Biomass

Support Renewable Energy from Forest Restoration: Guest Post by Brad Worsley

by

 

This is an unusual post for TSW.. there’s only a couple of times I’ve posted something about contacting Congress.  If you live in a state with a Republican Senator and forest thinning for fuel reduction (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah), please consider contacting your Senator. This is a guest post from Brad Worsley of Novo BioPower in Arizona.

Biomass power generation can be a tough business! Unlike other power sources, using a non-homogenous fuel source brings complications when trying to create power. Imagine fuel like solar radiation, or Natural Gas, or pulverized coal…each brings a very constant and steady input of energy. Now imagine ground wood that comes in all different sizes, moisture content, BTU content, etc. If you combine that reality with the risk of being an independent power provider you might ask, why do we do it? The answer…it is personal to us! We felt the heat of catastrophic wildfire as it burned through our properties and changed the forest around our homes for generations. We recognize that we are helping resolve a generational issue and we want to make a difference. Senator John McCain said that fire and water are the two largest natural resource issues Arizona will face in the next 100 years. Novo Power is the keystone in the effort to restore our forests, mitigate high intensity fire, and restore the watershed function of our National Forests in Arizona. The issue that Novo Power faces is the reality that the renewable electron is not worth what it used to be worth. The high cost associated with renewable energy historically allowed forest restoration to piggy back but now with renewable energy at a fraction of what it used to cost, we face the reality that the renewable electron is the 4th or 5th most valuable part of what we do each day. Forest restoration, watershed mitigation, clean air, economic impact,  increasing the safety of firefighters, and communities, water and energy infrastructure may all be more valuable than the renewable credit we produce.  With that being said, we have to be creative about how we fund the cost of restoration. A critical component of that funding ought to be the Federal government. They are the stewards and have been the stewards of this land for over 100 years.

Senator Mark Kelly’s office is currently working on a Biomass PTC bill that would help a biomass facility that focuses on removing high hazard fuels from federal forests to receive a Production Tax Credit (PTC) to help offset the impact of federal taxes. A recap from Senator Kelly’s office is below:

  • Wildfires turn our forests into carbon emitters. Each year, around 8 million acres burn in the United States. The USDA Forest Service estimates about 80 percent of our national forests are at extreme risk of wildfire.
  • The Forest Service is trying to reduce wildfire severity and restore the health of our forests by removing dead, drought stricken, and insect infested trees from forestlands that are at high risk of wildfire.
  • The Forest Service is focusing on removing small hazard trees while avoiding harvesting large old-growth trees. Over the past 20 years, the work has been slow-going because there is no market for timber mills to use low-value timber for lumber.
  • Biomass energy production can provide a market for the Forest Service to accelerate its forest restoration projects. California is a leader in piloting this effort.
  • The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the renewable electricity production tax credit (PTC) for open-loop biomass facilities engaged in forest restoration activities
  • The bill would apply the renewable energy PTC (1.5 cents per kW produced) for producers of electricity if their biomass facility is engaged in forest restoration activities authorized by the Forest Service.
  • The credit applies to existing units of open-loop wood biomass electricity production on a monthly basis, regardless of when they were placed into production, for a term up to 10 years
    This tax credit would build upon but is separate from the existing production tax credit for open-loop biomass, which is for non-hazardous agricultural biomass waste and includes the following forest-related resources: mill and harvesting residues, precommercial thinnings, slash, and brush

Currently there is sufficient support from Democrats, we are desperately looking for a Republican Senator to step up and help sponsor this bill. We would encourage citizens to reach out and lobby their Republican Senators to stand up and help on this bi-partisan issue.

Bradley Worsley, President and CEO of Novo Biopower, LLC.

MBA – Supply Chain Management – Michigan State University

************

Here’s a copy of the proposed bill. It’s only two pages. Check it out, and if you feel inclined, please give your R Senator a call!

Talking Past Each Other on Forest Carbon: Differing Questions Asked and Alternatives Considered?

by

For many years, folks have been disagreeing about different aspects of forest carbon. First, there’s using different abstractions, which aren’t necessarily clearly defined, as we saw yesterday. Then there’s the temporal and spatial scale, and location and level of any site-specificity. So ideas, scope, and assumptions have been all tangled up.

I thought it might be helpful to develop a taxonomy of analyses to clarify what different studies are analyzing and how the pieces might fit together. My original idea was a diagram, and for each study, we could highlight where it fit, or not.

So here’s a first stab at a diagram. I’m hoping fellow TSW folks will help me improve it. Note that none of these framings are in themselves “scientific.”

What came to me is that sometimes when folks talk about bioenergy, they mean it as a primary purpose, while others mean it as an alternative way of disposing of waste, say from logging slash, fuel treatment projects, urban wood waste. Some mean thermal and small scale (putting up a fuels project for firewood collection) and others mean electric and large scale (building a plant).

So I came up with three boxes of environmental impacts to consider:

I. What is the primary purpose and are there other ways of fulfilling this purpose, if so what are those alternative’s carbon as well as other environmental, social and economic impacts?
Under this you would include:
a) adding or decreasing total acres of forest (alternative land uses)
b) management practices on the land (alternative silvicultural practices)
c) tree removal: live vs. dead, species/size removed, harvest method (alternative methods)

II. If you have woody material left over from a primary purpose use, what are the alternative ways of disposing of it? Say for fuel treatments, this could be burning in piles- which of course has some operational problems and risks, as well as environmental effects.

