FOREST BIOMASS UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVES IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER WATERSHED. Community Meeting Quincy, California April 16, 2012

Transcription

1 FOREST BIOMASS UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVES IN THE UPPER FEATHER RIVER WATERSHED Community Meeting Quincy, California April 16, 2012

2 Presentation Overview Introduction/Background Current Biomass Markets + Availability Operational + Economic Challenges Policy Challenges Biomass Transport + Field Trials Value-Added Siting Options Recommendations Acknowledgements

3 Project Sponsors

4 Introduction/Background and Regional Challenges Risk of catastrophic wildfire is extreme. Average acres burned annually in California 913,000 Average cost to suppress fires in California - $1.2 B Forest biomass value is very low. Regional infrastructure is decreasing. Sawlog values are relatively low. Forest managers are hard pressed to justify removal of low value forest biomass (even as a byproduct of commercial timber harvest operations). Forest road systems designed to accommodate log trucks. Log trucks have articulated trailers that allow access on road systems with tight radius turns and steep grades.

5 5

6 Forest Cover Ownership in the Upper Feather River Watershed LAND OWNER/ MANAGER Bureau of Land Management California Department of Fish & Game California Department of Parks & Recreation California State Lands Commission FORESTED ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL 2, % % 10, % 4, % Private 537, % USFS (Net) 1,029, % TOTALS 1,585, %

7 Current Forest Biomass Value- Added Uses in the TSA Lumber Power Generation/Waste Heat Recovery Firewood Rustic Furniture Gifts/Specialty Items Landscape Cover/Soil Amendment Log Homes 7

8 Forest Biomass Availability in the Upper Feather River Watershed BIOMASS SOURCE Timber Harvest Residuals Fuels Treatment/ Restoration/Timber Stand Improvement Activities Fuels Treatment Activities Fire Safe Councils 8 LOW RANGE (BDT/YEAR) HIGH RANGE (BDT/YEAR) 81, ,750 51,250 96, ,150 TOTAL 132, ,150

9 Operational and Economic Challenges Operating season restrictions: Limited operating periods (LOP). Soil moisture. Topography limitations: Ground based equipment restricted to <35% slope on public lands/ up to 55% slope on private lands. Road design: Transport systems designed for log truck traffic. 9 Fuels treatment funding is inconsistent.

10 Operational and Economic Challenges Part II 10 Limited markets for biomass. US EPA standards: MACT/Tailoring Rule. Economics of biomass transport: Diesel costs are up. Road systems limit ready access. Current public land appraisals. Costs to conduct environmental review: CEQA/NEPA.

11 Transportation Network Assessment Tool 11 A Transportation Network Assessment Tool was developed to assist forest planners with design/layout of timber harvest/fuels treatment projects. Tool is designed to provide a series of what if scenarios that allow planners to optimize location and scale of projects to cost effectively treat and remove sawlogs and biomass.

12 Transportation System Field Trials A four day field trial was conducted to field test innovative chip transport technologies: Stinger Steer Chip Trailer Short Chip Trailer 12

13

14

15 Potential Value-Added Utilization Sites in the Region Transport cost is the most significant expense when removing biomass from forested landscapes. Location relative to the forest biomass source matters. Strategic location of optimized sites were reviewed. Interviews conducted and a site attribute matrix generated. Using this matrix 11 sites were considered and ranked. 15

16 CANDIDATE SITES OWNERSHIP RANK GREENVILLE Cheney #2 Indian Valley Community Potential Value-Added Service District Opportunities in the Region CRESCENT MILLS (FORMER LP SAWMILL) Cinderlite Trucking 2 EPHC 3 EASTERN PLUMAS HEALTH CENTER 1 CRESENT MILLS SLOAT #1 SLOAT #2 TWAIN GREENVILLE SETZER #1 GREENVILLE SETZER #2 INDIAN VALLEY LUMBER CRESCENT MILLS (COUNTY OWNED) 1 st Crescent Capital, LLC 4 SPI 5 Jon Valdez 6 Delbert and Donna Lehr 7 Mary Anson 8 Tucker Wilson Trustee 9 David Schramel 10 Plumas County 11

17 Top Two Sites Selected were Analyzed for Value-Added Biomass Utilization Greenville site Small Scale Combined Heat and Power Generation Eastern Plumas Health Center Thermal Energy Facility 17

18 Recommendations Consider whether there is community interest to pursue value-added enterprises at Greenville and Portola sites. Consider grant funding alternatives to take projects to next phase preliminary design and engineering.

19 Recommendations Part II Support policy efforts to value biomass utilization based on societal benefits delivered. Watershed enhancement GHG emissions Seek out opportunities to drive state policy regarding valuation of renewable power: CPUC Feed in Tariff Rules Legislation (AB 2390)

20 Acknowledgements Emily Creely, Sierra Institute for Community and Environment Jonathan Kusel, Sierra Institute for Community and Environment Nancy Francine, Ecosystem Staff Officer, Plumas National Forest Nathan Bamford, Bamford Enterprises Randy Pew, Principal, Pew Forest Products San Dimas Technology and Development Center

21 Next Steps Greenville Site: Indian Valley Community Service District Portola Site: Eastern Plumas Health Center Crescent Mills Site: Cinderlite Trucking 21

22 Crescent Mills Site CHP Small scale 3 MW, combined heat and power facility. Gasification technology considered. Capital costs of $11.9 M. Range of fuel prices used for sensitivity analysis.

23 Findings Greenville Site CHP GRANT FUNDING ($) FUEL PRICE ($/ BDT) REQUIRED ELECTRICITY PRICE ($/kwh) 0 $45 $ $50 $ $55 $ ,000,000 $45 $ ,175,000 $45 $.0762

24 Portola EPHC Thermal Energy Facility Existing thermal energy system are older diesel fired boilers. Average cost to operate existing systems is $26.68/ MMBtu. Capital costs are $845,000. Design and engineering around $150,000.

25 Findings EPHC Site Thermal Facility GRANT FUNDING ($) FUEL PRICE ($/BDT) COST OF HEAT ($/MMBTU/HR) 0 $45 $ $50 $ $55 $ ,000 $45 $ ,750 $45 $18.08

26 26 Tad Mason and Bill Wickman TSS Consultants 2724 Kilgore Road Rancho Cordova, CA