This is a subpage of NS Forest Biomass RRA 2024
View that page for other subpages
Divergent perspectives on Forest Bioenergy emerged and were well documented as part of the Natural Resources Strategy 2010 (Phase 2) Process.
1 THE NATURAL RESOURCES STRATEGY (2008-2011)
The Nova Scotia Government’s Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act (EGSPA) of 2007 committed the government to “adopt strategies to ensure the sustainability of the Province’s natural capital in the areas of forestry, mining, parks and biodiversity by the year 2010.” View Natural Resources Strategy Development Begins (News Release 1May2007).
The Natural Resources Strategy was developed in three phases:
Phase 1 – Citizen engagement January 2008 to April 2009
Final Report: Our Common Ground: The Future of Nova Scotia’s Natural Resources
Natural Resources Citizen Engagement Committee, March 2009. 54 pagesPhase 2 – Technical expertise/Stakeholder engagement – May 2009 to April 2010
Final Report: A Natural Balance: Working Toward Nova Scotia’s Natural Resources Strategy
Report of the Steering Panel Phase II, Natural Resources Strategy, April 2010. 27 pagesPhase 3 – Strategy Development – May 2010 to Aug 2011
Final Reports
– The Path We Share, A Natural Resources Strategy for Nova Scotia, 2011–2020.
Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources August, 2011, 70 pages
2. ON THE DIVERGENT EXPERT PERSPECTIVES ON FOREST BIOENERGY
Phase II, sometimes referred to as “Nova Scotia Natural Resources Strategy 2010 process” was overseen by a Steering Panel with 3 members:
Hon. Constance R. Glube, OC, ONS, QC
Steering Panel Chair
Retired Chief Justice of Nova ScotiaJoe Marshall
Executive Director, Union of Nova Scotia Indians
Mi’kmaq senior advisor for the Mi’kmaq Rights InitiativeAllan Shaw
Chair, The Shaw Group
The Steering Panel in turn chose three “technical experts” for each of four ‘Expert Panels” addressing the 4 components of the Natural Resources Strategy: Forests, Biodiversity, Parks and Minerals. The technical experts chosen for the Forest component were
– J.Porter (Manager, Forestry and Fibre Resources, Abitibi Bowater, Liverpool, NS; past President Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia)
– D. Crossland (Senior Park Warden, Kejimkujik National Park)
– R. Bancroft (Wildlife Biologist, Pomquet, NS)
Two quite divergent perspectives emerged within the Forests Panel and they ended up submitting two separate reports reflecting the different perspectives, one by J. Porter, and the other by D. Crossland and R.Bancroft.
Forests Panel of Expertise Report – 1: Restoring the Health of Nova Scotia’s Forests. A Panel of Expertise Report on Forests to the Steering Panel, by Bob Bancrodt and Donnal Crossland. 46 pages
Forests Panel of Expertise Report – 2: The Roots of Sustainable Prosperity in Nova Scotia. A Panel of Expertise Report on Forests to the Steering Panel by Jonathan Porter. 33 pages.
Recommendations by panel members in regard to Clearcutting and Biomass specifically were made separately and reported in an addendum to the Steering Panel’s Natural Balance Report:
A Natural Balance: Research Addendum Phase II
Natural Resources Strategy April 2010
Available on the WebArchive
Page 2/Table of Contents in the Research Addendum
Accordingly the Steering Panel made its own recommendations in regard to forests:
A Natural Balance
Working Toward Nova Scotia’s Natural Resources Strategy
“The Steering Panel acknowledges that the two reports from members of the forests panel of expertise reflect the polarization in the sector and in society; it does not propose adoption of one set of recommendations over the other. The panel, however, views many of their recommendations as having similar objectives but divergent approaches and time frames. Because of this polarization, the Steering Panel makes its own recommendations regarding forests, beginning on page 23 of this report.”
2a. Expert Perspective of J. Porter
1.2 Biomass In Nova Scotia (J. Porter)
(pp 5-7)
Introduction
It is clear from much of the recent debate in Nova Scotia that biomass means different things to different people. Many of us build and heat our homes with biomass from the forest. For the purpose of this paper, the term biomass will be used to describe the branches and tops that are normally left in a stemwood-only harvest together with trees that are otherwise unmerchantable due to size, species, etc. Technically, it would be more appropriate to use the term bioenergy feedstock or biofuel (Smith 2010). This paper will only focus on biomass removal as part of ongoing forest management where the intent is to keep the land as forest land. Forest clearing for other land uses, such as development, recreation, agriculture, and transportation, will not be included. In these situationseven the stumps are normally removed and impacts on biodiversity and nutrient cycling can be significant.
This paper only considers the potential impact of biomass removal on the forest sites. The end-use of the product, such as the generation of electricity or production of fuels (solid or liquid) or chemicals is an important, but separate, issue. It is a commercial decision often influenced by government regulation. Bioenergy from forests can be expected to grow in popularity as governments look for low-carbon, renewable, domestic fuel supplies. Provided it is produced in an appropriate manner, it is renewable and carbon-neutral or, at least, low-carbon emitting (Lattimore, Smith, Titus, Stupak and Egnell 2009). A recent report on “Transforming Canada’s Forest Products Industry” (FPAC 2010) presents a case for integrating Canada’s forest products industry with the emerging bioeconomy, through bioenergy production and bio-product creation.
Key Points
Biomass can be removed from the site through whole-tree harvesting or through collection following a harvest. Whole-tree harvesting has been carried out in Nova Scotia and many other parts of the world for decades. In eastern Canada it has been the predominant harvesting system since the mid-1980s (Ryans 2008). Accumulation of branches and tops of trees at the side of the road initially created a disposal problem but that changed as biomass markets developed. Even when a site is whole-tree harvested, a considerable amount of biomass remains on the forest site (26 to 33 per cent in a recent study in Ontario) as a result of breakage and other operational issues (Ryans 2010, Ralevic, Ryans and Cormier 2010). In their study of operational forest biomass recovery in Ontario, Ralevic et al (2010) conclude that increasing demands for bioenergy will not result in a “clearing or vacuuming” of all biomass from the forest floor, contrary to popular perceptions and beliefs. When discussing biomass, the focus should be on the level of retention proposed for a particular site rather than the harvest method, which can be designed to meet the retention levels required.
In Hacker’s (2005) review of the impact of logging residue removal of forest sites, he states that it is clear that the impacts of logging residue removals on forest sites are highly site specific and dependant on site soils, moisture regimes, forest type, season of harvest, and other factors. Hamish Kimmins, Professor Emeritus of Forest Ecology (UBC), supports the concept of site-specific impacts with his statement: “We know that a substantial amount oforest biomass can be harvested periodically without long- term negative consequences, but for every ecosystem and every value there is some intensity of removal, beyond which forest ecosystem function and biological diversity will be impaired ” (Kimmins 2008).
There are numerous studies around the world, particularly in Canada, the United States, and Nordic countries, that have looked at impacts of forest harvesting on nutrient cycling and the potential impacts on site productivity and forest growth. A 1986 study in central Nova Scotia examining the potential impact of whole-tree harvesting concluded that it was unlikely that one or several whole- tree harvests with a rotation of at least 50 years would cause important depletions of site nutrients (Freedman, Duinker and Morash 1986). Freedman et al did caution that calcium may be a cause for concern. McLaughlin and Phillips (2006) report that much of the available information that suggests changes in the biogeochemical cycling and possible nutrient depletion resulting from whole-tree harvesting comes from short-term studies (five years or less). McLaughlin and Phillips suggest that longer-term studies are starting to indicate the management activities, such as clearcutting and whole- tree harvesting, may not have long-term effects on soil nutrient capitals. As shown in Figure 1, there are many factors that impact whether there are adequate amounts of nutrients available over successive rotations/
Nutrient supply must be considered over the entire rotation because the capacity of the site to provide trees with adequate nutrients will vary over time (Smith, McCormack, Hornbeck and Martin 1986). We are extremely fortunate to have long-term studies in the Acadian Forest Region, notably at Weymouth Point in central Maine where the treated site had been whole-tree harvested in 1981. Paired watershed studies (treated and untreated), such as those at Weymouth Point, that have been monitored over decades are key to understanding the impacts, both temporal and spatial, of forest management activities on nutrient cycling (Briggs, Hornbeck, Smith, Lemin and McCormack 2000). Briggs et al (2000) found that the impacts of intensive management had been relatively small and short in duration, similar to other sites examined in the northeast. Briggs et al (2000) concluded that from the perspectives of nutrient cycling, the system continued to function and emphasized the importance of minimizing physical site disturbance during harvest to avoid impacts on site productivity. The conclusions of an analysis of the Weymouth Point study area 17 years after regeneration were that whole-tree harvesting had not led to depletions of carbon, nitrogen, or the base cations (including calcium and magnesium) (McLaughlin and Phillips 2006). McLaughlin and Phillips (2006) cautioned a potential concern with the impact of acidic precipitation, particularly associated with magnesium. Long-term monitoring of these sites should be continued to provide important results on the environmental impacts of forest management. In the opinion of Dr. Ivan Fernandez (2009), long-term monitoring will be particularly valuable as we try to understand the impacts of climate change.