Just based on this diagram, it seems that we can talk past each other because some people are talking about primary purpose and others are talking about waste. They are definitely connected, and those connections are worthy of more examination. The questions are, for a landowner “What are we going to do with this forest?” vs. “What are we going to do with all this extra woody material?” On the other hand, when the EPA Scientific Advisory Board debated “is biomass carbon neutral?” that’s another way of looking at it, around how using it should be regulated.

Here’s an EESI 2018 piece that shows some of the complexity of which question in which place..in this case for regulators:

However, while the determination helps clear the path towards greater use of woody biomass for energy, it remains unclear what net effect this will have on the U.S. energy mix. Solutions from the Land, an agriculture, forestry and conservation group, cheered the decision but note that there are numerous conflicts in no fewer than 14 different federal regulations pertaining to biomass utilization.

State level policies, to a large extent, decide the level of biomass utilization domestically. For example, Massachusetts’ Renewable Portfolio Standard largely forbids the use of biomass as renewable energy, while Oregon promotes it as a renewable source of energy. In California, the biomass power industry has largely shut-down due to expiring Power Purchase Agreements, despite a great need to address vast amounts of wildfire and agricultural wastes. Currently, the only other method of disposal of these materials is open burning.

The Clean Power Plan had offered hope to the biomass industry. Under the now defunct Clean Power Plan, states and the EPA had been charting a pathway for states to use biomass as a way to ratchet down emissions. However, with the administration’s reversal on the rule, along with larger market forces, such as low natural gas prices, biomass power is a less attractive energy option than even a few years ago.

But for forest land owners and managers, the question can be quite different. It might be “how best can this forest sequester and store carbon?” or “how best can this forest help with climate change given other needs and values not climate-related?” or “given future uncertainties,how should we balance s&s with the need to develop resilience? while at the same time providing important ecosystem services?”.

Uses For Small Woody Material: I. Biochar on the Mount Hood

by
An excavator drops load of slash into the top of the TigerCat 6050 Carborator. George Plaven, Capital Press

If you agree with the claim that in some places trees and other vegetative material need to be removed for fuels reduction or removal of hazard trees, then the question becomes what to do with it? What are the alternatives to burning piles? It would be using the material in some way.

Larger material can go to a mill, if there is a mill. Many parts of the west have minimal or no mill capacity within a cost-effective distance.

Folks have been exploring alternative ways of dealing with the material, as we have outlined in other posts. Selling logs to Korea, bioenergy plants, and others. I’ve told the story before that when Boulder Colorado young innovators were thinking of ways to make products from dead lodgepole, representatives from environmental groups told them they would resist these efforts because they felt if a market developed, the Forest Service would overcut. It seems to me that there are alternative ways to deal with mistrust.. such as an agreed upon certification system that this is indeed “waste” that would otherwise be burned. We do have a history of forest certification with third party audits and chains of custody which could provide some assurance. On the other hand, certification carries no small amount of cost, and right now alternatives to burning do not always break even, let alone make a profit.

There is also the private versus federal land issue- even if markets were developed just for material from private land, that would still help out many people and governments paying for hazardous fuel mitigation. So perhaps there is no opposition from environmental groups (and perhaps support?) for development of technologies and markets for private land. Conceivably, if we have a log export ban we could also have a small material use ban. Perhaps such a ban would seem like a waste of government resources, but the Sierra Club has maintained a policy of no commercial timber sales on National Forests for many years and continues to do so.

Many people have been talking about and spent many research and technology development dollars, in the pursuit of this Small Diameter Grail for many years..my first experience was in the early 80’s, when there was talk of building a waferboard plant for dead lodgepole in Chiloquin, Oregon. And I’m sure the need existed before then. We were perhaps less aware of the negative carbon effects of burning. Climate change adaptation (need for fuel treatments) and mitigation are new concerns.

What I’ve noticed in some of the dialogue around this at the international and national level is that “biomass” is a broad category that includes energy crops, plant and animal wastes, and many other things. So it’s hard to say anything definitive because people are talking about different things at different scales, and usually not specific to a place. For this series, I’d like to focus on wood waste that is a byproduct of other activities, the most common being timber harvest and fuel treatment thinnings.

We can think about these ideas as we explore further. Today’s story is from the Capital Press, via the Forest Business Network.

ESTACADA, Ore. — An excavator rumbled over a pile of dead tree branches, limbs and woody debris in the Mt. Hood National Forest east of Estacada, Ore., where the Riverside Fire began Sept. 8 and quickly enveloped 138,054 acres.

Next to the pile sat the Tigercat 6050 carbonator, a tank-like mobile machine designed to convert organic biomass such as forest brush and slash into biochar, a carbon-rich soil amendment with serious potential for Northwest farms.

“Black gold,” remarked Kraig Kidwell, regional timber contracting officer for the U.S. Forest Service, as he grabbed a handful of grainy, jet-black biochar. “We’re taking a waste product and creating something usable.”

