FROM: Ostroff Associates

DATE: March 16, 2021

RE: Agriculture and Forestry Advisory Panel

Chair

• Richard Ball, Chair, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets

Members

• Peter Innes, Natural Resources Supervisor, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
• Rafael Aponte, Founder, Rocky Acres Community Farm
• Amanda Barber, Manager, Cortland County Soil and Water Conservation District
• John Bartow, Executive Director, Empire State Forest Products Association
• Michelle Brown, Conservation Scientist, The Nature Conservancy
• Tom Gerow, General Manager, Wagner Lumber Co.
• Suzanne Hunt, President, Hunt Green LLC and Co-Owner, Hunt Country Vineyards
• Peter Lehner, Director of Sustainable Food and Farming, EarthJustice
• Samantha Levy, New York Policy Manager, American Farmland Trust
• Robert Malmsheimer, Professor of Forest Policy and Law, SUNY College of Environmental
Science and Forestry
• Stephanie Morningstar, Coordinator, Northeast Farmers of Color Land Trust
• John Noble, President, Noblehurst Farms
• Julie Suarez, Associate Dean, Office of Land-Grant Affairs, College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences, Cornell University
• Ned Sullivan, President, Scenic Hudson
• Donna Wadsworth, Communications Manager, International Paper
• Elizabeth Wolters, Deputy Director of Public Policy, New York Farm Bureau
• Peter Woodbury, Senior Research Associate, School of Integrative Plant Science, Soil and
Crop Sciences, Cornell University
• Nelson Villarrubia, Executive Director, Trees New York
Maureen Leddy noted that having case studies for these recommendations will be a key factor in
gaining a fuller grasp of these concepts.
Leddy said she believes the panel should be prioritizing products that move away from fossil fuel.
Leddy explained that Biochar has been discussed heavily. She added Biochar is stable and locks
carbon in the soil as a form of long-term carbon storage.
Tom Gerow – Gerow said there are a lot of potential mitigants when it comes to current
infrastructure as compared to the goals of this proposal and he wanted to know if Leddy could
clarify where they would put some of those things, for example, the electrification of large
equipment that handles logs or the electrification of log trucks? Gerow is concerned that in
incentivizing a company with new technologies, there is potential to create competition for the
existing companies. He added he understands this is necessary, but wanted to know if there had
been any consideration for existing companies?
• Leddy responded that she agrees and she does not think that issue was well articulated thus
far. The goal is job growth not just net growth, and to ensure they are not taking from one to
give to another. She assured that her goal is to find a way to provide access to workers for
all.
John Bartow – He added that there are add-ons that could be done in existing facilities to take
advantage of proximity to the feed stocks, the labor that is there, and it diversifies the existing
companies.
Peter Lehner – Lehner thanked Leddy for pointing out the importance of doing the full life cycle
analysis of different products. He added his appreciation for the substitution of energy products
rather than the easier to substitute electric products, using wood for energy rather than electricity,
which we can more easily get in a clean way from solar and wind.
Gerow – He explained that one of the things that Wagner Lumber Co. does is burn feed stock, chips,
saw dust (things that are made during the process of creating lumber). In doing so, their biproducts
are used in various ways; they sell them to pellet manufacturers, paper companies and
organizations that burn them for heating. Gerow said they also burn chips/sawdust to dry their
own lumber on site. He asked where the panel falls in relation to using these things? He expressed
concern that because electrification is not available for some larger boiler systems and noted that
alternatives would be oil or natural gas which is not the “right direction;” so some of these policies
could push companies to very expensive and potentially harmful forms of energy.
• Leddy said this would fall under the biomass action plan recommendation because the goal
is to ensure all those considerations. Questions that still need to be asked: What will drive
the best value to your company, and there could be a point in the future where selling those
wood chips could create more revenue and you now have a low carbon fuel running your
saw mill from some other strategy that comes along. We want to ensure all the pieces are
functioning succinctly because these are low margin businesses and things are tough so we
certainly don’t want to put the squeeze on the existing supply chain.
Peter Woodbury – Woodbury said that in discussions on feedstock availability, they were well
aware that those materials are being used in manufacturing processes so they are looking at other
materials for new bioeconomy opportunities.
Jeffrey Mapes
Samantha Levy – This doesn’t yet include solar development that is competing with farmland and
forest land and will drive pressure in the coming years. Is there an opportunity to call on the
mapping strategy to better acknowledge making sure we are meeting the states renewable energy
goals, but also avoiding conversion all together?
Ned Sullivan – In regard to supporting community’s capacity for community preservation acts, he
believes there needs to be statewide, enabling legislation. Under the current law, there is a two-step
process, first needing the State Legislature to authorize each municipality to adopt a CPA and then
they must to go to a local referendum. He added that it is important to recognize that communities
need help in mobilizing the referendum and support for that program.
Tom Gerow – Gerow asked if the CPA being referred to is community preserving forests (as forests)
or forest preserve (meaning no harvesting/no management)? If a community chooses to manage
said forest, do they have the option to under that particular law? To the whole panel, how are our
recommendations on the environmental justice end going to truly address the needs of
disadvantaged communities?
• Sullivan responded that the laws that are implemented locally or a real-estate transfer tax
that are applied to houses above the median property price sale and the proceeds of that tax
go into an open space fund and they can be used to preserve working forests or farms (often
in conjunction with local, county, state or federal land trust programs).
• Levy expressed her support for a robust conversation to ensure the panel meets their equity
standards. She added that in a number of slides where there are descriptions of
disadvantaged communities’ women should be listed as “women” NOT “women owned.”
Peter Innes – He noted that deer hunting, culling and fencing are going to be included in a
regeneration program for New York State and he realizes that may be an issue moving forward.
Peter Woodbury – He commented on the afforestation of 1.7 million acres and noted this is
potentially available land, but some of it is in use for other purposes and there will be competition
for renewables, expanded agriculture, biodiversity, etc.
Suzanne Hagell – She explained that this chart represents the emissions reductions that the panel is
trying to achieve. Above the zero line are the agricultural emissions (livestock initiatives,
fertilizer/nutrient management emissions). Below the zero line are opportunities for net carbon
sequestration, which could happen wherever there’s tree coverage or crop lands/soil and 1.5
billion metric tons of harvested wood products.
Levy – Is there a break down for the 60 mmt?
• Hagell responded that it is hard to estimate, adding that it was included in the work plan,
but there is no analysis on how it will be achieved. She clarified that if emissions are
reduced by 85% (from 1990 levels) in 2050, the remaining 15% would be 60 mmt.

Commissioner Richard Ball – He expressed he is glad to be supporting the $15 million proposal,
from the Governor, for water conservation projects (about 147) throughout New York State. The
Land Use and Local Government Panel created a subgroup to work with each one of the panel’s
recommendations, with regard to adaptation and resiliency. He added that they are hoping to have
that completed draft by March 19th. The next step after that will be for the panel chairs to review
the full package of recommendations and identify any overlooked issues or conflicts, and once that
is complete the full package will be delivered to the Climate Action Council. He also noted that this
is the last scheduled meeting.