CFE agenda 091117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

this habitat. However, loblolly /slash pine forest in North Carolina is mostly made up of planted, rather than natural, pine stands (NC WAP). Conservation actions identified in the NC WAP include manage- ment and protection of non - longleaf pine woodlands with easements, acquisitions, and the reintroduc- tion of fire. However, areas where industrial timber harvesting is already occurring will be likely candi- dates for biomass production. Evaluating the rela- tive importance of competing resource needs will be a critical factor in planning North Carolinas biofuel production future. While biomass production can have impacts on important wildlife habitats, those impacts may be mitigated or avoided with sustainable natural resourc- es planning. Although the U.S. has only recently begun to consider woody biomass as a source of fuel, Box 4 -4. SFSC sustainable forestry criteria examples European countries such as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have been using this source of fuel for more than 30 years (Buford and Neary 2010). Criteria for sustainability that have been developed by some of these countries can be used as preliminary guidelines for woody biomass in the United States. For exam- ple, Sweden's Forestry Stewardship Council (SFSC) promotes environmentally sound, socially beneficial, and economically sustainable forest management (Buford and Neary 2010). Over one third of the country's forests have been certified under the SFSC criteria, which includes specific measurable targets including biodiversity, soil /water balance, and regen- eration (Box 4 -4). The potential for multi- sector state agency involvement in developing and imple- menting certification criteria can provide opportuni- ties to develop a sustainable biomass economy that minimizes negative impacts to wildlife and habitat. • Follow a precautionary approach when choosing feedstocks: Species should be chosen that minimize the risks to ecosystems and livelihoods from invasion, either by the feedstock species, or associated pests and diseases. Developers should also account for the possible costs of an invasion when choosing species. • Work with stakeholders to build capacity: Existing regulations are often robust enough in theory to reduce and contain risks of invasions. The main barrier to their effective enforcement and success comes from a lack of capacity and understanding for the need to follow best practices. • Comply with local, national and regional regulations: Regulations add an administrative and financial burden to developers, but they exist to safeguard the environment, the livelihoods of local communities, and the long -term financial sustainability of projects. • Develop and follow EMPs: Develop appropriate Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) that account for the full range of risks and specify actions to manage the site of production in such a way as to minimize the risk of escape and invasion of surrounding areas, and deal effectively with any potential or actual result- ing invasion. • Extend planning, monitoring and assessments beyond the field: Consider developments within the wider context of the landscapes and ecosystems in which they are situated. Risks may extend beyond the site of production especially where adjacent areas may be more susceptible to invasion and the dispersal mechanism enables species to spread beyond the immediate site of a project. Thus, adopting an ecosys- tem approach when planning developments is preferable to only considering the risks posed by individual species.