Sustainable Forest Biomass:
A Tool to Revitalize Forest Ecosystems and Rural/Local Economies

Sustainable Biomass & Energy  ||  Bioenergy  ||  Renewable Fuels Standard  ||  Farm Bill  ||  Caucuses

Sustainable Forest Biomass   ||  BCO/Pubs  ||  Briefings  ||  Links

EESI is currently undertaking a two-year initiative, Sustainable Forest Biomass: A Tool to Revitalize Forest Ecosystems and Rural/Local Economies. Our goal is to develop policies and incentives that will help diversify feedstocks and technologies to build an environmentally sustainable biomass industry, with a focus on the utilization of wood residues, timber slash, and small-diameter, low-quality trees from forest operations and the forest products industry.

There is a growing consensus and understanding among politicians, scientists, and other decision makers that the overwhelming threat of global climate change is and needs to be an important consideration when determining the impacts of any activity. Climate change has the potential to produce widespread and devastating repercussions throughout the environment, the economy, and society itself. This understanding provides a strong incentive for a national emphasis on increasing energy efficiency in every sector of the economy and reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Collectively, U.S. forests act as a colossal carbon store. Depending on the nature and extent of forest management, this carbon store can act either as a carbon source, a sink, or a carbon-neutral flux. When forests are harvested unsustainably or burn down in increasingly catastrophic wildfires, they act as carbon sources – contributing to the pool of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and exacerbating global climate change. When annual removals, from both harvests and natural disturbances, are equal to or less than annual forest growth, forests will act as carbon-neutral fluxes or even sinks, capturing some of the atmospheric carbon and storing it as biomass. Because of the cyclic nature of this carbon store and the minimal processing required in its use, wood has the lowest carbon emissions and the greatest energy-efficiency when compared to other common structural materials, such as cement or steel. For the same reason, the energy contained in wood can be captured and used to generate heat and power with little or no carbon-emissions.

In addition to their valuable role in the carbon cycle, forests provide a number of other vital ecosystem services, filtering and storing water, building soils, reducing erosion, providing habitat, offering recreation, and protecting our communities and landscapes from catastrophic weather events. Yet the loss of forest product markets, steadily rising property taxes and rising management costs are threatening the long-term viability of our forests, both public and private, as forests are being lost to alternative land uses, such as suburban development, at an accelerating rate. The poor utilization and lack of markets for small-diameter and low quality trees make it difficult to implement silvicultural prescriptions among the full range of size classes, leading to the poor management practice known as 'highgrading' in which only trees above some minimum value are harvested. The inability to utilize these trees not only prevents good management and reduces revenue, it often totally precludes management for values other than commercial timber production, such as early-successional wildlife habitat and hazardous fuels reduction treatments. The National Fire Plan currently prescribes fuels reduction treatments for millions of acres as part of the national strategy to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires. The majority of these acres will never be treated due to limited budgets and the lack of an outlet for use of the thinnings.

Production of renewable energy and bio-based products from woody biomass will add value to low-quality forest materials and can make it logistically possible for forest managers to successfully implement management objectives. Foresters, landowners, and local officials are increasing aware that development of wood-based enterprises can help to slow encroachment from urban sprawl, reduce the intensity of forest fires, improve forest health, and drive local economic development through the creation of rural jobs and markets, all providing clean, sustainable energy and products.

EESI would like your help in bringing together a diverse group of land managers, researchers, NGOs, and civic officials, as well as those involved in the production of bioenergy and bio-based products, for a series of discussions on the future of woody biomass and sustainable forest management. The primary motivation behind these discussions will be the accelerated development of a sustainable woody biomass industry, one that facilitates management for a wide variety of values and objectives, contributes to local communities and reduces greenhouse gas emissions as well as our dependence on fossil fuels.

Two main goals of these discussions are:

1. To define needed research for the production of sustainable forest biomass, including such needs as national and regional biomass assessments and investigation of a wide portfolio of diverse regional feedstocks.

2. To determine the principal opportunities and barriers, both political and economic, to achieving the widespread adoption of wood-based bioenergy and bio-based.

A stakeholder discussion series will help in achieving these goals by providing a forum for the sharing of information and ideas, the exploration of problems and solutions, and the building of a general consensus on the needs and conditions of the industry and our forests. In addition, the networks and contacts made as a result of these discussions will continue to serve into the future as a valuable resource to those interested or invested in woody biomass and sustainable forestry.

For more information or to participate in the discussion series contact Jesse Caputo at (202) 662-1882 or jcaputo [at] eesi.org,

Download a hard copy version of this description (.PDF).

