Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Forest Health and Carbon Storage Roundtable Planned

tupper lake log yardThe Adirondack North Country Association (ANCA) has announced the release of preliminary findings from its analysis of the wood supply, supply chain infrastructure needs and opportunities, and recommendations for addressing them. The analysis examines the North Country’s current timber supply, its workforce, its infrastructure and the markets that affect them. Findings and recommendations will be unveiled at the Fall Forestry Roundtable in Queensbury on October 12, 2016.

Eric Kingsley of Innovative Natural Resource Solutions (INRS) will present preliminary data and recommendations from ANCA’s report “Northern New York’s Forests: Timber Supply, Workforce, Infrastructure and Markets.” This project grew out of discussions with industry and public sector stakeholders within the forest economy about how the addition of robust complementary markets for low and high value wood, along with additional infrastructure to support the sustainable use of this natural resource could help the Adirondack-North Country economy. The project’s objective is to provide decision-making guidance to industry leaders, workforce development groups, policy makers, and potential investors in the industry. ANCA employed INRS, a northeast U.S. based natural resource consulting firm, to conduct this analysis and has engaged a group of stakeholders to help guide the research process.

ANCA Executive Director Kate Fish will introduce this research project at the roundtable, which is hosted by the Adirondack Research Consortium (ARC) and the Empire State Forest Products Association (ESFPA). This will take place on Wednesday, October 12, 2016, 10 am to 3:30 pm, with coffee and registration at 9:30 am, at the Queensbury Hotel, 88 Ridge Street, Glens Falls. There will be a $25 event fee.

Topics in the meeting agenda include:
•Research Report: ANCA’s study “Northern New York’s Forests: Timber Supply, Workforce, Infrastructure and Markets”
•Issue Update: Forest Health-Invasive Species
•Lunch topic: “Biomass Carbon Accounting Policies Effect on US Natural Resources”
•Panel Discussion: Adirondack Carbon Issues
•Optional Tour of the Finch Paper Mill

Speakers and moderators at the meeting include:
•Kate Fish, Executive Director, ANCA
•Eric W. Kingsley, Vice President, Innovative Natural Resource Solutions, LLC
•Robert Davies, Director of NYS DEC’s Division of Lands and Forests
•Dr. Robert Malmsheimer, Professor, SUNY ESF
•Dr. Charles D. Canham, Forest Ecologist, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
•Troy Weldy, Director of Ecological Management, The Nature Conservancy

Photo: A Tupper Lake log yard (photo by John Warren).

Related Stories


Stories written under the Almanack's Editorial Staff byline are drawn from press releases and other notices.

To have your news noticed here at the Almanack contact our Editor John Warren at adkalmanack@gmail.com.




3 Responses

  1. Keep in mind, despite false claims otherwise by vested interests, the best “management” option for forests in terms of carbon impacts is “no management” ie. no logging.

    See page 8 if you don’t want to read the whole document:
    http://www.maforests.org/Keeton.pdf

    Also, clearcutting is the worst “management” option for carbon impacts, and tragically the amount of clearcutting in Adirondack Park has been increasing drastically recently.

    See page 16

    http://www.adirondackcouncil.org/uploads/sop_archive/1473179678_SOP%202016%20FINAL.pdf

  2. Marco says:

    Well, clearly no management (as in no harvesting) requires the least effort AND the greatest return in carbon sequestration. However, the study does NOT make available the mean to evaluate the greatest amount that can be removed for use balanced with good soil growth. Of course, this always implies no damage to the soils/depletion of the loam. Soo, my question would be “How much can we take out of the forest and still maintain a healthy positive loam growth rate?” The balance between what can be removed and what needs to be left for carbon sequestering is not really the question, though. There are simply too many people requesting more wood and wood products. We are beyond the point of no return with atmospheric carbon as it sits. Removing the forests and loam will certainly NOT help the current carbon glut.

    The 10 year study is nice, but is lacking in any real conclusions. Mostly it is using computer modeling based on a ten year study. I doubt it’s accuracy simply because it does not take into account the steadily increasing atmospheric carbon which favors some species and may shift forest compositions/growth conditions. Garbage in/Garbage out…I do not trust the model unless all factors (global warming, carbon cycles, shifting weather patterns, average rainfall and who knows what else) are *known.* Ten years is not enough to base this decision on.

    Lots more, but I think we need more time to make an effective decision. I am NOT against small scale tree farming. But, to drop the carbon sequestration down to around 60% (best case) in a low intensity managed forest is NOT what I think we want to do.

    • Boreas says:

      Marco,

      I agree. A 10 year forest study is the equivalent of trying to predict human populations based on a one week study.