodland owners. In either case the States water quality agency, in Kentucky the Kentucky Division of Water, would have jurisdiction over forest road issues.
Kentucky's Situation - Loggers and Woodland OwnersTo truly understand the potential impact of this ruling on Kentucky logging the definition of forest road should be understood. In Kentucky we differentiate between a haul road and skid trail. However, in situations where the skid trails are constructed with a dozer by cutting into a side slope, or where an old retired woods road is used as a skid trail or haul road these situations would be classified as a forest road by northwest standards (which is where the Ninth Circuit Court is located). Further it is not inconceivable that skid trails developed by significant skidder trafficking that creates disturbed mineral spoil over its entire width and that collects water would be considered a forest road. Since Kentucky logging is predominately ground skidding (which is true for much of the eastern U.S.) requiring the development of haul roads and constructed skid trails, and the majority (over 88 percent) of the logging jobs encounter streams or drainage channels (ephemeral channels) indicates that the majority of Kentucky’s loggers and logging jobs might required a discharge permit.
Also woodland owners that have forest roads that are trafficked would potentially be subject to the requirement for a discharge permit. This could occur whether you are actively using a road or are allowing a road to be used during a timber harvest for skidding or hauling.
Moving Forward ... or not?
It is prudent for Kentucky’s woodland owners, forest industry, and loggers to be attuned to the developments in this case. The outcome of the Court’s rehearing is uncertain at this time as are potential changes in EPA regulations, not to mention hearing by other federal district courts or the US Supreme Court. However, this is a significant enough case that preliminary discussions within the forestry community and between the forestry community and effected agencies such as the Division of Water would be justified.
To get more information on this issue Google "Ninth District Court of Appeals Forest Road Ruling" or other similar keys words on this issue and check out the following:
NEDC v. BROWN.pdf (the Ninth District Appeals Court Case)
Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads Require Clean Water Act Permit. pdf (a good summary from a law firm out west)
By Jeff Stringer
Professor of Hardwood Silviculture and Forest Operations
University of Kentucky, Department of Forestry, Extension
Peer Reviewed, A. Stainback, May 11, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)