Woody biomass harvesting on private lands: Capturing opportunity and minimizing impact Tricia Knoot, John Tyndall, Jesse Randall, and Julie Blanchong Dept. Natural Resource Ecology & Management Tri-state Forestry Conference March 10, 2012
Talk Outline Energy policy & the niche for woody biomass Sources & availability Private lands Iowa woodland owner survey Willingness to supply Concerns & opportunities Woody Biomass BMP s Questions?...
Woody biomass availability Research Goal: Characterize the current availability of woody biomass and the infrastructural development needs of the region to improve market viability. The niche for woody biomass: DOE Billion Ton Study (2005): 12.8% of biomass supply potential to come from forests (368 mill dry tons) Energy Independence & Security Act (2007) Renewable Fuel Standards State opportunities : Wisconsin Fuels for Schools & Communities University of Iowa
Woody biomass availability US Biomass inventory = 1.3 billion dry tons/year potential Corn stover 19.9% Wheat straw 6.1% Soy 6.2% Crop residues 7.6% Grains 5.2% Perennial crops 35.2% DOE Billion Ton Study, 2005, updated 2011 (https://www.bioenergykdf.net/content/billiontonupdate) Forest 12.8% Manure 4.1% Urban waste 2.9% 368 mill dry tons/year
Advantages of Woody Biomass Trees further offer very high energy output: input ratios of 55:1 (Keoleian & Volk 2005). Associated with lower impact on soil & water resources. Harvested throughout the year. Potentially easy to schedule supply logistics akin to forest harvest regulation. In many ways it is relatively easy to store.
The Niche for Woody Biomass Capturing opportunity Variety of sources Multiple benefits: Economic benefits: ~140,000 woodland owners IA (~352,000 in WI) Help achieve complimentary goals Sustainable forestry / stewardship opportunities Encourage active management Pest / diseases
Woody Biomass Availability Main sources: Sustainable forest management Timber harvest residues Wood processing residues Short rotation woody crops Pulpwood and sawtimber crops Natural events Salvage / sanitation Urban material Solid waste and yard waste Urban forest
The Significance of Privately Owned Forests DOE Billion Ton Study, 2005
Forest Stewardship Opportunities Honeysuckle invasive shrub Priority areas for forest stewardship in rural forests. 2.7 million acres of high potential Figure from Flickinger (2010) and prepared by Kathryne Clark.
Forest Pests & Diseases Emerald Ash Borer http://www.emeraldashbore r.info/photos.cfm Sanitation/salvage efforts The Iowa DNR projects that EAB has more potential for future harm to Iowa forests and urban communities than any other insect currently being dealt with in the United States (p. 125, Flickinger 2010). Emerald Ash Borer locations in North America, as of Jan. 3, 2012. An up-to-date map can be found at: http://www.emeraldashborer.info/surveyinfo.cfm.
Where? Iowa s Woody Biomass Availability Live Biomass Live Biomass, Non-Sawlog Biomass, & Logging Residue 2007 USDA Forest Service forest inventories & Timber Product Output data. Non-Sawlog Biomass Logging Residue
Upper bound of biomass in natural forests How much will enter the market?
Scaling Factors Ecological Topography (accessibility) Wildlife habitat Current Infrastructure Economic Forest product markets Landowner willingness to supply Social Government program enrollment
Landowner Willingness to Supply Woody Biomass Sample: 1502 Iowa woodland owners Woodland owner association members; divided into four regions (proportional sample) Tailored Design Survey Protocol (Dillman 1999); Center for Survey Statistics, ISU NW NE SW SE TOTAL Sample 55 877 70 500 1502 Completed Surveys 20 424 37 202 683 Response Rate 40.8% 52.2% 60.7% 44.3% 49.7%
Willingness to supply Likelihood of harvesting and selling woody biomass 12% 7% Very likely Maybe, but need more information 43% 38% Not likely, but could change my mind Certain that will never Diverse opinions: As long as care and respect is given to the land, I'm for it! I want the land to be left alone and not disturbed.
What about non-wooded land? % of Respondents 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Interest Converting Non-wooded Areas to Short Rotation Woody 34 66.0 Yes No Mean = 29 ac (Range = 1 500 ac)
What about their non-wooded land? I presently have 80 acres enrolled in CRP with 9 years remaining on the CRP contract. I would consider putting 20 or more acres of CRP ground into woody biomass production. I am not interested in harvesting biomass from my existing woodlands. I like the idea of converting non-wooded acres to plantations. I do not believe in harvesting from woodlands for anything but firewood for personal use by the landowner.