Kidwell watched alongside Phil Monsanto, West Zone silviculturist for the national forest, as the excavator dropped several loads of slash into the open top of the carbonator, flames barely visible as they peeked out of the vessel.

To the best of anyone’s knowledge, it is the first time federal land managers have incorporated making biochar as part of a wildfire cleanup project.

“We have so much of this slash, we just wanted to find other ways to manage it,” Monsanto said.

Ideas for New Administration: Managing for Climate Change Mitigation-Biomass With Chart and Links Fixed

by

From the 2013 Argonne National Lab study

 

Apologies to everyone and especially Mac.. I couldn’t get the links and image to work on some platforms for this so am trying various tricks, like reposting the whole thing. Thanks to folks helping me troubleshoot the problem! Please comment below if you can’t see the one link to the Argonne report nor the chart.

Here’s Mac McConnell’s idea for the new Administration:

MANAGING NATIONAL FORESTS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION

In 2011 the United States Forest Service (USFS) promulgated a program document entitled Strategic Energy Framework.
“The Forest Service Strategic Energy Framework sets direction and proactive goals for the Agency to significantly and sustainably contribute toward resolving U.S. energy resource challenges, by fostering sustainable management and use of forest and grassland energy resources.”
I write this paper in hopes of furthering these goals, focusing on the national forests’ signature resource: biomass.

Biomass

In 2013, the Argonne National Laboratory, under contract with the USFS, published a report “Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential on U.S. National Forest Land”. It revealed that, at that time, some 14 million acres of national forest (NF) land were highly suitable for biomass production. This resource is renewable, immense, and virtually untapped.
Should this resource be developed? The question has been raised as to whether the national forests can support a larger timber harvest. Alternatively, should the carbon remain sequestered in standing trees , thus slowing the progression of climate change? The answers can be found in the chart.

During the 31 years period ending in 2016, drastic changes took place in the management of national forest resources. Emphasis (dollars|) shifted from tangibles, such as timber, forage, and road construction and maintenance to intangibles (wilderness experience, endangered species and old growth protection) and fire management.

As a result of these factors, plus chronic under-funding, serial litigation, and over-planning and analysis, timber harvest has declined by 75% and the forests are now harvesting about 8% of their growth. Mortality due to fire, insects, and disease increased by 200%.. Net annual growth (Gross annual growth minus Mortality) decreased by 39%.

The chart makes apparent the long-term adverse impacts of virtual non-management. As trees in unmanaged forests and under stress from climate changes die in increasing numbers they no longer sequester carbon, but rather become sources of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. Prudent harvesting for energy biomass uses these dead and dying and unwanted trees to replace fossil fuels while creating a healthier and more resilient timber stand. It also creates a market for presently unmerchantable material and a new job market in rural areas urgently needing economic help.

Other renewable resources

While this paper focuses on biomass, the 2013 Argonne Lab report also investigated the presence of the solar and wind energy potential on NF land.
National forest solar resources are abundant with 565,000 acres of NF land with a production capacity of 56,000 Megawatts potentially available, primarily in the Southwest.
While minor wind opportunities exist locally, the principle developable areas are located on the 17 national grasslands totally 4 million acres.

Proposed Action
I propose that the Forest Service initiate a greatly expanded program of biomass utilization focused on active participation in the development of small-scale (< 20 MW) energy projects on selected national forests. This would include assistance in siting (providing suitable land for facilities), planning, financing (grants or low-interest loans), and long-term contracts that would ensure a continuous fuel supply.

Congressional authorization and funding will allow this action to take place.

Bibliography
USDA Forest Service 1997, FIA Forest Resources of the United States, 1997 (Tables 33 & 34)
USDA Forest Service 2011, Strategic Energy Framework
USDA Forest Service 2017, FIA, Forest Resources of the United States, 2017 (Tables 33 & 34)
USDA Forest Service, Annual Cut and Sold Report
McConnell, W.V. (Mac). 2018. Integrated Renewable Energy from National Forests in193 Million Acres, 32 Essays on the Future of the Agency, Steve Wilent editor, Society of American Foresters,651:333-338
Zvolanek, E.; Kuiper, J.; Carr, A. & Hlava, K. Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential on U. S. National Forest Lands, report, December 13, 2013; Argonne, Illinois..

W.V. (Mac) McConnell is a self-styled visionary who, b(uilding on his 30 year career with the U,S. Forest Service and mellowed by 47 post retirement years in the real world,  hopes to change the way the  Service manages the peoples’ forests. He specializes in energy biomass management (short-rotation-intensive culture energy crop systems)

*Additional Note from Sharon: The Argonne study also looked at hydropower and geothermal; it’s interesting to look at the tables by forest and also the maps for concentrated solar, PV, wind, hydro and geothermal. The biomass estimates focused on logging residues and thinning. Criteria are listed on page 12 of the report.*

Ideas for New Administration: Managing for Climate Change Mitigation-Biomass

by
From the 2013 Argonne National Lab study

 

Here’s Mac McConnell’s idea for the new Administration:

MANAGING NATIONAL FORESTS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION

In 2011 the United States Forest Service (USFS) promulgated a program document entitled Strategic Energy Framework.
“The Forest Service Strategic Energy Framework sets direction and proactive goals for the Agency to significantly and sustainably contribute toward resolving U.S. energy resource challenges, by fostering sustainable management and use of forest and grassland energy resources.”
I write this paper in hopes of furthering these goals, focusing on the national forests’ signature resource: biomass.