Nova Scotia has been commended for developing draft biomass guidelines in 2009 that were results-oriented,”fairly clear, and easy to apply in the field” (Thiffault 2009). Decision-support tools are now available to enable forest land managers to plan for sustainable biomass removals on a stand-by-stand basis (Arp et al 2008). They can be used to identify areas where biomass removal is not recommended, including where it could result in nutrient deficits or loss of soil quality (Arp 2009). Such a tool is currently being developed for the Province of Nova Scotia and a provincewide model will be presented by May 2010. According to Professor Arp, results for Nova Scotia will likely be similar to New Brunswick, but certain regions, such as the southwest, will show greater impacts on account of less easily weathered soil substrates and higher incidence base cation leaching due to atmospheric acid deposition (Arp 2010). Together with other planning tools such as depth-to-water table mapping, appropriate harvesting systems can be implemented. Harvesting practices can be designed to meet target retention levels on a specific site. Winter harvesting in hardwoods and allowing some needle fall in softwoods before extraction are examples of best practices that could be used on some sites to reduce the loss of nutrients in the foliage. Harvesting operations should be planned and implemented to minimize physical ground disturbance. Stump removal is carried out in some jurisdictions but is not being recommended in Nova Scotia.
Furthermore, an adaptive forest management framework (a key component of most forest certification systems, including Sustainable Forestry Initiative and Forest Stewardship Council) can be used to manage uncertainty and continually improve management outcomes over time. It acknowledges the dynamic nature of forest management and encourages continual improvement through stakeholder participation and the continual incorporation of new science and knowledge (Lattimore et al 2009). Lattimore et al (2009) also provides a current review of potential environmental impacts of wood-fuel production.
A recent report prepared for Natural Resources Canada by Smith, Ralevic and Lattimore (2009) reviews biofuel sustainability issues in Canada, including both forestry and agricultural issues.
Conclusions [with recommendations]
A review of scientific research clearly shows that the impacts of biomass removal on forests are site specific and will vary regionally, according to local conditions and practices. The long-term study at Weymouth Point in Maine indicates that there have been no nutrient depletions at this site in the Acadian Forest Region as a result of whole-tree harvesting. A blanket approach either supporting or prohibiting forest biomass removal on all sites would not be appropriate for Nova Scotia. It is recommended that the province implement site-specific guidelines for the removal of biomass under the provincial Code of Forest Practices. They should incorporate the model being developed for the province by Professor Arp at the University of New Brunswick. An extension effort will be required for private land owners.
[References cited above are not provided in the document]
2b. Expert Perspective of R. Bancroft and D. Crossland
2.2 BIOMASS
The idea of forests as a natural resource for human use is a singular perspective that might seem egotistical and foreign to a Mi’kmaq person, a barred owl, a moose, a trout, or a salamander; perhaps even a trained ecologist
Forests Panel Members – Bob Bancroft (chair), Donna Crossland January 15, 2010
Rationale
The following is intended to provide the Minister of Natural Resources with the Forest Panel perspective on the potential utilization of wood biomass for energy production. The Forest Panel has outlined many of the benefits, as well as concerns and potential impacts associated with biomass energy. Our focus is on whether forest ecology will be further degraded by making increased commitments to biomass energy
Background
The province of Nova Scotia is currently compelled to explore all reasonable energy alternatives that could reduce the province’s current unsustainable dependency on fossil fuels for energy. The Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act (EGSPA), (supported by all political parties), states that 18.5 per cent of total electricity needs in Nova Scotia will be obtained from renewable energy resources by the year 2013. In an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the province has set a target for 25 per cent of the province’s electricity to be produced from renewable energy by the year 2015. Currently, Nova Scotia imports more than 80 per cent of its energy from world-energy markets, many of which are politically unstable, and from energy sources that are in decline (e.g., coal and oil) (Hughs 2009). While burning wood biomass for space heating and cooking in Nova Scotian homes has been practiced for centuries, the use of wood biomass to produce electricity is a relatively new concept.
With an ever-increasing world population, we can expect the demand for forest products for shelter and fuel to rise. Industrialized countries recognize that they need to decrease their dependence on oil. Forest biomass has been touted as the new petroleum that will serve to meet ever- growing demands for carbon-based products, formerly produced from fossil fuels and electricity, to support our current high standard of living. There is growing public interest in green energy.
The Interim Renewable Energy Strategy (Adams and Wheeler 2009) encourages the Nova Scotia Government to consider biomass energy production, if conducted to the”highest possible environmental standards.” The report suggests a large-scale forest biomass energy production of up to 70 megawatts by 2015, and an additional 70 megawatts by 2020. As such, biomass would contribute approximately 35 per cent of renewable energy. (Large- scale and community wind farms and tidal power are proposed for additional percentage of renewable energy.) The question is how the province will ensure the ecological integrity of forests before it endorses further adoption of biomass energy. What are the “highest possible standards” for biomass harvesting? Many members of the public are skeptical in light of the fact that the integrity of forests up to now, without biomass harvesting, has already been severely jeopardized. The Acadian forest is classified as one of North America’s most endangered forests (Davis et al. 2001). How do we ensure improvements in forest biodiversity, forest health, and forest structure, while moving forward with well-intended endeavours to produce green energy? Interim guidelines for biomass harvesting on Crown land have been drafted by the Department of Natural Resources. There is nothing in place to deter detrimental harvesting practices for biomass on private woodlots.
Nova Scotia has been participating in the biomass industry for the past decade or more. Pulp mill and sawmill wood wastes (hog fuels) are being used to make electricity and also for space heating. Biomass energy has been efficient for facilities that are situated near forest manufacturing operations that produce wood waste. Nova Scotia has also been exporting wood chips and pellets to European countries for a variety of purposes, among them biomass energy. In 2006, a total of 135,994 tonnes were shipped out of various Nova Scotian ports (Figure 1). (Quantities exported by truck to New Brunswick and Maine were not obtained.) The exact quantities and world destinations of our biomass, attached, show that Netherlands and Denmark have emerged as the biggest importers of Nova Scotian biomass. Reduced exports in recent years reflect increased uses at home and a contraction in the forest economy.
The promising aspects of biomass energy
There are some potential benefits of burning biomass for electricity. From an economic development aspect, some communities, such as those in the Digby-Cornwallis area, view biomass as a stimulus to their economy (Lindsay 2009). Providing that Nova Scotia Power Inc. made some necessary changes to the power grid system, biomass could bring additional economic opportunity to small, rural communities, particularly if they could generate and sell power to the province, while also maintaining and creating jobs. If this power generation was coupled with district heating to use waste heat, then the process would be an improvement on the use of fossil fuel to produce power, as much of the heat produced is wasted.
Members of forest industry and some private woodlot owners view biomass as a possible stimulus to a currently struggling forest economy. Biomass is a means to market low-grade softwood and hardwood for which there has been little market in recent times. It can use waste wood, such as mill scrap, hog fuel; and non-commercial wood, such as knotty trees, tree stumps, and nutrient-rich branches and foliage (although not recommended); and scrap lumber to fuel power plants. Mills can decrease energy costs by burning mill waste.
Biomass is a relatively cheap energy source compared to expensive foreign oil. Additionally, biomass could help Nova Scotia generate fuel-security, with reduced reliance on volatile markets for petroleum-based fuels. Biomass can help Nova Scotia meet climate change goals and reduce pollution that causes acid rain by reducing fossil fuel emissions. Co-firing biomass with coal at some of the current facilities allows for considerable renewable electricity generation without large capital investment.
Forest Panel perspectives on biomass energy
The Forest Panel provides the following viewpoints, based on: 1) Reviews of relevant scientific research and our knowledge of Acadian forest ecology; 2) Acknowledgement of the importance of a strong forest- based economy, a traditionally important source of employment that is currently in decline; and 3) Citizen values expressed during Phase I of the Natural Resources Strategy process.
The Forest Panel does not hold expertise in energy production and cannot address issues with Nova Scotia Power Inc. and tests to co-fire biomass with coal. Our objective is to consider potential impacts and demands on the forest environment over the long term, through examination of a range of scientific sources. As such, we look past possible short-term opportunities to examine broader outcomes. Our instructions were to think “big.”