Updates 08/19/08

August 87, 2008 - Conference Call - This call focused on the economic realities facing the use of woody biomass and some of the solutions that might improve the economic feasibility of using that material. There seemed to be a general agreement that the cost-effectiveness of woody biomass utilization depends strongly on local markets and local forest conditions; the accessibility of forest stands, the moisture of the woody biomass, and the haul distance to markets were identified as some of the most important variables. Residues from pulpmills and sawmills are generally the most cost-effective feedstocks (especially when the end user is co-located with the mill), following by logging residues and slash piles. Thinning materials are generally considered the least cost-effective, and removing commercial timber along with the biomass is usually necessary to make the numbers work out. A number of participants offered 5 inches as a minimum diameter for material that can be removed cost-effectively under most circumstances. Haul distance was almost universally agreed to be one of the most critical factors in determining whether biomass use was economically feasibility, but the maximum haul distance differs considerably depending on region of the country, market value for biomass, infrastructure, and geography. Maximum haul distances of between 50 and 150 miles were mentioned by various participants from various regions of the country. Densification or moisture-reduction technologies, such as pelletization and torrefaction, may have a lot of potential in increasing the maximum haul distance, especially where opportunities exist to move biomass by rail instead of truck. Plant size is another important variable, but there seemed to be some concensus that strict economies of scale do not always apply and that environmental, social, or economic conditions often call for a smaller size facility. Finally, the group agreed that the difficulty of obtaining long-term supply agreements (10-20 years) is a big barrier to securing financing for construction of utilities or facilities hoping to use biomass. A mixture of incentives and subsidies are probably important to create markets, improve the cost-effectiveness of biomass harvesting, and improve the competitiveness of biomass energy relative to fossil fuels.

Click here for more detailed notes of this call (.PDF)

May 29, 2008 – Conference Call – This discussion explored public perception surrounding forest management and how that perception influences the willingness of the public to accept and support biomass utilization efforts on both public and private lands. There was general agreement among the participants that perception is colored strongly by location and experience – rural communities are generally more comfortable with forestry, agriculture, and other land management practices and therefore friendlier towards biomass utilization. Rural communities are also more vulnerable to wildfires and more interested in management practices that could lessen their impacts. Urban communities, on the other hand, are less familiar and less comfortable with active land management. This lack of familiarity often manifests itself as a distrust of forest management, the forest products industry, and federal land management agencies. This ideological split is also seen within the environmental community. Rural, land-based conservation organizations are more likely to see the value of biomass utilization for accomplishing a wide variety of goals, whereas environmental organizations based in cities and funded through private subscriptions mirror the concerns and opinions of their urban membership. The dichotomy is evident, at times, even between local and national branches of the same organization. Distrust is not limited to urban groups, though. A number of rural conservation and community organizations have had bad experiences collaborating with federal agencies and these experiences have colored perception of the faithfulness and efficacy of those agencies. In general, though, public-private collaboration was seen to better relations between the two and decrease the likelihood of litigation (which, it was felt, is often overstated). A majority of stewardship contract participants, for instance, reported that the experience was a positive one and one they would be willing to repeat.

Detailed Notes of the Conference Call (.DOC)
Biomass Document that Fred mentioned (.PDF)
Article on Lakeview from Jim (.PDF)
Pinchot Institute Report on Programmatic Monitoring of Stewardship Contracts (.PDF)

Some links to additional resources (from Dennis):

Exploring Barriers to Collaborative Forestry (.PDF)
Collaboration in Natural Resources Management (.PDF)
A good example of how a local collaborative forged the way for biomass utilization in the face of litigation
USFS Woody Biomass Utilization Deskguide (.PDF)
A website in development that will host case studies of ~40 biomass utilization cases from around the country
Southwest Oregon interagency biomass utilization strategy (.PDF)

February 8, 2008 - Conference Call - The purpose of this conference call was to edit and expand upon the list of knowledge gaps and research needs that had been identified during earlier conference calls and individual conversations with network members. A comprehensive and complete list of these needs, contributed to and vetted by a large group of stakeholders, will serve as an important resource for EESI when we sit down to draft concrete federal policy suggestions. Furthermore, it is an effective tool for eliciting discussion, collaboration, and information sharing among network members.   Although research is still needed in nearly all aspects of bioenergy, much is known, in general, about growing and managing trees and forests. In addition, the understanding of how to effectively convert woody biomass to heat, power, and liquid fuels is growing by leaps and bounds. What aren’t very clear, however, are the standards and guidelines that are needed to craft management systems that produce biomass while sustaining thriving, healthy forest ecosystems.  The research and knowledge that is most lacking, however, is that relating to biomass markets and economics. Specifically, better information is needed on biomass availability, regional pricing, harvesting and management costs, and the market-creating potential of policy incentives.  The lack of reliable information on these topics itself appears to be a substantial disincentive for investment in forest bioenergy projects and businesses. Thorough, multi-layered regional biomass assessments could be conducted to include much of this information and provide an important tool to communities and individuals interested in creating energy from sustainable forestry.