Biomass

In 2013, the Argonne National Laboratory, under contract with the USFS, published a report “Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential on U.S. National Forest Land”. It revealed that, at that time, some 14 million acres of national forest (NF) land were highly suitable for biomass production. This resource is renewable, immense, and virtually untapped.
Should this resource be developed? The question has been raised as to whether the national forests can support a larger timber harvest. Alternatively, should the carbon remain sequestered in standing trees , thus slowing the progression of climate change? The answers can be found in the chart.

During the 31 years period ending in 2016, drastic changes took place in the management of national forest resources. Emphasis (dollars|) shifted from tangibles, such as timber, forage, and road construction and maintenance to intangibles (wilderness experience, endangered species and old growth protection) and fire management.

As a result of these factors, plus chronic under-funding, serial litigation, and over-planning and analysis, timber harvest has declined by 75% and the forests are now harvesting about 8% of their growth. Mortality due to fire, insects, and disease increased by 200%.. Net annual growth (Gross annual growth minus Mortality) decreased by 39%.

The chart makes apparent the long-term adverse impacts of virtual non-management. As trees in unmanaged forests and under stress from climate changes die in increasing numbers they no longer sequester carbon, but rather become sources of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. Prudent harvesting for energy biomass uses these dead and dying and unwanted trees to replace fossil fuels while creating a healthier and more resilient timber stand. It also creates a market for presently unmerchantable material and a new job market in rural areas urgently needing economic help.

Other renewable resources

While this paper focuses on biomass, the 2013 Argonne Lab report also investigated the presence of the solar and wind energy potential on NF land.
National forest solar resources are abundant with 565,000 acres of NF land with a production capacity of 56,000 Megawatts potentially available, primarily in the Southwest.
While minor wind opportunities exist locally, the principle developable areas are located on the 17 national grasslands totally 4 million acres.

Proposed Action
I propose that the Forest Service initiate a greatly expanded program of biomass utilization focused on active participation in the development of small-scale (< 20 MW) energy projects on selected national forests. This would include assistance in siting (providing suitable land for facilities), planning, financing (grants or low-interest loans), and long-term contracts that would ensure a continuous fuel supply.

Congressional authorization and funding will allow this action to take place.

Bibliography
USDA Forest Service 1997, FIA Forest Resources of the United States, 1997 (Tables 33 & 34)
USDA Forest Service 2011, Strategic Energy Framework
USDA Forest Service 2017, FIA, Forest Resources of the United States, 2017 (Tables 33 & 34)
USDA Forest Service, Annual Cut and Sold Report
McConnell, W.V. (Mac). 2018. Integrated Renewable Energy from National Forests in193 Million Acres, 32 Essays on the Future of the Agency, Steve Wilent editor, Society of American Foresters,651:333-338
Zvolanek, E.; Kuiper, J.; Carr, A. & Hlava, K. Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential on U. S. National Forest Lands, report, December 13, 2013; Argonne, Illinois..

W.V. (Mac) McConnell is a self-styled visionary who, b(uilding on his 30 year career with the U,S. Forest Service and mellowed by 47 post retirement years in the real world,  hopes to change the way the  Service manages the peoples’ forests. He specializes in energy biomass management (short-rotation-intensive culture energy crop systems)

*Additional Note from Sharon: The Argonne study also looked at hydropower and geothermal; it’s interesting to look at the tables by forest and also the maps for concentrated solar, PV, wind, hydro and geothermal. The biomass estimates focused on logging residues and thinning. Criteria are listed on page 12 of the report.*

Wood Pellets, Southern Forests, and Bottomland Hardwoods

by
Enviva’s wood pellet production plant in Ahoskie, N.C., is booming because of the European Union’s aggressive renewable and low-carbon policies. Wood pellets are co-fired with coal to lower the carbon footprint of electricity. Photo: Enviva.

This is a follow up to a previous discussion about wood chips and the Southeast, including “logging and draining wetlands”. I found an interesting article from TreeSource. The author is Marcus Kauffman of the Oregon Department of Forestry. There’s quite a bit about the carbon angle and how that relates to wood pellets from the SE.

The author quotes Dr. Bob Abt of NC State:

A growing body of research shows that using low-value trees for bioenergy drives up the value of forested ground, which leads to increases in forest cover. Call it the price effect – or the classic principles of supply and demand at work.

“It’s the fact that when you’re increasing prices to landowners, that kicks in all the benefits that you need on the carbon side,” Abt said. “When prices go up, forestry becomes more profitable and there’s actually more trees on the landscape because of that extra demand.”

Abt explained that marginal land in the South fluctuates between agriculture and forestry. Landowners seek the use that will yield the best return.

The South has a long history where as demand increases for wood, forest land increases and with it intensive management, said Abt. “It’s been empirically shown in the South that increased demand for trees leads to more trees on the landscape.”