While bioenergy currently constitutes a relatively low-cost renewable energy source for the province, most of the science dealing with the lowering of carbon emissions through biomass energy and the associated harvesting practices do not provide information on long-term site productivity. The Forest Panel agrees with the caution stated by Adams and Wheeler (2009) that more discussion on forestry management and the ecological integrity of the province’s forests is required. We also respect the views of some members of the public who see the biomass industry as a questionable lack-lustre endeavour. Wood can be made into a wide range of products, including hardwood flooring, salad bowls, house construction, or as a heat source (firewood). There is a concern that burning wood for electricity risks further lowering the value of our forest resources.
Four key issues greatly diminish the possibility of burning wood as a source of electricity in Nova Scotia: 1.) Forest biomass is a relatively inefficient generator of electricity, and therefore would require a large and guaranteed wood supply; 2.) Nova Scotia is less suited than other areas for biomass energy due to land ownership. The Crown land forest base is relatively small (approximately 24 per cent of the land base), and is currently allocated to other forest industries; 3.) Privately owned forests would be required to be major biomass contributors, but government is limited in how effectively it can regulate to minimize permanent environmental damage on private lands, while not impinging on the rights of land owners; and 4.) A new and fully implemented Integrated Resource Management (IRM)strategy on Crown land, whereby harvest practices must follow the Code of Forest Practice and manage towards forest types defined under the new Forest Ecosystem Classification, and where harvesting will approximate natural disturbances, will leave less wood allocation for present forest industries, without further allocations for biomass. A fully implemented Integrated Resource Management strategy is currently endorsed by the Forest Panel because it uses an ecosystem-based approach, but it places constraints on harvesting practices and greatly reduces the wood volume that can be removed on an ecodistrict or ecosite basis. This will indirectly result in placing the biomass demand squarely on privately owned forests.
The carbon issue: harvesting wood biomass may represent a net carbon emission
Is burning wood biomass for energy really carbon neutral? We base the assumption that carbon dioxide released when biomass is burned is, in turn, taken up in equal amounts by growing forests (carbon sequestration). This is the premise for considering biomass energy as clean energy.
Carbon science in brief: Life on earth is based on an organic carbon foundation.
When we speak of biomass, we are essentially referring to carbon, (with a minimum of 16 other elements involved in much smaller quantities that are essential to life and directly involved in the buildup of biomass based on carbon, such as nitrogen, calcium, and potassium) (Mahendrappa and Pitt 2000). Carbon is the major constituent of tree biomass, litter, and the soil organic layers. Tree foliage fixes carbon (from CO2) with the aid of solar energy (photosynthesis) into plant organic matter. Thus we can consider energy from burning wood to be solar energy (indirectly). Every other component in forest ecosystems, including wildlife, depends upon plant-derived organic carbon produced by photosynthesis. Carbon is not only contained in the standing trees in the forest, but also in the soil. Up to 66 per cent of forest carbon is in its soils (Post et al. 1990), soil carbon sources being largely accounted for by decaying leaf litter, tree branches, and trunks. One of the keys to any sustainable forest harvest program is maintaining or improving organic soil condition.
It is possible that the harvest of biomass and its combustion may actually contribute a relative increase in carbon emissions rather than realizing the goal of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide (Patriquin 2009). After harvest, carbon can no longer be sequestered from the atmosphere for a period of time because the trees are no longer on the landscape to absorb the CO2. A deforested landscape is sharply reduced in its ability to sequester carbon. There are carbon emissions from combustion of fossil fuels used to harvest, process, and transport biomass. An increased rate of decay from stored carbon in forest soils unleashes stores of carbon to the atmosphere, and combustion of the biomass causes a sudden release of carbon that has been stored in trees for 40 to 150 years or more (depending on tree age) and will require another 40 + years to sequester again. These factors create doubt that electricity generated from biomass is carbon neutral in the short term (that is, the amount of carbon dioxide [CO2] released from burning wood is equal to the amount of CO2 consumed during growth). Clearcutting for biomass, even on better sites, is likely to increase carbon emissions, not reduce them (Patriquin 2009).
Is biomass as efficient as wind, solar, and other green energy sources?
Burning wood to generate electricity is a greener energy source than burning coal, however, it is not as green as modern alternative sources: wind and solar energy. Biomass use is reliant on fossil fuels to harvest and process wood into chips or pellets and to truck the biomass to thermal generating facilities. Efficiency is better where there is sufficient biomass available from mill waste sources. However, most mill waste is currently allocated and so any increased biomass must come from existing, naturally generated forests (or plantations, addressed later).
Burning wood is only ~ 30 per cent efficient in converting potential energy into electricity, whereas wood burning for space heating can reach up to 80 per cent efficiency. In this era of technological advances, burning our forests for energy does not demonstrate a futuristic strategy, nor the types of ingenuity the people of Nova Scotia want to carry forward to a modern world of technological achievements.
Impacts on soil associated with whole-tree biomass harvests.
Biomass harvesting usually constitutes an intensive harvest regime, and can make use of any trees, regardless of species or size. All tree parts, including traditionally non- merchantable portions such as fine branches, foliage, stumps, and roots, represent a potential biomass fuel source, since they are comprised of carbon and produce energy when burned. Concerns with soil impacts centre mainly on carbon and nutrient depletion that may occur through whole-tree harvesting.
Carbon depletion: Intensive biomass harvesting can reduce soil carbon reserves, which affect soil structure and health. Foliage and branches left on site to decompose contribute 25 to 30 per cent of total tree biomass to soil organic matter (Anderson et al. 2005). The industrial forester perspective on this, however, is a 20-30 per cent gain in biomass if whole-tree harvesting takes place, thus increasing the temptation to process the entire above- ground tree portion through a chipper. Harvesting that removes more than traditional stemwood (i.e., trunk wood) can potentially reduce the structure of soils by reducing the organic input from decomposing tree material. Reduced organic matter in the soil reduces stand resiliency to droughts and other stressors, such as insect infestations. Stand resiliency may be of increasing importance as climate change brings new stressors to forest ecosystems. Additionally, this previously non-merchantable biomass, in the form of coarse woody debris and slash, protects the soil surface from direct exposure to the sun. Removal of all shade material allows soils to heat up in the interval before lesser vegetation grows to provide shade, speeding up soil decomposition, thereby further depleting the organic matter in the soil that would be available to soil microorganisms, as well as to the next generation of trees.
Nutrient depletion: Reduction in soil productivity caused by nutrient depletion may be an even greater concern than the reduction of organic carbon resulting from intensive biomass harvest practices (Olsson 2008; Freedman 1981; Freedman et al. 1980). Branches and foliage range from 55 to 75 per cent of total nutrients in hardwood and softwood trees (Mahendrappa and Pitt 2000; Anderson et al. 2005). Harvesting this fine biomass constitutes a direct removal of nutrients from the soil and will eventually reduce forest growth. With harvest slash removed for biomass, the unshaded soils release nutrients as decomposition of organic components take place. Since the newly released nutrients from decomposed matter cannot be absorbed by tree roots, they are leached more deeply into the soil and out of access to subsequent tree generations (Mahendrappa et al. 2005).
Soils become more acidic in conjunction with biomass harvest practices (e.g., clearcutting and whole-tree harvesting) (Olsson 2008). Removal of large quantities of biomass that normally shades the forest floor sets off a chain of chemical reactions (most notably nitrification) in response to increased decay rates. As nitrogen is mobilized, calcium and magnesium also react, and they are all leached out of the soil, leaving behind hydrogen ions that ultimately increase soil acidity (Anderson 1991; Mahendrappa 2005). This increased acidification then causes a “domino effect,” whereby other elements enter into soil solution, such as aluminum (toxic to most trees), copper, iron, and zinc (Mahendrappa and Pitt 2000). Acid deposition from atmospheric pollution in combination with these acidifying reactions from harvesting can have significant impacts on forest growth and productivity (Olsson 2008).
Despite the adverse impacts from whole-tree harvesting on soil carbon storage and nutrient depletion, considerable research has been directed towards the possibility of allowing whole-tree harvesting on the most productive soils, where geological conditions have resulted in higher reserves of essential elements. This is a groundless argument, since whole-tree harvesting represents a net withdrawal from the soil nutrient capitol (Anderson et al 2005). Nutrient replacement from soil weathering and atmospheric sources is not likely to compensate the depletion rates of every essential element taken out of the system from whole-tree removal. Productivity will eventually decrease, as has been demonstrated around the world. There have been yield reductions of up to 20 per cent in many European countries, Australia, and New Zealand (Lundkvist 1987, Anderson 1991, Proe et al. 1994, Hakkila 2004, Skinner et al. 1988). Moreover, it is not economically viable to fertilize sites to replenish essential nutrient levels following biomass harvests, and in some cases tree growth does not respond to fertilization (Anderson et al. 2005). New Brunswick and other provinces with higher proportions of Crown land can implement complex management regimes and alter silvicultural approaches according to site conditions. In Nova Scotia, however, high numbers of private woodlot owners are unlikely to discern between nutrient rich and nutrient poor sites, and would probably not alter harvest prescriptions to protect the subtle nature of soil properties. This would be a regulatory nightmare.
In Nova Scotia, calcium appears to be a key limiting element (Freedman et al. 1986). Calcium impoverished ecosystems exist over much of Nova Scotia due to naturally acidic soils and underlying geology. Our woodlands are subjected to chronic acid deposition from industrial pollution sources in United States and southern Ontario, which further depletes soil calcium. While trees can grow adequately on acidic soils, whole-tree harvesting can remove 27 per cent of total site calcium (Freedman et al. 1986). It appears that Nova Scotia soils are far more sensitive to whole-tree harvesting effects than soils in other regions of the Acadian forest, as Nova Scotia soil calcium depletion was twice that of forest soils in New England (Hill and Garbary 2010 In: Tritton et al 1987).
There are other far-reaching effects from calcium removals. Detrimental effects of whole-tree harvesting do not stop at the forest edge, as the removal of high-calcium branches and foliage reduces the level of calcium available to our rivers and lakes (Jeriorski et al. 2008). Thus, the effects from whole-tree harvesting may ultimately affect salmon and trout and other environmentally stressed aquatic components. Moreover, we cannot target all nutrient-rich or calcium rich sites for intensive biomass harvesting. Calcium-rich sites are relatively uncommon and are important wildlife habitats (Freedman 2010). These rich sites usually support a suite of rich understory herbs that are rare, such as rare orchids that society values. There is a growing list of organisms whose population viability is being undermined by widespread loss of calcium from forested ecosystems (Jeriorski et al. 2008; Hill and Garbary 2010). The current soil nutrient research sponsored by the Department of Natural Resources continues with the conventional narrow view of timber production, with no consideration of rare herbaceous species and wildlife habitat needs. Can we whole-tree harvest on nutrient-rich sites? Preferably not, as this would bestow significant ecological losses on our children. Must we preserve all nutrient-rich sites? No! The answer is to harvest them in the context of ecosystem-based management, using silvicultural practices that emulate ecological processes (predominantly gap-replacement) and interactions of species composition and structural heterogeneity, and removing only tree boles.
Impacts on flora and fauna
Most of the information written on biomass takes a narrow, utilitarian focus on the amount of wood volume available for fuel, and overlooks the fact that forests are home to many species of dependent flora and fauna. (Hence a committee assigned to thoroughly and objectively examine biomass must be well represented with biologists from a variety of research domains, in addition to foresters and people from economic, and energy backgrounds.) The most common reason for species being designated at risk is habitat loss. The ability of some groups of species to survive and flourish, particularly those requiring late seral stages and continuous canopy conditions, is the summation of all environmental factors. Although forests grow back rapidly after harvest, the composition and structural homogeneity of early successional forests will no longer support the same guild of wildlife (as well as understory herbs, bryophytes and lichens) that existed prior o harvest (Freedman et al. 1994). Species that thrive on early successional forest habitat are, for the most part, not the ones found on endangered species lists. One does not have to be a biologist to deduce that some species populations that require old-growth habitat must be struggling, with old-growth now estimated at 0.6 per cent of the forest land base.
We must adopt a precautionary approach to harvesting forest biomass as well as other forest products since we are inadvertently destroying rare species and their habitat, of ecological importance far beyond the monetary value of wood removed. The slash, or tops and branches of felled trees, provides cover for birds and small mammals, and protects seedlings from deer browsing. While the Forest Panel could write an entire book on harvest impacts on Nova Scotia wildlife, from the extinction of caribou to the struggles of the American marten and brook trout, we present an example of some of the more subtle changes exerted on ecosystems during whole-tree harvesting. Removal of dead wood and coarse woody debris has consequences for wood-inhabiting species, such as saproxylic beetles (wood decomposing beetles) numbering in excess of 780 species in Nova Scotia (Majka 2009), thereby representing a large proportion of the total forest species richness. This saproxylic fauna is responsible for the mechanical breakdown of coarse woody debris and demonstrate considerable sensitivity to timber-harvest practices (Simila et al. 2002). They are critical to various biophysical processes that directly benefit soil structure and nutrient cycling, as well as forming the basis of a considerable component of total forest biodiversity. Over 34 per cent of saproxylic beetles in Nova Scotia were placed in the most vulnerable “may be at risk” category by Majka (2009) based on their limited distribution within the province, and hence potential vulnerability to biomass harvesting. Given the ecological importance of this group, the long history of intensive forest management in Nova Scotia that has left only 0.6 per cent of old-growth stands within its forest base (McMahon 1989), a precautionary approach with respect to forest biomass harvesting is warranted.
A vibrant forest economy stems from an equally vibrant and healthy forest ecology. If forest resources must be directly harvested for biomass, it is essential to maintain/restore a healthy forest ecology. Harvest objectives must shift to placing value on multiple forest resources. Diversifying silvicultural interventions is key. Irregular stands with structural heterogeneity and diverse species compositions and age classes should dominate Nova Scotia forests. Irregular shelterwood silvicultural systems (Raymond et al 2009) and other uneven-aged harvest techniques need to be the default harvest systems, not clearcutting and whole-tree harvesting.
Harvesting forests for biomass: Can it be sustainable?
Dr. Wilfred Creighton, former Deputy Minister, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, stated over 10 years ago that our forest industries were in danger. “We’re overcutting, seriously overcutting, ” he stated, and “In the past ten years, the crown lands have been raped and Crown land should show other people how forests should be managed” (Pannozzo and Colman 2008).
The Nova Scotia Government and the Department of Natural Resources are experiencing pressure to increase forest harvesting to meet the new and additional biomass demands. The Forest Panel requests that decision makers adhere to a long-term outlook and not cave to deleterious short-term economic gains. Nova Scotia is already being over-harvested, clearcutting approximately 500 square kilometres per year. The annual allowable cut has been exceeding consumptive capacity for other components that are an essential part of our terrestrial ecology. Old-growth has been nearly wiped out, and old-growth species have been pushed to the margins of existence. There is a resultant predominance of young forests composed of small-diameter trees that are ineligible for sustainable harvest over the next two to three decades because their trunks are too nutrient-rich (due to high bark: stemwood ratios). Biomass facilities are forecasted to require one to two million tonnes of additional wood each year, the bulk of which must be supplied from forests since mill waste wood cannot meet the demand. The annual allowable cut must be reduced, not increased. The people of Nova Scotia are growing very concerned, as they observe signs of our forest industries seemingly in a desperate frenzy to cut the last forests before financial collapse.
The method of harvest is one of the most contentious issues associated with biomass energy. Many of the Forest Panel ideas on types of acceptable harvest practices suitable for the maintenance of Acadian forest biodiversity and health are covered in the clearcutting recommendations. Certainly, whole-tree harvesting lowers costs and increases wood volume per unit area, and so industry will defend the practice. They are unlikely to harvest only stemwood without regulations in place (Salonius 2007). The Department of Natural Resources and government must make an intelligent, science-based,decision to allow stem-only harvests with a minimum top diameter (to be determined). Wood is a renewable resource (as often stated by advocates of biomass energy and the forest industry), but the true Acadian forest is renewable only if harvested responsibly within the range of natural disturbance regimes. Forests grow back, but unless Acadian forest is harvested carefully through partial cuts and small gaps, only early successional or boreal forests will grow back, which leaves a huge suite of species without suitable habitat and results in simplified forest ecosystems with reduced capacity to survive climate change and other stressors.
The Forest Panel heard repeatedly that Nova Scotia has a lot of low-quality wood, like poplar, with no market. Harvesting poplar, white spruce, and other early successional stands using complete canopy removal (even- aged) silviculture does not emulate natural processes and prolongs the ongoing problem of reduced monetary value because later seral stages are not attained, as natural processes would eventually create. While proponents of biomass will advocate that clearcutting these stands is the solution, a series of light, re-entry harvests that create gaps and patches that restore variable age classes and forest structures, and create openings for more valuable species (that may have to be planted) is a wiser investment. Many Nova Scotia forests are currently in need of restoration, not increased harvesting. Biomass proposals are out of step with what is currently needed from an ecological integrity viewpoint.