Click here for the updated list of knowledge gaps and research needs (.DOC) Updated 03/04/08
Click here for more detailed notes of this call (.DOC)

In addition, here are a number of resources that were referenced during this discussion:

Ben Urquhart's presentation on the benefits of biomass harvests for landowners (.PDF)
TSS Consulting document on liquid fuel conversion technologies (.PDF)
Righelato and Spracklen article on climate mitigation strategies using forests (.PDF)
Minnesota guidelines for sustainable biomass harvesting (.PDF)

November 29, 2007 - Conference Call - This discussion, among forest ecologists and silviculturists, focused on the impacts of increased biomass utilization on forest structure, ecological dynamics, and overall environmental health. The group all agreed that guidelines, best management practices, or certification schemes need to be developed to ensure that biomass harvesting is done sustainably. Existing guidelines are either vague on biomass extraction (FSC, SFI) or contain numbers that are either suspect or supported in only one location (For instance, Minnesota’s voluntary standards for biomass harvesting). The group felt that a market for biomass could affect silvicultural decision-making in a number of ways, including an increased usage of whole-tree harvesting and more widespread stand-improvement thinnings. In the west, expanded biomass markets would likely increase the incidence of fuel reduction thinnings and restoration of dangerously overstocked stands. Where site quality is too low to grow sawtimber, a high value placed on forest biomass could result in clearcutting on relatively short rotations (~30 years). This occurred about 50 years in low quality hardwood stands in Tennessee in response to the establishment of a wood-based chemicals industry. Because of the complexity of this issue and the strong differences in different forest types, it was suggested that some kind of block-funding given to states could be effective. This funding could then be used to establish programs or fund projects to assist landowners and forest managers in developing forest management systems that include sustainable extraction of low-grade forest biomass.

Click her for more detailed notes of this conference call (.DOC)

November 8, 2007 - Conference Call - This discussion was among a group of people actively involved in sustainable forest management and/or energy production from forest biomass. There was a consensus that increasing the use (and consequently, the value) of forest biomass has the potential to boost the quality of forest management on both private and public land. In either case, a common theme throughout the discussion was the importance of obtaining community buy-in for a project to be successful. Those projects that obtained this buy-in had two important commonalities: A) community groups were actively involved in each step of the planning and implementation processes, and B) projects were located in communities that had a history of industry and/or rural enterprises. Once again, scale was pointed out as being an important consideration. In order to be acceptable and successful, projects need to be tailored to meet the needs AND resources of the community involved – more often than not, this means small scale utilization of biomass for thermal energy  or combined-heat-and-power (CHP) as opposed to large power generating facilities. There were a number of issues relating specifically to the extraction of biomass from federal forestland. Thinning is a key component of management on many federal forests, especially those at risk from catastrophic wildfire, but thinning and fuel removal treatments are costly treatments and therefore are left undone on many acres. Stewardship contracts are one possible solution. These are contracts between federal managers and private companies in which a mix of merchantable and unmerchantable trees are harvested, with the value of the services rendered offset by the value of the material removed. This is a low cost, even no cost, approach to federal management. Another suggested approach would be a federal subsidy for wood-based energy enterprises willing to undertake thinning operations. In addition to these suggestions, the group stressed the need for solid, scientific sustainability guidelines and a need to equalize the incentives for all forms of biomass energy. For instance, thermal energy is not eligible for the same incentives as electric energy, even though it is a more energetically efficient process (one ton of wood will displace more fossil fuels if used to produce heat than if used to produce power).

Click her for more detailed notes of this conference call (.DOC)

October 18, 2007 - Conference Call - In this initial discussion, we brought together a group of academics and researchers interested in bioenergy production from forest materials. There was general agreement that an increase in active forest management, especially pre-commercial thinnings, is desirable in many, if not most, forests in this country from a standpoint of forest health. There seems to be two main obstacles to this thinning. The first is that we are facing a situation of domestic wood surplus and it difficult for a land manager to justify costly intermediate (pre-commercial) forest treatments when the demand for low-grade and small diameter material is essentially non-existent. The second barrier is a general wariness that the environmental community feels for both bioenergy and forest management. To address this concern, the consensus was that it is necessary to stress the co-benefits of using forest biomass for energy – not only is this a clean source of low carbon energy, but by adding value to forest thinnings it can make better forest management possible, including restoration forestry, pre-commercial thinning, wildlife habitat improvement, and much needed fire mitigation thinning across much of the western states. Uneven-aged silviculture, popular with private landowners and in areas managed for aesthetics and recreation, will also be feasible in more situations as the value of thinnings and low grade material is increased. Despite these positives, the group also came to a general consensus that we need to determine in greater detail the possible social, economic, and environmental impacts of using forest biomass for energy. In particular, we need to develop a model that allows us to determine the life-cycle climate change impacts of using forest biomass for energy (similar to the GREET model for agricultural crops). Finally, there was a discussion about scale and locations. In order to avoid negative impacts and overcome NIMBY feelings, it is key that both forest management and energy production sites are selected carefully and developed at a scale that is appropriate for both the local environment and the community.

Click her for more detailed notes of this conference call (.DOC)