| LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
OZARK WOODLAND OWNERS ASSCOCIATION, INC
490 EAST COLLEGE STREET, ROOM 242
BATESVILLE AR, 72501
15 January 2008
The Honorable Blanche Lincoln, Senator
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
Dear Senator Lincoln,
I represent a group of private landowners in the Northern Arkansas area. We have been
watching the 2007 Farm Bill as it moves thru congress, and how it uses the definitions of
renewable biomass as referenced in HR6. To say we are disappointed is an understatement.
Through a lot of work by many individuals, the Farm Bill has been kept fairly open on feedstocks
for renewable energy, and the playing field is level. Unfortunately the definitions it uses are from
HR6, which is extremely biased. Apparently, some powerful lobby has skewed the definitions to
greatly restrict what feedstocks can be used for renewable energy, effectively making several
million acres in Northern Arkansas off-limits to renewable energy uses.
The definitions in question are as follows:
(I) RENEWABLE BIOMASS- The term `renewable biomass' means each of the following:
(i) Planted crops and crop residue harvested from agricultural land cleared or cultivated at any
time prior to the enactment of this sentence that is either actively managed or fallow, and
nonforested.
(ii) Planted trees and tree residue from actively managed tree plantations on non-federal land
cleared at any time prior to enactment of this sentence, including land belonging to an Indian tribe
or an Indian individual, that is held in trust by the United States or subject to a restriction against
alienation imposed by the United States.
(iii) Animal waste material and animal byproducts.
(iv) Slash and pre-commercial thinnings that are from non-federal forestlands, including
forestlands belonging to an Indian tribe or an Indian individual, that are held in trust by the United
States or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, but not forests
or forestlands that are ecological communities with a global or State ranking of critically
imperiled, imperiled, or rare pursuant to a State Natural Heritage Program, old growth forest, or
late successional forest.
(v) Biomass obtained from the immediate vicinity of buildings and other areas regularly occupied
by people, or of public infrastructure, at risk from wildfire.
(vi) Algae.
(vii) Separated yard waste or food waste, including recycled cooking and trap grease.
These definitions exclude all of our natural forests even though they may be actively managed
because they are not "plantations" which by definition are planted stands and not naturally
growing stands.
The timber from our natural forests is excluded because they are not considered as "slash"
and further that they often would not be "pre-commercial" thinnings but rather a component of a
commercial thinning. They are also excluded because they don't meet the definition of a
"plantation".
I own native timber here in Arkansas. As president of the Ozark Woodlands Owners Assn, a
forestry delegate for the Farm Bureau, and chairman of the Independence County Conservation
District, I represent hundreds of others in this area that have also been disadvantaged by these
definitions. This will be a major topic at our spring conference coming this March, where we will
expect 700-1000 forest landowners to attend.
Sixty percent (60%) of the forests in Arkansas are privately owned. Through the definitions in HR6,
the majority of Arkansas timber owners are excluded from participating in the evolving renewable
energy initiative.
We deserve a level playing field, and not be excluded from selling our timber where we want.
We have a new biorefining facility near here. With these restrictions, they can’t use the 2.4 million
acres of natural resources surrounding their facility. And we can’t sell our products to our local
customer.
We are asking your help in keeping us from being locked out of the renewable energy field. As
tree farmers we want, more than anyone, to support renewable energy. Our country needs it
badly. What we do not need is legislation that restricts the involvement of locally available
resources.
If you would like to discuss this or require additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely;
Ed Mabry,
230 Sawmill Rd.
Batesville, AR. 72501
(870) 793-7888
490 EAST COLLEGE STREET, ROOM 242
BATESVILLE AR, 72501
15 January 2008
The Honorable Blanche Lincoln, Senator
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
Dear Senator Lincoln,
I represent a group of private landowners in the Northern Arkansas area. We have been
watching the 2007 Farm Bill as it moves thru congress, and how it uses the definitions of
renewable biomass as referenced in HR6. To say we are disappointed is an understatement.
Through a lot of work by many individuals, the Farm Bill has been kept fairly open on feedstocks
for renewable energy, and the playing field is level. Unfortunately the definitions it uses are from
HR6, which is extremely biased. Apparently, some powerful lobby has skewed the definitions to
greatly restrict what feedstocks can be used for renewable energy, effectively making several
million acres in Northern Arkansas off-limits to renewable energy uses.
The definitions in question are as follows:
(I) RENEWABLE BIOMASS- The term `renewable biomass' means each of the following:
(i) Planted crops and crop residue harvested from agricultural land cleared or cultivated at any
time prior to the enactment of this sentence that is either actively managed or fallow, and
nonforested.
(ii) Planted trees and tree residue from actively managed tree plantations on non-federal land
cleared at any time prior to enactment of this sentence, including land belonging to an Indian tribe
or an Indian individual, that is held in trust by the United States or subject to a restriction against
alienation imposed by the United States.
(iii) Animal waste material and animal byproducts.
(iv) Slash and pre-commercial thinnings that are from non-federal forestlands, including
forestlands belonging to an Indian tribe or an Indian individual, that are held in trust by the United
States or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, but not forests
or forestlands that are ecological communities with a global or State ranking of critically
imperiled, imperiled, or rare pursuant to a State Natural Heritage Program, old growth forest, or
late successional forest.
(v) Biomass obtained from the immediate vicinity of buildings and other areas regularly occupied
by people, or of public infrastructure, at risk from wildfire.
(vi) Algae.
(vii) Separated yard waste or food waste, including recycled cooking and trap grease.
These definitions exclude all of our natural forests even though they may be actively managed
because they are not "plantations" which by definition are planted stands and not naturally
growing stands.
The timber from our natural forests is excluded because they are not considered as "slash"
and further that they often would not be "pre-commercial" thinnings but rather a component of a
commercial thinning. They are also excluded because they don't meet the definition of a
"plantation".
I own native timber here in Arkansas. As president of the Ozark Woodlands Owners Assn, a
forestry delegate for the Farm Bureau, and chairman of the Independence County Conservation
District, I represent hundreds of others in this area that have also been disadvantaged by these
definitions. This will be a major topic at our spring conference coming this March, where we will
expect 700-1000 forest landowners to attend.
Sixty percent (60%) of the forests in Arkansas are privately owned. Through the definitions in HR6,
the majority of Arkansas timber owners are excluded from participating in the evolving renewable
energy initiative.
We deserve a level playing field, and not be excluded from selling our timber where we want.
We have a new biorefining facility near here. With these restrictions, they can’t use the 2.4 million
acres of natural resources surrounding their facility. And we can’t sell our products to our local
customer.
We are asking your help in keeping us from being locked out of the renewable energy field. As
tree farmers we want, more than anyone, to support renewable energy. Our country needs it
badly. What we do not need is legislation that restricts the involvement of locally available
resources.
If you would like to discuss this or require additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely;
Ed Mabry,
230 Sawmill Rd.
Batesville, AR. 72501
(870) 793-7888