But then the article talks about the possibility of cutting trees where they otherwise wouldn’t be cut, in sensitive areas:

But does the price effect cut both ways? Do higher prices push ecologically sensitive lands to market when they would be better off left intact? Demand for wood pellets can lead to increased forest cover, but can it also lead to the destruction of valuable habitat?

That is the critique leveled by environmental groups concerned with protecting the Southeast’s bottomland hardwood forest, a unique forest type valued for its beauty and biodiversity.

“Intact bottomland hardwood forests are really cool,” said Amanda Mahaffey, Northeast region director for the Forest Stewards Guild. “They’re just beautiful primeval systems when they’re intact. When you lose them, then that’s really different. It’s a different visceral effect than harvesting a pine plantation.”

According to information provided by Enviva, in the first half of 2017 bottomland hardwood forests provided just 3 percent of the company’s supply. The remainder came from pine/hardwood forests (38 percent), southern yellow pine forests (31 percent), mill residuals (sawdust, shavings and chips) 21 percent, 6 percent from upland hardwood forests and less than 1 percent from arboricultural sources (urban tree trimming).

In response to concerns from environmental critics, Enviva partnered with a broad range of stakeholders to convene the Bottomland Hardwood Task Force and charged it with implementing ways to improve its sourcing from bottomland forests.

“I think Enviva was looking to improve their understanding,” said Mahaffey. “How could they be better forest stewards and help to sustain the resource while they are extracting from it? They are in it for good. They’re trying to sustain a renewable resource and lower the overall carbon output.”

For Enviva, the task force shifted the company’s procurement process from macro to micro – enabling managers to make better decisions about where to source raw materials and how to protect sensitive lands.

“As we evolve, we’ve moved from a macro-policy of simply avoiding sensitive lands to a much more micro-controlled process – land by land, tract by tract, GPS coordinate by GPS coordinate strategy to ensure we can actually influence outcomes,” said Meth, the vice president at Enviva. “We go to the micro-level [with the landowners] and sometimes we find areas that are literally along the river. The best outcome is not to harvest those lands and provide compensation to the landowner.”

The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities helped Enviva identify which sensitive bottomlands should be taken out of production via a conservation easement.

“For me personally, when you realize there’s a gap you are obligated to take a leadership position,” Meth said. “We have been heavily scrutinized and we intend to stay in those areas a long time. As leaders in the industry, we needed to bring people together and seek the knowledge that will create better outcomes.”

The company launched the Enviva Forest Conservation Fund in December 2015. During the first two years of the partnership, the fund committed $1 million to seven projects that, when completed, will protect 10,500 acres of sensitive wetland forest and other valuable habitats.

Clearly, forests and wood energy are playing important roles in our low-carbon future.

Sequoia ForestKeepers Weigh in on HUD Grant for Stanislaus National Forest Salvage

by

Volunteer from Tuolumne River Trust working on Rim Fire restoration.
Ara Mardosarian of Sequoia ForestKeeper posted this as a comment on an earlier thread. Since it is specific and about something new, I am posting it here to get more discussion.

On 31 May 2019, the Sierra Nevada Conservancy held a field trip regarding a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Redevelopment (HUD) funding application by Stanislaus National Forest for $70 million, through the National Disaster Resilience Competition, to salvage log burned areas of the 2013 Rim Fire FOR BIOMASS BURNING – A DESTRUCTIVE CLEARCUTS-FOR-KILOWATTS SCHEME. This field trip was attended by 80 persons, including members of more than 20 environmental organizations in opposition to post-fire salvage logging, including Sierra Club and Sequoia ForestKeeper. Dr. Chad Hanson, John Muir Project Fire Ecologist, and Dr. Dominick DellaSala, Geos Institute Director, lead the effort to defend the position to not salvage log recovering burned forest habitats. Brandon Collins, USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station, said there was little to no conifer regeneration within the Rim Fire. We saw seedling regeneration at multiple sites. And the Forest Service saw the seedlings growing in the Rim Fire snag forest habitats as fuel, when we see this as biodiverse habitat. Besides providing habitat for Black-backed woodpeckers and other cavity nesting species, standing burned dead trees/snags provide cooling shade that helps hold the moisture in the ground for the already-growing, natural tree seedling regeneration and for eventual delivery of that retained drinking water to communities below the forest. At no time did the Forest Service acknowledge the value of the standing burned dead trees/snags for sequestering carbon in the forest or counteracting the climate crisis. The agencies would not even address the repeated queries about the emissions from biomass power generation that the project would cause. The blatant climate science denial and antipathy toward nature by the Forest Service and its supporters (John Buckley, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center), (David Edelson, The Nature Conservancy), and (Craig Thomas, Fire Restoration Group) of this clearcuts-for-kilowatts scheme was stunning. Why is $70 million in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Redevelopment (HUD) disaster funds going to log federal forests (creating unnatural flammable conditions) when those funds should be spent on community disaster relief? This $70 million of HUD funding should, instead, be applied to the real disaster of the Camp Fire in Butte County, to help the victims in Paradise, California who lost everything.