Forest Stewardship Council certification – good but not a silver bullet
Some believe that we may be able to ensure sustainable biomass harvest practices if carried out under Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification. The Maritime FSC Standards can assist in this regard, with a cap of 10 per cent on intensive harvesting. However, FSCWatch points to increasing concerns over large and unabated clearcutting in eastern United States and Canada, herbicide applications, and other issues associated with Forest Stewardship Council-certified forests around the world (www.fsc-watch.org). University of New Brunswick forest faculty have also noted similar concerns with Forest Stewardship Council certification, and recommend that Nova Scotia derive its own forest management/harvesting guidelines rather than rely on Forest Stewardship Council standards (Kershaw 2010). We concur with this viewpoint. Forest Stewardship Council certification cannot be relied on as the silver bullet to resolving a range of long-standing complex issues. Clear guidelines must be put in place to guard against destructive forest harvest practices.
Plantations Short-rotation woody crops
Forest industry is currently proposing that plantations (areas dedicated to intensive-forest management) can assist with securing sources of fuel for bioenergy production. Plantations generally involve intensive site preparation: herbicide applications, growing genetically superior trees such as hybrid poplar and willow, forest pest control, and fertilization (Kimmins 1997). These practices are often opposed by the public because they are at odds with holistic vision of ecosystem management, in other words, weighing all forest components into the terrestrial ecology. Many native species cannot live within plantations of other types of intensive silivicultural systems. Therefore plantation agriculture would be perceived as a step backwards as we attempt to advance more futuristic thinking that is more respectful of all native species within forest ecosystems. The draft biomass guidelines for Nova Scotia (NSDNR 2009) encourage operators to investigate short-rotation wood crops located near biomass facilities, as a potential future source of biomass. It is unclear how economical or ecologically sustainable this endeavour would be at this point. Plantations dedicated to biomass represent a loss of land base that would normally support a wide range of forest ecosystem components, unless they are located on abandoned farmland. However, with increasing fossil fuel prices and pressures to buy local, the agricultural land base may be increasingly dedicated to growing food.
Concerns
1. Nova Scotians do not want biomass energy production. Only 32 per cent of Nova Scotians support biomass for electricity, while they strongly support other renewable energy sources such as tidal, solar, and wind (91, 93, and 99 per cent, respectively) (Adams and Wheeler 2009). The new natural resources strategy process is to be aligned with concerns voiced by Nova Scotians, and they overwhelmingly do not support an increased effort to burn forests and wildlife habitats to produce biomass energy.
2. Forests are already over-harvested and degraded, with serious impacts on ecosystem components, such as late successional, temperate Acadian trees and rare plants (e.g., blue cohosh [Hill and Garbary 2010]), as well as animals like the American marten, mainland moose, lynx, southern flying squirrels and other cavity nesters, as well as many lichen and bryophyte species, that require mature forest structures and forest stand continuity (i.e., non-fragmented). Proof of over- harvesting is the resultant predominance of young age classes, and relatively small-diameter classes, and an increasing representation of early successional, short- lived boreal trees (NS DNR 2008).
3. The long-term economic viability of the province’s forest industry may be further hindered by a shift to biomass for energy since biomass harvesting could direct timber away from more lucrative end uses, such as supplying lumber to foreign markets.
4. Only approximately 30 per cent of the energy released by burning produces electricity (Hughes 2009), leading us to conclude that biomass for energy is a wastefully unacceptable use of our precious forest resources for the 21st century.
5. An increased harvest demand will be placed on forests if the province produces more electricity from wood. Biomass is already predicted to consume between 10 to 12 per cent of the province’s average annual harvest to serve a 60 megawatt biomass facility (Hughes 2009).
6. Additional demands on the wood supply for biomass would create hardship for some existing forest industries. There is only so much wood supply available on the landscape. While the Department of Natural Resources stated that the province has sufficient biomass to generate up to 150 megawatts (Adams and Wheeler 2009), we believe the implications are to continue large clearcuts, and increase forest yields by increasing silvicultural intensity. This type of agricultural forestry is not sustainable (Salonius 2007, and others). In an era when pulp and paper industries are already discussing the need to compensate for reduced wood supply because of new protected areas being removed from the working forest, new biomass demands will only exacerbate the problem and cause industries to resort to increasing wood supply through intensive forest management areas (plantations) and nutrient depleting removal of nutrient-rich harvest slash.
7. Draft interim guidelines for biomass retention levels on Crown land (NSDNR 2009) do not address over- harvesting, and would allow a continuation of substantial clearcutting, despite its overuse on the landscape and a wealth of science that indicates this practice is destructive to soils, forest succession, and associated wildlife (Elliot 1999; Freedman et al. 1980, 1994; Betts et al. 2005; Mahendrappa and Salonius 2006). Intensified levels of Crown land clearcutting speak to some of the public’s deepest fears concerning biomass harvesting. The proposed guidelines would allow removal of large amounts of nutrient-rich “fines” (tree components, fine branches < 10 cm diameter). for example, 50 per cent of fines on clearcut lands of low productivity and up to 75 per cent of fines removed from clearcuts on more fertile lands in the province. the latter occupies 74 per cent of lands available for forestry activities. while the guidelines acknowledge that the science used in the decisions is new and incomplete, it ignores the productivity losses that have been found in northern europe, and caters to cheap fuel demands despite the high risks of soil nutrient depletion impacts to forest soils.
8. Biomass harvesting of tree parts other than the main stems risks long-term reduction of forest productivity though depletion of soil of nutrients and renders soils more acidic. A potential conflict with policies that limit harvesting to main stems/boles is that most tree boles have more profitable uses for commodities such as paper and dimension lumber.
9. Soils in Nova Scotia are relatively young with generally low nutrient reserves, and are therefore less well suited than other regions for intensive harvesting of nutrient- rich fines for biomass.
10. Decision support tools and nutrient modeling currently being designed for Nova Scotia by Dr. Arp (University of New Brunswick Department of Forestry and Environmental Science) to help reduce soil impacts from biomass harvesting hold some useful applications (particularly the wet-areas mapping). Predictions about how nutrient cycles will be altered by whole-tree harvesting and removal of fines are reliant on relatively new modeling; untested science that depends on possibly unjustified assumptions concerning soil- nutrient dynamics. For instance, data on the levels of atmospheric deposition of nutrients that may rain down on Nova Scotia forest soils to replace what is harvested are hypothetical.
11. Biomass facilities would rely on a substantial portion of wood procurement from private land owners. Ensuring ecosystem-based harvest practices on private land would be exceedingly difficult. (Witness the harvesting by Northern Pulp site near Upper Musquodoboit, which is legal and being defended by industry). There is a risk that small forest land owners will not understand the long-term importance of retaining nutrient-rich parts of the tree for the benefit of future forest crops. Assurances that foliage and fine branches are not removed would be challenging once the material is processed. How is this monitored or enforced?
12. There is considerable data gathered under the ENFOR (Energy from Forests) program, which is led by the Canadian Forest Service, to provide significant scientific evidence against the use of harvesting slash biomass for energy (Anderson et al. 2005).
13. Coarse woody debris may not be well maintained on post-harvest biomass sites despite any guidelines that may be put in place. It would be extremely difficult to monitor. A reduction of fallen logs will impact a large suite species that rely on this habitat, such as small- seeded tree species, fungi, and beetles that are confined to coarse dead wood.
14. We do not have data on long-term site impacts of intensive forest harvesting. (We have not been monitoring.) There has been almost no research within Nova Scotia on the capacity of soils to support a range of forest practices. Research needs to be specific to the province’s unique geology, soil conditions, and weathering, not adopted from elsewhere with different environmental variables (Keys 2009; Neily 2010).
15. Forests will be prematurely clearcut for biomass since tree size is no longer a critical issue. This harvest of previously unmerchantable small-diameter weed will lower long-term soil productivity since small tree boles have higher, nutrient-rich bark:wood ratios than larger, more-mature tree boles.
16. European thermal stations are currently importing biomass from Nova Scotia, with the province receiving none of the carbon credits. This needs to be renegotiated.
17. Increasing use of clearcutting to produce forest biomass for fuel will necessitate very expensive plantation establishment at significant costs to all components of forest ecosystems and the environment. For example more nutrients will be transported away from harvest sites from repeated short rotations.
18. Biomass harvesting that utilizes only boles will be most beneficial if it is integrated with harvesting for other wood product; biomass offers a profitable use for low- quality timber that has traditionally been an obstacle in forest operations. However, this renders biomass wood vulnerable to market interruptions/downturns experienced in other markets, such as pulp and paper, and softwood lumber.
Recommendations
Two members of the Forest Panel have concluded that under the current context, ecological risks of biomass harvesting far outweigh the energy benefits that could be derived from this material. More research needs to be completed that is specific to the unique aspects of Nova Scotia forests, soils, land ownership, and economic situation. In the interim, there is considerable scientific evidence to lead us to conclude that biomass should either be abandoned, or utilized only as minor, localized sources of energy. Forecasted annual harvest demands required for biomass energy are substantial (perhaps an additional 100-square kilometres of clearcutting per year), and come at a time when forest health and biodiversity have been severely compromised through unsustainable clearcut harvesting. The Acadian forest in Nova Scotia requires a period of recovery in many areas on landscape, to restore species diversity, increase representation of late-successional tree species, and to allow forests to attain a more natural range of age classes and greater structural diversity. The long-term health of our forests and their associated wildlife should not be further compromised to produce small amounts of relatively inexpensive energy, as proposed by Adams and Wheeler (2009).
We recommend continued exploration of other more sustainable and less risky alternative-energy sources for Nova Scotia that will not impact long-term productivity of forests. Our vision for Nova Scotia’s forests holds that forestry will be involved in more lucrative future markets that demand a greater variety of products, including value-added wood products. Burning wood efficiently for space heating, rather than inefficiently producing electricity, is a better use of forest resources, which ultimately reduces the domestic use of electricity that is derived from fossil fuels.
Should the government authorize biomass energy production, even on a small-scale, two members of the Forest Panel recommend the following caveats:
1. Adopt a precautionary approach to biomass energy using only low-nutrient stem wood: a) Start small-scale > Monitor forest impacts > Adapt to limitations > Re-evaluate. b) Do not implement biomass on a larger-scale in the future unless biomass-burning facilities can also make economic use of waste heat for district heating.
2. Biomass energy should not be supported beyond the large 60 megawatt facility already authorized for NewPage.
3. Provincial goals and regulations need to be in place prior to underta
4. Ensure that biomass harvests will not contribute additional degradation to Nova Scotia forests and soil productivity, and will not increase clearcut harvest practices under any circumstances. A reduction in the total amount of cutting throughout Nova Scotia is essential to restoring healthy and diverse forest ecology.
5. Consider capping wood volumes harvested by reducing the annual allowable cut to take other ecosystem components and ecosystem services into account.
6. Small-scale, local-biomass pellet and chip production facilities may partially meet future heating needs (and rural employment) in local communities.
7. Ensure where possible that major sources of biomass are from waste wood. Sources of waste wood are from sawmills and pulp and paper mills, scrap lumber from residential and construction sites, and other wood products (e.g., Christmas trees, chips from roadside brush clearances and power corridors). Landfills could have a biomass pick-up service. (Most of these sources of waste wood biomass are now being utilized so new sources of biomass must come from standing forest.)
8. Biomass exports to foreign markets need to be re- allocated to our domestic energy production. We are currently exporting green energy and importing coal. Furthermore, we can little afford to export our wood to foreign markets, when we are in need of reducing harvest volumes in order to restore forest health and biodiversity.
9. Prior to commitment to any increased use of forest biomass, establish a strong regulatory and monitoring system to safe-guard forest ecosystems. Establish a cross-functional biomass working group, comprised of soil scientists, biologists, forest ecologists, foresters, and private land owner groups to elucidate and attain the highest possible standards for biomass harvesting. This entails applying lessons learned from the previous Forest Biomass Working Group and long-term site productivity research results from northern Europe to build more ecologically sound guidelines, grounded in science and common sense, for sustainable forest practices.
10. Enact legislation to ensure that whole-tree harvesting does not take place under any circumstances or site conditions. The science is clear enough on this issue to proceed with legislation. This should also include regulations to prevent buyers from purchasing biomass containing branches, foliage, tops, etc. Regulations must be clear, easily applied by harvest operators, and easy to enforce by Conservation Officers. Consultations with both forest technicians and enforcement officers in the field will ensure that new regulations to protect forests are practical.
11. Biomass harvest will adopt uneven-aged silviculture techniques. Harvest systems that are both economically and ecologically viable are outlined in: Salonius (2007); York et al. (2004); Raymond et al. (2009); Seymour et al. (2002); Seymour (2005). Harvests should focus on low- grade hardwood. (Clearcutting will occur only under extenuating circumstances, or within Cape Breton Highlands, where it approximates natural stand-replacement disturbance.)
12. Biomass harvesting will begin long-term incremental restoration of more natural-age classes and species composition to even-aged stands that are middle-aged by harvesting in strips or patches that are less than two tree-lengths wide.
13. Biomass operations will not harvest immature stands since this would contribute to soil nutrient depletion.
14. Harvest practices that produce uneven-aged stand structures will require a system of both incentives and regulations in order to encourage the transition away from slightly less expensive conventional clearcuts. Incentives may entail changes in stumpage rates on Crown land, additional silvicultural subsidies on private land, higher prices received for wood chips/pellets obtained through uneven-aged silviculture, etc.
15. Provincial regulations on sustainable harvesting for biomass and other forest products will need to be substantially re-worked in order to transition away from clearcutting, ensure only stem wood is removed from the forest, and to protect soils, biodiversity, and aquatic resources.
16. Ensure that high-quality timber is not harvested for biomass. (Since operations will utilize patch or strip cutting techniques, it should be easy to leave high-quality timber in the woods.) Sorting yards would assist in assuring that buyers for value- added industries have first opportunity to purchase the higher-quality wood.
17. Provide programs that encourage Nova Scotia homeowners to adopt energy-efficient practices to reduce energy demands. Such programs will indirectly lower demands on forest resources for electricity.
18. Continue to explore new energy technologies, such as ocean and photovoltaic, as they become available. It may be better to embark upon proven technologies that we are more certain of than commit to ones that may be neither economically nor ecologically viable.
19. Consider biomass for space heating rather than electricity generation, since high-efficiency wood- burning units, such as pellet furnaces, extract over 80 per cent of the biomass energy contained within the wood (versus 30 per cent efficiency estimated for electricity generation from biomass).
20. Conduct more thorough research on carbon accounting prior to any commitment to harvest
20. Conduct more thorough research on carbon accounting prior to any commitment to harvest larger volumes of forest biomass for the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of petroleum-based biomass for electrical generation.
Conclusions
Two members of the Forest Panel conclude that it would be irresponsible forest management to adopt the scale of forest biomass proposed to the Nova Scotia Government by Adams and Wheeler (2009). We have already surpassed the threshold of ecologically sustainable harvesting, and are faced with resolving some major restoration issues to sustain viable populations of many forest components. As green-energy technology evolves and forests recover, Nova Scotia will be better-positioned to make wise choices on energy production and immerging forest industries.
TABLE Biomass exports from Nova Scotia (Computed from Statistics Canada, International Trade Division) [not reproduced, results in Fig 1 above]
References:
Aber, J.D., D.B. Botkin, and J.M. Melillo. 1978. Predicting the effects of different harvesting regimes on forest floor dynamics in northern hardwoods. Can. J. For. Res. 8:306 315
Adams, M. and D. Wheeler. 2009. Stakeholder consultations process for a new renewable energy strategy for Nova Scotia: Interim report to stakeholders, Dec 15th, 2009.
Anderson, B., Mahendrappa, T., Nadeau, S., Murray, T. and DeMerchant, I. 2005. Discussion paper: Biomass issues in New Brunswick. (Draft) CFS-Atlantic, Fredericton, NB. 33 pp.
Anderson, F. 1991. Effects of whole-tree harvesting on long-term site productivity-some Swedish views. Pages 35- 41 In: Proceedings of the conference on the impacts of intensive harvesting, January 22, 1990, Fredericton, NB.
Atlantic Forestry Review. 2009. Forest biomass Atlantic: N.S. biomass guidelines near completion. Atlantic Forestry Review, 15 (6): 35-36.
Berg, A. 1994. Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and habitat associations. Conservation Biology. 8(3): 718-731.
Betts, M.G. and G.J. Forbes (eds.) 2005. Forest Management Guidelines to Protect Native Biodiveristy in the Greater Fundy Ecosystem. New Brunswick Co-operative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB.
Betts, M.G., W.A. Diamond, G.J. Forbes, K. Frego, J.A. Loo, B. Matson, M.R. Roberts, M. Villard, R. Wissink, and L. Wuest. 2005. Plantations and biodiversity: A comment on the debate in New Brunswick. The Forestry Chronicle 81(2).
