Duration: 10/01/2011 to 09/30/2016

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

Nature and Significance of the issue(s) for which multistate coordination is requested.


The full and appropriate use of sustainable wood energy is a remarkable and as-yet unrealized opportunity for improved forests, economic growth, and enhanced communities in the Northeast United States. About 2/3 of the northeast region is forested, and contain an estimated 8 billion tons of biomass (Smith et al, 2009, Anon, 2010a). Furthermore, much of the forest is suffering from insufficient management, resulting in low growth rates, reduced economic potential, and diminished wildlife habitat. The detrimental but widely accepted practice of "high-grading" the forest has left many tracts of forestland in very poor condition overall, and insect and disease pressures continue to threaten the viability of the region's forest ecosystem. In addition to this, many acres of marginal or abandoned land exist in the region, underutilized and of only limited value to the ecosystem.

A growing bioenergy industry could alter this scenario by providing an economic means to silviculturally harvest low grade timber and undesirable growing stock (i.e. invasive species and low value wood) and effectively manage the species mix, age, and spatial distribution of the forest. This would result in improved tree growth, enhanced wildlife habitat, and new business opportunities for the forest management and energy sectors. In addition to this, the growth of a sustainable Short Rotation Woody Crop (SRWC) industry on abandoned and marginal land could provide economic and ecological benefits to the region (if done properly) that dovetail with the appropriate use of natural-regrowth forests. This is an especially exciting possibility for the region because of the manner in which the economic, ecological, and community aspects of sustainability can work hand-in-hand. Opportunities for bioenergy span a wide range of energy needs as well as a variety of scales of operation, from wood heat for the smallest home to massive biofuel refineries, and everything in between.

Unfortunately, this opportunity remains largely untapped due to a variety of technical and educational roadblocks that have stalled the sustainable growth of wood energy (i.e. Ciolkosz et al, 2010, Anon, 2007, Hoffmann and Weih, 2005, McCormick and Kåberger, 2007). Forest management systems and approaches in the region have generally been designed with timber harvest in mind, resulting in equipment and operations that are not optimized for bioenergy needs. Also, the public is largely unaware of the potential for bioenergy in the region, and some mistakenly assume that the forest is well and fully utilized at present - or mistakenly believe that leaving forests unmanaged will result in optimum growth and ecological benefit. In addition, there exists the potential that a growing bioenergy industry, if poorly developed, could lead to resource depletion, environmental degradation, and long term damage to the region, rather than the positive outcomes that will result from sustainable management of the forest resource (Germain et al, 2007, Vickery et al, 2009, Munsell et al, 2007, Rossi and Hinrichs, 2010, Butler et al, 2010). SRWC systems are relatively new to the region, and face a shortage of educational and technical resources to support expansion of the woody crop.

Clearly, a combination of research, education, and extension effort is needed to actualize the positive potential that we currently face and minimize or prevent negative consequences, through provision of breakthrough developments in science, and communication of knowledge and assistance to community, industry, and governmental stakeholders.

The issues presented by forest bioenergy in the Northeast are of a regional scale, and are best addressed on a regional scale. Many university researchers, educators, and extension specialists in the region have recognized both the challenges and the opportunities that bioenergy presents, and are working to promote bioenergy in their respective states. However, these efforts are highly individualized and limited due to constrained human and financial resources. Some efforts at regional collaboration are underway, such as the Northeast Wood Energy Extension Program launched by The Pennsylvania State University in cooperation with the Northeast Sun Grant Initiative and wood energy colleagues throughout the region. That small project has revealed the strong need for a collaborative framework that brings together education, extension, and research professionals to share resources and plan coordinated efforts.


How the proposed activity addresses national and or regional priorities.

Energy security, renewable energy, economic development, and ecological stewardship have all been identified as national and regional priorities by a variety of federal, state and local authorities (i.e. EPA, 2010, Obama, 2011, Anon, 2010b). The proposed Northeast Sustainable Wood Energy regional project will address these priorities by allowing collaborative and coordinated efforts that will catalyze individual efforts of education, extension, and research professionals in the region and will increase our ability to 1) develop coordinated approaches to address research, education, and extension needs, 2) enable individuals and companies to produce and utilize sustainable wood energy, 3) inform the decision making and priorities of communities and governmental structures, and 4) enlighten the public as to the issues surrounding this significant opportunity for sustainable growth in the region.

Objectives

Procedures and Activities

The Northeast Sustainable Wood Energy regional project will meet its objectives by carrying out the following activities:

1. An annual information sharing meeting will be held at a suitable location within the region. This meeting will serve as the primary event for information sharing, team network development and collaborative planning. Web-based communication will be used to enhance and multiply the benefit of these vital face-to-face meetings.