Note: I think we should be consistent about calling people Drs. or not.. it appears that Brandon Collins is arguably just as much of a Dr. as Hanson and Della Salla, plus his research is equally, or more, relevant, depending on your point of view. Here’s a link to his papers.

Mardosarian makes several claims in this comment that are interesting and worthy of discussion:

1. Collins said there was little or no regeneration (did he say this? is the first question and “is it true?” is the second question).
2. The Forest Service saw seedlings as fuel (in my history with the Forest Service we didn’t think this way, but perhaps times have changed).
3. Standing dead provide shade and reduce moisture loss. I don’t know if this is true but it sounds plausible. But of course dead trees ultimately fall down and dry out, and when burning can potentially damage soil.
4. The shade of standing dead treese provide better microenvironments for seedling establishment and/or growth than open areas.
5. Standing dead sequester carbon in the forest (is that better than being turned into wood products? I think this depends on assumptions)

I am interested in the mechanisms by which people think that standing and fallen dead trees “counteract the climate crisis.”

6. Emissions. If Californians are worried about emissions from biomass energy (unclear whether particulates or CO2), then the obvious answer would be to sell the material to other markets, like our friends in BC, or for CLT, or to turn into biochar or …? To what extent does the ultimate use matter.

In my own experience with a broad range of individuals in the FS and TNC, as we worked on climate change and other issues, they were not “climate deniers” nor have an “antipathy to nature”. Certainly, as Dr. Tom Mills used to say, “reasonable people could disagree” about salvage logging in a specific place at a specific time.

This seems to be the agenda for the tour. If someone has a photo

Slash Piles Burned in the Air or for Bioenergy: Example from British Columbia

by
Forest companies regularly burn slash piles after harvesting a site for lumber and pulp. Bioenergy companies say slash burning is a waste because they could use the waste material to create pellets.
– HANDOUT PHOTO

It’s always interesting to see how our northern friends deal with similar forests with different social, political and economic views. This is from Prince George BC. Thanks to the Forest Business Network for providing this link!

The issue is burning slashpiles in the open air instead of selling the material for bioenergy, and the policies that work against it.

“We want to put it to productive use,” said Stirling. “The idea that we don’t have to burn things into the airshed, we can mitigate the risk of forest fire, and take that forest residual in as a product we can make use of, products we can sell into Japan where we are offsetting nuclear and coal emissions, what could be better?”

All wood-pellet (also called bioenergy, biomass or biofuel) plants in northern B.C. already sell as much product as they can manufacture, as fast as they can make it.

Most of it goes to Asia or Europe where it is used in industrial furnaces or electricity generation facilities to reduce the amount of coal, natural gas, nuclear and the worst of the greenhouse gases pollutants used by factories, mills and communities.

Pacific Bioenergy recently signed the biggest contracts in the history of the fledgling bioenergy sector, a sector that was pioneered out of Prince George. These pacts are for the largest amounts of pellets ever asked for and for the longest duration ever established.

…

Here’s why PacBio and the other pellet companies can only stare at these grey skeletons of trees – entire forests of the stuff.
“There may not be saw-log material in that stand, but there certainly is material – ideal material, actually – for our business,” said Stirling but he explained that by provincial legislation, only the lumber company with the charter for that forest is allowed to cut it down and they are only allowed to cut down a set number of trees per year. If they cut down the dead pine, even to give it away to the pellet plants, that leaves them unable to cut down the equivalent amount of trees they need to make lumber.

Furthermore, a lumber company has to pay stumpage (a fee to the taxpayers’ bank account in Victoria) on every tree they cut, but the fee is too high if it’s only going to sell at pellet rates. Stirling said what’s needed is a government policy allowing for biomass harvesting of the otherwise useless timber so that it doesn’t count against the associated lumber company’s harvesting rights. Also, a stumpage rate has to be implemented by Victoria that charges an amount realistic for pellet sales instead of lumber sales.

There is another hurdle, though and it pertains to the brush piles. The lumber companies are held to rigid tree-planting requirements that gets in the way of bioenergy companies moving in to collect the woody debris.

“Don’t give out a contract on December the 10th and say you have to have it done by March 31st,” said Parfitt, illustrating a typical scenario. “What if it snows? What if the roads aren’t in shape until June? And that is why they (lumber companies) want it to burn, because they don’t want to plant it later,” as waiting for the right conditions for bioenergy staff and machines to go in and get the piles sets the treeplanting process back.

O’Donnell said, “That’s where it’s frustrating, because Canfor and Lakeland and all those guys understand that and will make concessions for us to go in there and get their piles. FFT (Forests For Tomorrow, a government program for forest management) and the B.C. government? No.”

It might be changing, said Stirling, offering cautious hope despite it being too late for a lot of piles already in flames.

Sierra Club Comments

by

I have seen a trend in postings from the Sierra Club, on their Facebook page. Online petitions have been popular with eco-groups but, those petitions really don’t do anything. They seem to be a way of riling up their followers, gathering personal information, and receiving donations. There is also a sizable amount of people commenting who do not side with the Sierra Club.

The particular posting I will be presenting regards the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and how the Trump Administration would affect it. The Sierra Club implies (and their public believes) that Trump would cut down the Giant Sequoia National Monument, without immediate action. With over 500 comments, there are ample examples of what people are thinking.

 

“So much of the redwoods and Giant Sequoias have already been cut down… the lumber trucks involved had signs which read ” Trees… America’s renewable resource”… and just exactly how to you “renew” a 2 thousand year old tree??? When a job becomes even remotely scarce, one must find a new occupation. Having cut down the redwoods,(RIP Pacific Lumber and the “Redwood Highway”) and when they’ve cut down the national forests (public lands), are “they” going to insist on the right to come onto my land and cut down my trees as well… to provide jobs for the lumber industry? The National forests and Monuments are public lands, and no one has the right to turn them over to private interests for money making purposes. When are they going to see that there is a higher calling here? The forests provide for much of the fresh air we enjoy… they take in the carbon monoxide we exhale, and they exhale the oxygen so necessary to us. They each also take up 300 gallons of water, so provide for erosion control, and I could go on forever with the benefits of trees… but there will still be short sighted detractors who are only able to see the dollar signs in this issue. If providing jobs is the object… bring back our manufacturing jobs from overseas, all you big companies… your bottom line profit will be less, but you will have brought back the jobs to the USA, and you claim that is the object…???? Investing in the big companies in order to get rich does not make the investing noble or honorable when it is condoning taking jobs off-shore to enrich the few. … at the cost of the lost jobs for our people. Love your neighbor..”

I think that statement speaks for itself. Well-meaning but, misinformed.

 

“Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Keep loggers out of National Giant Sequoia Forests. Forest rangers and the National Parks already do controlled burning when needed to protect forest ecosystem health. The idea that commerical logging companies can be trusted with that task is preposterous.”

I wonder if he had noticed all those dead trees inside the Monument. Another example of not knowing who is taking care of the Monument.

 

“No such thing as controlled logging look at the clear cut coast. Once you let them in they will take it all and say Oops. A long time ago Pacific lumber clear cut thousands of acres illegally and Department of forestry did nothing. Things have not changed.”

Yes, things have changed. Logging IS controlled in Sierra Nevada National Forests… for the last 26 years.

 

“Destroying over 200k acres of sequoias and leaving ONLY 90k acres is NOT “CONTROLLED LOGGING “. OUR planet needs trees to produce oxygen and just how long do you think those jobs will last?”

Someone thinks there is a HUGE chunk of pristine pure Giant Sequoia groves. Thinning forests is not destruction, folks.

 

“I went to sign this and put my address and what not but then I skipped over my phone number and it won’t let me sign it! Unless you give your phone number it’s not going to San. I will not give out my phone number. Is there another way to sign for this?”

There were many comments like this one.

 

“They are both classified under same genisus of Sequoia, It’s their enviroment that makes them different. The Redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) along N Cal coastline and then the Sequoias trees (Sequoiadendron giganteum) found in the Sierra Nevadas mountain regions are the same yet very different trees because of the chactoristics. Both trees share their unique and acceptional height and massive girth size, they share the same red wood tones.”

Someone thinks they are an authority in tree Taxonomy.

 

“As someone who works in timber, don’t blame it on us! Many foresters care about sustainable forestry. I hate Donald Trump just as much as anyone who cares about the environment”

Well, that is sure saying something, eh?

 

“The forests are being burned down by all these un-natural wild fires that are created by the powers that be to carry out agenda 21/30. It’s not a secret but most people don’t want to see it & the common mentality is if we don’t see it, or address it, it will go away. Right?”

There’s more and more loonies out there saying this stuff, and blaming “Directed Energy Weapons” for starting all the wildfires.

 

“There will be no more forest in America, it will be a big cacino and golf courses.”

And there’s other conspiracy theories out there, too!

 

“The most deushiest thing ever! Poor Trees “

People do believe that Trump would clearcut the Giant Sequoias.

 

“Oh yes look what tree hungers did to Oregon”

I love a well-mispelled insult!

 

“No More RAPE AND MURDER OF OUR TREES”

I wonder what real violent crime victims think of this comparison. Should we let those trees be horribly burned alive, or eaten by insects, resulting in a long and slow starvation death? *smirk*

 

“Wth…. He truely is satin”

Soooo smoooooth!

 

“Drop big rocks on their heads. Something like Ewoks from Return of the Jedi all those years ago. Ewoks were “original” monkey wrenchers.”

That’s a lovely solution! Violence will fix everything!

 

“I think you could stand to be a bit less adversarial in your comments. Oil has nothing to do with this subject and devalues your argument. There is no reason why the land cannot be managed without giving it away to unregulated for-profit companies. That is the right answer.”

Yep, there just might be oil underneath those giant trees. Yep, gotta cut em all down to make sure! Misguided but, kinda, sorta, on the right path.

 

“The devil could burn it all down there because most of the state is so ungodly. Trump isn’t your problem. Godlessness and son keeps your minds and state in a state of anarchy. Poor people. I will keep praying you will find out that you all need to pray to the living God.”

Yep, because…. ummm, …. God recognizes where California’s boundaries are???!!??

 

“Try direct energy weapons”

Certainly, the Reptilians and Nibiru are to blame, fer sure, fer sure.