Bishop, D.J., Majka, C.G., Bondrup-Nielsen, S., and Peck, S.B. 2009. Deadwood and saproxylic beetle diversity in naturally disturbed and managed spruce forests in Nova Scotia. In: Majka C.G., Klimaszewski J. (Eds) Biodiversity, Biosystematics, and Ecology of Canadian Coleoptera II. ZooKeys, 22: 309-340.
Boyle, J. and A. Ek. 1972. An Evaluation of Bole and Branch Pulpwood Harvesting on Site Macronutrients Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2: 407
Byron, M. 2004. Black Liquor Gasification and Bio-fuel Production in Canada. Presentation; CANMET Energy Technology Centre- Ottawa Bioenergy Development Program. 4 December 2004.
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2007. National Forestry Database. Available from: http://nfdp.ccfm.org/compendium/data/2006_10/tables/co m62e.pdf.
Canadian Standards Association. 2008. Sustainable forest management for woodlots and other small area forests. Z804-08.
Davis, M., Gratton, L., Adams, J., Goltz, J., Stewart, C., Buttrick, S, Zinger, N., Kavanagh, K., Sims, M., Mann, G. 2001. Ecosystem Profile, New England-Acadian Forest. World Wildlife Fund.
Dollin, P.E., Majka, C.G., and Duinker, P.N. 2008. Saproxylic beetle (Coleoptera) communities and forest management practices in coniferous stands in southwest Nova Scotia. In: Majka C.G., Klimaszewski J. (Eds) Biodiversity, Biosystematics, and Ecology of Canadian Coleoptera. ZooKeys, 2: 291-336.
Elliott, C. (ed.) 1999. Biodiversity in the Forests of Maine. University of Maine Cooperative Extension. Fullerton, George. 2008. The Gussing Experience. Atlantic Forestry Review 14 (5): 43-45.
Fraver, S., White, A. S. and Seymour, R.S. 2009. Natural disturbance in an old-growth landscape of northern Maine, USA. J. of Ecology, 97: 289-298.
Freedman B. 1981. Intensive Forest Harvest: A review of Nutrient Budget Considerations. Fredericton, New Brunswick: Maritime Forest Research Centre, Canadian Forest Service. Freedman, B., Duinker, R. and Morash, R. 1986. Biomass and nutrient in Nova Scotian forests and implications of intensive harvesting for future site productivity. For. Ecol. Man. 15: 103-127.
Freedman, B., R. Morash, and A.J. Hanson. 1980. Effects of harvesting biomass for energy on the nutrient status and long-term productivity of forest stands in Nova Scotia. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University. Report #2
Freedman, B., S. Woodley and J.A. Loo. 1994. Forestry practices and biodiversity with particular reference to the Maritime Provinces of eastern Canada. Environmental Reviews 2:3377.
FSCWatch website- http://www.fsc-watch.org/ Hakkila, P. 2004. Developing technology for large-scale production of forest chips: Wood energy Technology Programme 1999-2003, Technology Programme Report 6/ 2004, Final Report, TEKES, National Technology Agency, Helsinki, Finland
Hammond H.E.J., Langor D.W., and Spence J.R. 2001. Early colonization of Populus wood by Saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera). Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 1175-1183.
Henricksen, O.Q., L. Chatarpaul, and D. Burgess. 1989. Nutrient cycling following whole-tree and conventional harvest in a northern mixed forest. Can J. For. Res. 19:725 735.
Hill, N. M. and Garbary, D. 2010. Herb species richness and soil relationships in floodplain and upland forests at the northern edge of the temperate deciduous forest. Submitted for publication, Mount St. Vincent University, Halifax, NS.
Hughes, L. 2009. Forest biomass Atlantic: The role of biomass in a time of transformation. Atlantic Forestry Review, 11: 35-36.
Keys, K. 2009. Where’s our data on sustainability? Atlantic Forestry Review. 15 (5): 6-7.
Kimmins, J.P. 1997. Predicting sustainability of forest bioenergy production in the face of changing paradigms. Biomass and Bioenergy 13: 201-212.
Lundkvist, H. 1987. Ecological effects of whole-tree harvesting: Some results from Swedish field experiments. Pages 131-140, In: Predicting consequences of intensive harvesting on long-term productivity by site classification.
Mahendrappa, T. 2005. Biomass for bioenergy: The dangers of whole-tree harvesting. Atlantic Forestry Review.
Mahendrappa, M.K. and Pitt, C.M. 2000. Organic horizon thickness: An indicator of sustainable forest management in the Maritime provinces. Final report on criteria and indicators, Group 4-Carbon sequestration in the forests. Fundy Model Forest, Sussex, NB, NRCan, CFS-Atlantic, Fredericton, N.B. 64 pp.
Mahendrappa, M.K., Pitt, C.M., Kingston, D.G.O., and Morehouse, T. 2005. Environmental impacts of harvesting white spruce in Prince Edward Island. Bioenergy: in press
Mahendrappa, T. and P. Salonius. 2006. Potential Decrease in Forest Site Productivity Caused by Whole-Tree and Biomass Harvesting. Canadian Forest Service, Atlantic Region, Forest Health and Biodiversity News 10(1).
Majka, C.G. 2007. The Eucnemidae (Coleoptera) of the Maritime Provinces of Canada: new records, observations on composition and zoogeography, and comments on the scarcity of saproxylic beetles. Zootaxa 1636: 33-46.
Majka, C.G. 2009. Saproxylic Beetles (Coleoptera) of Nova Scotia. Report to the Nova Scotia Species at Risk Conservation Fund. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 60 pp.
Maritime Regional Standard for FSC certification: http://www.fsccanada.org/maritimes.htm
Martikainen, P., Siitonen, J., Punttila, P, and Rauh, J. 2000. Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Biological Conservation 94: 199-209.
McMahon, J. 1989. The new forest in Nova Scotia. In: Schneider, A. (Ed) Deforestation and “development” in Canada and the tropics. Sydney, Nova Scotia: University College of Cape Breton, 159-162.
Mosseler, A., J.A. Lynds, J.E. Major. 2003. Old Growth Forest of the Acadian Forest Region. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. Fredericton.
Neily, P. 2010. Personal Communication. Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, Truro, NS.
Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources. 2008. State of the Forest Report 1995-2005: Nova Scotia Forests in Transition. Report FOR2008-3, 40 pp.
Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Nova Scotia’s Code of Forest Practice.
Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources. 2009. Interim guidelines for the harvest and retention of forest biomass in Nova Scotia, Draft version 3.2, 23 pp
. Olsson, B. 2008. Site productivity lessons from the Nordic countries. Presentation to: The Scientific foundation for sustainable forest biomass harvesting guidelines and policy, Feb 18-21, 2008, Toronto, Ont.: www.sfmnetwork.ca/html/biomass_workshop_e.html
Pannozzo, L. And Colman, R. 2008. GPI forest headline indicators for Nova Scotia, GPIAtlantic, 54 pp.
Patriquin, D. 2009. Clearcutting N.S. forests for biomass: Implications for carbon sequestration and sustainability. Comments submitted to the NS renewable energy stakeholder consultation process in response to the Interim Report to Stakeholders (Dec 15th, 2009). Dept of Biol, Dalhousie U. (retired).
Parker, J.L., I.J. Fernandez, L. E. Rustad, and S.A. Norton.2001. Effects of nitrogen enrichment, wildfire, and harvesting on forest-soil carbon and nitrogen. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 65:1248-1255.
Personal Communication, Jorg Beyeler, Director, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, Truro.
Post, W.M., Peng, T.H. Peng, W.R. Emmanuel. A.W. King, V.H. Dale, and D.L. DeAngelis. 1990. The global carbon cycle. Am. Sci. 78:310-326.
Proe, M.F., Cameron, A.D., Dutch, J., and Christodoulou, X.C. 1996. The effect of whole-tree harvesting on the growth of second rotation Sitka spruce. Forestry-Oxford 69: 389-401.
Salonius, P. 2005. Market prospects for Acadian forest products in the context of future energy availability. The Forestry Chronicle, 81(6): 787-790.
Raymond, P., Bedard, S., Roy, V., Larouche, C. and Tremblay, S. 2009. The irregular shelterwood system review, classification, and potential application to forests affected by partial disturbances. J. of Forestry, Dec, 405-413.
York, R.A., Heald, R.C., Battles, J.J., and York, J.D. 2004. Group selection management in conifer forests: relationships between opening size and tree growth. Can. J. For. Res. 34: 630-641.
Salonius, P. 2007. Silvicultural discipline to maintain Acadian forest resilience. North. J. Appl. For., 24(2): 91-97. Salonius, P. 2007. Will forestry follow agriculture toward unsustainable soil depletion? The Forestry Chronicle, 83(3): 375-377.