2. Working groups will be established as subsets of the project team, devoted to different issues and professions associated with wood energy. These groups will be tasked with outlining and pursuing the regional project's objectives within their specific topic area.

3. The project team will develop and implement a coordinated outreach plan for the region. This plan will include sharing of resources and materials so as to maximize positive impact with the limited resources available.

4. The project team will establish and regularly update a catalog of key personnel in the region. This list will comprise those individuals that participate in the regional project, as well as key persons that are relevant to the project's goals.

Expected Outcomes and Impacts

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Educational Plan

Ease of Access to Services/Information:

Services and information for the general public will primarily be delivered through the Cooperative Extension services of the participating universities. These organizations are committed to equal access and availability of services and information, thus assuring full access of project outputs. Research outputs will be made available through research reports, papers, and presentations.

Focus on Under-Served Communities/Consumers:

This project is focused on the forest sector, and by that very nature is relevant to and valuable for rural communities in the region that typically are economically disadvantaged and lag the urban areas in economic opportunities and income.

Plans for disseminating information:

Information will be disseminated via workshops, presentations, research papers, and online and print material generated by the extension members of the regional team.

Opportunities to interact with and/or deliver value to peer groups, stakeholders, clientele, other regional activities:

Whenever possible, meetings and workshops will be held in conjunction with events held in the region, thus maximizing the opportunity for interacting with and adding value to peer groups, stakeholders, and clientele. Private consultants, practitioners and industry personnel will be welcomed to take part in the regional project group as non-voting 'associates'.

Organization/Governance

Governance will be by an executive board, consisting of a Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. On an annual basis, the Secretary will become the new Vice Chair, the Vice Chair will become the new Chair, and a new project member will be chosen to be the new Secretary. Activities of the group will be on a collaborative, consensus-driven basis as much as possible, with votes of members (one vote per land grant institution) used on any matters where consensus has not been reached. Meetings will be conducted using procedures adapted from 'Robert's Rules of Order'.

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2007. Eastern Forest Hardwood Region Woody Biomass Energy Opportunity. USDA Forest Service Project Report. Prepared by Summit Ridge Investments LLC.

Anonymous, 2010a. US Forest Service Forest Resource Inventory Online Database. http://apps.fs.fed.us/fido/.

Anonymous, 2010b. Bioenergy and Biobased Products: Strategic Direction 2009-2014. United States Forest Service Research and Development. Report # FS-940.

Butler, B, Zhao, M, Kittredge, D, Catanzaro, P. 2010. Social vs biophysical availability of wood In the Northern US. N. J. Appl. For. 27(4):151-159.

Ciolkosz, D. E., Ray, C. D., and L. Ma. 2010. Modeling of Forest Biomass Energy Potential in Pennsylvania. Presented at the 2010 Annual International Meeting of the ASABE. June, 2010. Paper #1008984.

EPA. (2010), Modifications to Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2).


Germain, R. H., N. Anderson, and E. Bevilacqua (2007), The Effects of Forestland
Parcelization and Ownership Transfers on Nonindustrial Private Forestland Forest
Stocking in New York, Journal of Forestry, 105, 403-408.


Hoffmann, D., and M. Weih (2005), Limitations and improvement of the potential
utilisation of woody biomass for energy derived from short rotation woody crops in Sweden and Germany, Biomass and Bioenergy, 28(3), 267-279.


McCormick, K., and T. Kåberger (2007), Key barriers for bioenergy in Europe:
Economic conditions, know-how and institutional capacity, and supply chain coordination, Biomass and Bioenergy, 31(7), 443-452.


Munsell, J. F., R. Germain, and H (2007), Woody Biomass Energy: An Opportunity for Silviculture on Nonindustrial Private Forestlands in New York, Journal of Forestry, 105, 398-402.

Obama, B., 2011. State of the Union Address to the United States Congress.

Rossi, A., and C. C. Hinrichs (2010 (in press)), Hope and skepticism: Farmer and local community views on the socio-economic benefits of agricultural bioenergy, Biomass and Bioenergy.

Smith, W. B., P. D. Miles, C. H. Perry, and S. A. Pugh (2009), Forest resources of the United States, 2007, Washington Office, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Vickery, B. W., R. H. Germain, and E. Bevilacqua (2009), Urbanization's impact on sustained yield management as perceived by forestry professionals in central New York, Forest Policy and Economics, 11(1), 42-49.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

MD, ME, MI, MN, ND, NJ, NY, PA, WV

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions