Community Scale Bioenergy from Woody Biomass: Policies and Technologies

1. Community Scale Bioenergy from Woody Biomass: Policies and Technologies McClellan Wildfire training and Conference Center December 14th, 2012 Bill Snyder, Deputy Director Resource Management, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

2. Why Woody Biomass? Forests, Fire, Climate Change and Power

3. Background Sources of Forest Biomass include logging slash, lumber mill wastes, small non-merchantable logs and shrubs • Reduced wildfire impacts to public health and safety (Public Resources Code, CA Fire Plan) • Renewable Energy from Biomass Resources (RPS - SB107, 2006 and SB1078, 2002, Bioenergy Action Plan) • Carbon sequestration - for mitigating global climate changes (AB32, 2006; AB1504, 2010) Policy Issues Public Benefits • Improve air quality (fewer fire emissions) • Reduce net carbon emissions • Create fire safe communities • Promote healthy, resilient forests • Produce lumber, energy and other products

4. Threats to Forests, Communities, and Carbon • Wildfire • Insect • Water • Disease • Climate change

5. Wildfire Threat to Ecosystems Health • Key Findings: • Increased acres burned, greater fire severity, and modification of historic fire regimes impact vegetation communities that are adapted to, or even dependent on natural wildfire. • 18.5 million HPL Acres, 64% Federal • The most at risk ecosystems are Klamath and Sierra Mixed Conifer and Douglas-fir in the Klamath/North Coast, Modoc and Sierra bioregions; Shrub types: Sagebrush and Coastal Scrub.

6. FOUNTAIN FIRE 1992 64,000 Acres

7. Fire Threat and Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Areas

8. The fire line nears a Scripps Ranch development.

9. Forest Ecosystems Most Impacted by Insect and Disease Outbreaks • Key Findings • Forest Pests cause widespread commercial, aesthetic, economic and environmental impacts throughout California’s ecosystems. • Ecosystems currently suffering the most extensive damage are Sierran Mixed Conifer, Eastside Pine, Red Fir and White Fir. • Those at greatest risk from future damage include White Fir, Red Fir and Lodgepole Pine.

11. Challenges • Strategically link fire threat reduction and other public benefits to biomass utilization strategies • Reduce economic barriers to speed forest biomass utilization • Creating market based incentives for small landowner forest management/fuel treatment • Addressing Sustainability

12. Strategically linking fire threat reduction and other public benefits to biomass utilization strategies

14. Total “Non-Merchantable” Biomass Potential *Excluding National Parks

15. Estimated Annual Biomass Potential from Fire Threat reduction and Average Timber Harvest Volume in California* Yellow and Red areas represent greater than 100,000 BDT/y within the 25 mile search window Annual Electrical Capacity (MWe) of slash and thinning from Fire Threat Treatment Area and average annual Harvest (1999-2003) *FRAP 2005

17. Creating market based incentives for small landowner forest management/fuel treatment

18. Data Source: USFS National Woodland Owner Survey (www.fia.fs.fed.us/nwos)

19. Christensen, Glenn A.; Campbell, Sally J.; Fried, Jeremy S., tech. eds. 2008. California’s forest resources, 2001–2005: five-year Forest Inventory and Analysis report. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-763. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 183 p.

20. Addressing Sustainability

21. FRAP Biomass Sustainability Model • Address State and Federal policy goals (AB 32, AB 1504, State RPS, Federal RFS etc.) • Update biomass maps and estimates of potential for California (MW, MBF, BDT) • Model current and future forests, and wood/energy products • Model Scale and Intensity of harvest at different price points paid for Biomass material • Evaluate CA Forest Practice Rules and USFS management plans ability address carbon and ecosystem sustainability issues

22. Policy Integration challenges • Balancing ratepayer benefits and environmental benefits • Relatively high cost of forest biomass distributed energy generation and sensitivity to feedstock prices • Interconnection costs • Environmental and permitting costs • Air quality and environmental justice concerns • Funding • Sustainability

23. Approach • Develop baseline biomass estimates (total standing live tree) in GIS • Estimate annual biomass potential • by land owner type • including growth projections • Model biomass availability under • Forest practice rules (FPA) • USFS land management plans • Sustainability goals • Tree size available to biomass market based on price • Evaluate impacts on sustainability of forest resources and ecosystem services • Create an interactive model on the web to evaluate facility locations, resource supply and ecosystem impacts

24. Data Inputs Existing Vegetation Maps (CALVEG) from CAL FIRE and USFS-RSL Forest Inventories (FIA) PNW Fire Threat and Fire Rotation (FRAP 2003) Management Data and Other Sustainability Constraints Model Assumptions (to derive annual harvest estimates)

25. Treatment Priorities Example treatment priorities map Potential Priority Areas • Fire Threat • Forest Health • Insect and Disease Risk reduction

27. Questions