Searchinger, T., Hamburg, S.P., Melillo, J., Chameides, W., Havlik, P., Kammen, D.M., Likens, G.E., Lubowski, R.N., Obersteiner, M., Oppenheimer, M., Robertson, G.P., Schlesinger, W.H., and Tilman, G.D. 2009. Fixing a critical climate accounting error. Science 326: 527-528
Seymour, R.S. 2005. Integrating disturbance parameters into conventional silvicultural systems: Experience from the Acadian forest of northeastern North America. P. 41-48 In: Peterson, C.E. and Maguire, D.A. (Editors) Balancing ecosystem values: Innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-635, 389 pp.
Seymore, R., A.S. White, and P.G. deMaynadier. 2002. Natural disturbance regimes in northeastern North America evaluating silvicultural systems using natural scales and frequencies. Forest Ecology and Management 155: 357-367.
Siitonen, J. 2001. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletins 49: 11-42
Simila, M., Kouki, J., Martikainen, P., and Uotila, A. 2002. Conservation of beetles in boreal pine forests: the effects of forest age and naturalness on species assemblages. Biological Conservation 106: 19-27
Simms, Gavin. June 19, 2008. Wood scientist sees a better path through the dark forest of energy options. The Packet.
Skinner, Murphy, G., Robertson, E.D., and Firth, J.G. 1988. Deleterious effects of soil disturbance on soil properties and the subsequent early growth of second-rotation Radiata pine. In: W.J. Dyck and C.A. Mees, (Editors) Research strategies for long-term site productivity. Proceedings of IEA/BE A3 Workshop, Seattle, Washington, USA. New Zealand Forestry Research Institute, Bulletin No. 152.
Speight, M.C.D. 1989. Saproxylic Invertebrates and their Conservation. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, Publication and Documents Division. 81 pp. University of Maine Cooperative Extension, Forestry Notes, Bulletin #7029, prepared by W. Lilley and R. Merchant (no date).
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research station, 2003: www.fs.fed.us/ne/durham/4352/wud.shtml
19 Post, W.M., T.H. Peng, W. Peng,.R. Emmanuel, A.W. King, V.H. Dale, and D.L. DeAngelis. 1990. The global carbon cycle. Am. Sci. 78:310-326.
World Wildlife Fund. 2004. Deadwood Living Forests: The importance of veteran trees and deadwood to biodiversity. Gland, Switzerland.
World Wildlife Fund, Ecosystem Profile, New England- Acadian Forest. www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/na/na0 410_full.html
Parker, G., D.G. Kimball and B. Dalzell. 1994. Bird communities breeding in selected spruce and pine plantations in New Brunswick. Canadian Field Naturalist 108:19.
Forest Biomass Harvesting Recommendations Ecology Action Centre, 11 December 2008
Waldick R.C., B. Freedman and R.J. Wassersug. 1999. The consequences for amphibians of the conversion of natural, mixed species forests to conifer plantations in southern New Brunswick. Canadian Field Naturalist 113:408418.
Ramovs, B. and M. Roberts.2003. Understory vegetation and environment responses to tillage, forest harvesting and conifer plantation development. Ecological Applications 13:16821700.
Ross-Davis, A.L. and K.A. Frego. 2002. Comparison of three managed forest types in the Acadian Forest: diversity of forest floor bryophyte community and habitat features. Canadian Journal of Botany 80:2123.
Richardson J. 1994. Silviculture Tuned to Nature and Wood Energy Production. Natural Resources Canada. Ottawa.
Richardson J., R. Bjorheden, P. Hakkila, P. T. Lowe, and C. T. Smith. 2002. Bioenergy from Sustainable Forestry.: 337.
Recommendations of the Steering Panel for Phase II
3. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STREERING PANEL FOR PHASE II
A Natural Balance Working Toward Nova Scotia’s Natural Resources Strategy Forests
Report of the Steering Panel Phase II, Natural Resources Strategy • April 2010
WebArchive Link
FORESTS – RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STEERING PANEL
The Steering Panel acknowledges the many pressures facing the province: among them, the need to reduce greenhouse gases, the call for biomass for power generation, the requirement for economic growth, and the reality of the province’s fiscal situation. While mindful of these pressures, the panel strongly urges caution in
any decision by government to approve use of biomass for power generation. The Steering Panel advises that the province view the current agreement between NewPage Port Hawkesbury Ltd. and Nova Scotia Power Inc. as a pilot project and carefully monitor its impact on forests over time, basing future decisions on
those findings.
As Nova Scotians broaden their understanding and shared stewardship of the resource, the Steering Panel recommends for forests:
Integrated Resource Management Process
• Complete, implement, and work toward the full adoption of the Integrated Resource Management Process
on both public and private lands.
Code of Forest Practices
• With broader stakeholder input, complete, implement, and enforce the Code of Forest Practices on both
public and private lands.
Regulations (Public and Private Lands)
• Require management plans prior to cutting on all public and private lands.
• Allow clear-cutting by permit only.
• Allow use of pesticides and herbicides by permit only.
• Stop whole-tree harvesting as a forestry practice, except for Christmas tree farms.
Leading by Example
• Use best-management practices on all public lands.
• Strongly encourage best-management practices on private lands.
• Include the promotion of diversity of the forests, in both species and age of trees.
Biomass for Power Generation
• Exercise great caution in the use of biomass for power generation. There is ample evidence that our forests are already under considerable stress. Despite the need to reduce greenhouse gases, Nova Scotia does not have the wood capacity for biomass use to make much of a difference even provincially. It is counter-intuitive for the province to protect the environment by cutting down too many trees or reducing the quality of already thin and acidic soils. The province should instead encourage the exploration and expansion of other sustainable methods to generate power and, at the same time, methods to conserve energy and reduce demand.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS/PERSPECTIVE FINALLY ADOPTED
BY THE NS GOVERNMENT
As cited in The Path We Share, A Natural Resources Strategy for Nova Scotia 2011-2020, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, 2011
WebArchive Link
Clearcutting
Currently, 96 per cent of all forested lands are harvested by clearcutting. An ecosystem-based analysis of the province’s forests showed that about 50 per cent of these lands are suited for uneven-aged management, or non-clearcutting. The policy framework set a target for reducing clearcutting to no more than 50 per cent of all harvests. The target, to be phased in over five years, will be set in regulation.
With the release of this strategy, the province’s definition of clearcutting, in non- technical terms, is this: The removal of all trees in an area at one time, except those required to be left uncut under the Wildlife Habitat and Watercourses Protection regulations. At the time of publication, a technical definition of clearcutting was being developed.
A system will be put in place requiring that the Department of Natural Resources be notified of commercial harvests. This harvest tracking system will be among the first results of the department’s new direction for forest management. Post-harvest reports
will be required to verify harvesting areas and to provide data for public reporting.
Various supports will be developed to help private land owners and industry adapt to
the changes in harvesting policy. These supports will include education and
silviculture programs that will focus on how best to make appropriate uneven-aged
harvests of a site.
[Not clearly stated: There would be no requirements for management plans prior to cutting on all public and private lands or to allow clear-cutting by permit only on private lands.]
Forest biomass for energy [page 43]
In Phase 2 of the strategy development process, the steering panel urged government to exercise great caution in the use of biomass (wood fibre) for power generation. It also urged government to encourage the exploration and expansion of other sustainable methods to generate power, while continuing to conserve energy and reduce demand.
The cap set for new consumption of forest biomass for renewable electricity generation has been reduced to 350,000 dry tonnes per year, from the original 500,000 dry tonnes per year. The earlier cap was set as part of the Renewable Electricity Regulations, released in October 2010. Those regulations require that the Department of Natural Resources advise the Minister of Energy when any new forest biomass- based applications have a fuel procurement plan that will meet sustainable harvesting requirements.
In its Renewable Electricity Plan, the government of Nova Scotia committed itself to a cautious approach to the use of forest biomass for electricity production. The natural resources strategy reaffirms that commitment.
Rules for whole-tree harvesting will be developed as part of an ongoing legislative and policy review, consultation, and engagement. Requirements for the use of tree stems—for electricity generation only—have been completed and added to regulations and policy documents. Regulations under the Forests Act will be revised to ensure that harvesting practices (i.e., whole-tree harvesting) and the use of forest biomass for energy and fuel will meet commitments made in the Policy Framework for the Future of Nova Scotia’s Forestry. Other regulatory changes will be made to include biomass users as registered buyers. This will require their following the same rules as other buyers in the forestry sector. Standards for removing forest biomass from sites will be clearly identified in the Code of Forest Practice.