 

“Because of Monoculture”

Blame the old clearcuts!

 

“Anyone cutting a tree should be SHOT!!!!”

And another violent solution.

 

“The lumbar goes to China and else where, not used used in USA, great loose loose thing.the logs get shipped out of country destroys old growth forest well some one will make $$$$$ of it but it won’t be you”

Dumb, dumb!

 

“Its not about forest management its about trumps business buddies being allowed to buy the land and develop it”

And even another conspiracy theory. People love to say “I wouldn’t put it past him” when promoting such stuff.

This American mindset, on a world stage, is troubling. People proudly display their ignorance and stupidity to fight a non-existent issue. America doesn’t believe the truth anymore, and the Sierra Club, and others, are spreading misinformation through phony petitions.

 

 

Choo-Choo To the Rescue: The Rio Grande National Forest, Spruce Beetle Kill and the Union Pacific

by

Spruce beetle damage from Colorado State Forest Service
This story is interesting because of the creativity of the people involved, and the unusual partnership with the railroad, from a reporter at the Colorado Springs Gazette. Kudos to Dan Dallas,the Rio Grande folks, and the cooperators!Also there are more great spruce beetle photos at the Colorado State Forest Service site here.

Here’s the simple framing of the way the reporter reported it: 1)There are lots of dead trees 2) to change fire behavior, and reduce fuels you need to do something, with at least some with them 3) it’s better to do something useful with them than to burn them in piles, or not do fuel treatments at all. If it doesn’t work out for energy, there are still many potential uses for forest products. I think sometimes when folks hear “biomass” nowadays they get into the “biomass burning for energy” controversy and may unintentionally think right past other, less high-tech, and possibly less controversial, uses.

The ‘perfect lab’
When Phil Seligman looked at the Rio Grande National Forest in early 2013, he saw land that was ripe for wildfire.

“This place was ready to pop,” said the president of Wood Source Fuels, noting that intense drought and beetle kill facilitated the explosion of the 109,615-acre West Fork Complex fire later that summer.

In Colorado, more than half a million acres of trees were impacted by insects and diseases in 2017, Colorado state Forest Service reported. For the sixth year in a row, spruce beetle was the state’s most widespread and damaging forest insect pest, with 206,000 acres of active infestations detected, about 67,000 of which were new.

Since 2002, 617,000 acres of high and midelevation forests in the Rio Grande have been infested by spruce beetles. Although spruce beetle activity has decreased dramatically (from 93,000 acres in 2016 to 47,000 acres in 2017).

Seligman has shipped timber with Union Pacific Railroad for more than 10 years, building a network of partners in the logging industry across the country. In 2010, he became involved with biomass after Tri-State Generation & Transmission asked him and Nate Anderson, a research forester with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, to conduct a study on the viability of generating electricity from biomass at the Nucla Station power plant. He estimated that biomass was almost as cheap as coal.

Although Tri-State passed on the opportunity to adopt biomass as a fuel source, the study planted the seed of cooperative forest management in Seligman’s mind. Seligman then arrived in the San Luis Valley and found a “perfect lab” to continue the work on biomass utilization that he and Anderson had started in Nucla. In addition to biomass, other end uses can include everything from landscape chips to animal bedding, with companies already expressing interest.

Unlike in most laboratories, though, Seligman’s work in the Rio Grande National Forest could alter its wildfire conditions for generations to come.

An unprecedented partnership Seligman met Dallas, and the two began the uphill battle to form a cooperative that engages every player in the biomass market: buyers in the across the county and overseas, Union Pacific Railroad, an insurance company, tire distributor and forestry equipment dealer, among others.

After years of arduous negotiations, Seligman secured a $231,700 Wood Innovations Grant from the U.S. Forest Service in 2017 to create the cooperative — Forest Management & Marketing Limited — and invest in market expansion.

“The co-op represents people who see potential in our forests to be healthier and a resource,” Dallas said. “All you have to do is look at a map of the Union Pacific Railroad and see that it has tracks that go through other forests and almost any of those forests have a large scale die-off for one reason or another.”

Seligman said, “This was a tool built for the Forest Service. We feel that working with an entity like this that gives the Forest Service necessary contracts that they need but have historically had trouble getting.”

A critical collaborator is the Union Pacific, which will transport the biomass to processors and producers.

The cooperative plans to start construction as early as December on a chip plant in Antonito that would employ six to seven people and pull wood from the Carson and Rio Grande national forests.

If Seligman’s biomass estimations add up, they could build a larger biomass conversion plant that would employ about 200 people and source from the Carson, Rio Grande, San Juan and San Isabel national forests.

In the Rio Grande National Forest, 3,208 acres (and growing) are available for biomass harvest.

“We have a continental-scale problem, so if we can involve four forests, that’s a big deal,” Seligman said.

The extra jobs from the chip and conversion plant, the railroad, on-the-ground logging, and other related operations could bring economic help to one of Colorado’s most distressed counties. Between 2016 and 2017, Rio Grande County lost 11.5 percent of its businesses and 10.9 percent of its employment. Its poverty rate is 19.2 percent at a time when the state as a whole added 14.3 percent more jobs and expanded its business sector 7.2 percent.