Contributing Factors to Management Decisions Land owner & ownership characteristics Perceived impacts Perceived overall benefits & concerns Weighing of important factors & available resources Likelihood of harvesting and selling woody biomass 12% 7% Very likely Maybe, but need more information 43% 38% Not likely, but could change my mind Certain that will never
Land Ownership Characteristics (Reasons for ownership) Own land for primarily non-consumptive reasons However, 44% have commercially harvested timber in the past (70% harvested firewood) Enjoy beauty or scenery Privacy or solitude Protect nature Nonconsumptive Pass land to my heirs & biological diversity Wildlife viewing, bald eagles, wildlife Part of my farm or ranch Part of my home or vacation home Recreation, other than hunting or fishing Hunting and fishing Land investment, timber or pasture rent Timber production Firewood or biofuel (i.e., for energy) 1 2 3 4 5 Importance Rating (1=Not importnat, 5=Very important)
Land Ownership Characteristics Local landowners: 63% live either on or adjacent to their woodlands (another 20% live within 10 mi) Management plan: 27% prepared plan in past (15% anticipate they will, 35% considering) Management experience: Top 3 reasons for removing woody materials in the past: Natural event (82%) Improve quality of remaining trees (76%) Personal use (70%)
Woodland Characteristics % Respondents 100 80 60 40 20 0 80 83 High Value Large Trees Low Value Large Trees 95 93 23 Med Trees Small Trees Plantation Trees 40 Logging Residue 76 Woody Shrubs Ecological Constraints Shallow soils: YES (31%); Mean = 25 ac Steep slopes: YES (63%); Mean = 28 ac Within 50 ft of stream/river: YES (64%); Mean = 24 ac Areas with rare species: YES (10%); Mean = 28 ac Other unique conditions: YES (12%); Mean = 16 ac
Possible Benefits Disagree Unsure Agree 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 6 5 3 Opportunities: 12 12 16 Greater agreement 28 about woodland health 36 benefits and economic opportunities in general. 51 Less agreement concerning personal economic 51 benefits or complimenting other woodland goals. 67 58 81 37 37 0% New economic opportunities Responsible use of marginal lands Improve woodland health Provide me economic benefit Achieve other woodland goals % of woodland owners in agreement with possible benefits of expanding woody biomass markets (to society and personally)
Possible Benefits Woodland owner written responses: Societal benefits: Home grown energy. Reduce dangerous coal mining Cleans up the woods. Personal benefits: More money from harvested trees in my pocket. Improve my scenic view.
Possible Concerns Disagree Unsure Agree 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 0 Infrastructure, risks, effort: 9 27 Greater 35 agreement 39 that markets / infrastructure undeveloped and effort may exceed benefit. 49 Less agreement concerning risk of poor management. 64 61 Markets not developed Infrastructure not developed 50 22 Encourages poor land management 42 Economic benefit not worth the effort % of woodland owners in agreement concerning possible concerns of expanding woody biomass markets
Possible Concerns Woodland owner written responses: Ecological constraints: A woodland should look messy, fallen trees, trees in all stages of growth By harvesting the undesirable species or fallen biomass this practice can upset the balance of the timberland. Soil erosion in the first years after harvest due to the lack of vegetative growth. Competition for resources: Consuming wood for energy production will increase the cost of wood for other uses; paper, lumber, landscape chips, etc. No wood for my wood stove.
Those Willing: Importance Ratings for Decisionmaking Factors 5 Importance Rating 4 3 2 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.7 4.0 4.1 1 Provide benefits to local community Improve larger problems Right price Low investment costs Compatibility with other goals Low impact on environment Average importance rating (1=Not at all important to 5=Very important) for six possible influential factors
Those Willing: Importance Ratings for Available Resources 5 Importance Rating 4 3 2 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.9 1 Multiyear contracts Government payments Chance to connect with other landowners Workshops Demonstration areas Technical assistance Average importance rating (1=Not at all important to 5=Very important) for six possible influential factors
Likelihood of harvesting and selling woody biomass 12% 7% Very likely Maybe, but need more information 43% 81% Maybe s 38% Not likely, but could change my mind Certain that will never Opportunities to impact decision making
Scaling Considerations Supply question: *Lessons Learned Complex decision-making process Abundant questions & still time Environmental assurances Woody Biomass Harvesting Best Management Practices (BMP s) Outreach / education technical assistance, demo areas, workshops
Opportunities for Education / Outreach Need to inform: I am not up on it at all. What woods are wanted or used? Help with reforestation costs? Address possible concerns & benefits: As long as it improves woodland quality, doesn't harm the environment and improves wildlife habitat I would be interested in hearing more. Would be interested in a market for thinning out trees and not have to just burn them. Project should support itself without government payments.
Capturing Opportunity & Reducing Impact Clearly articulate long-term planning goals Importance of a management plan University of Iowa Biomass Partnership and ensuring sustainable biomass removal Understand impact and opportunities Visit demonstration areas and workshops Identify: How does removing woody material compliment (or conflict with) my existing objectives? Environmental concerns & economic benefits
Capturing Opportunity & Reducing Impact Biomass removal on private lands (compliment existing goals/practices): Material remaining for a commercial timber harvest Low-value material from active management Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) Weed tree removal Invasive species management Tree or parts of trees that do not meet the standards for posts, bolts, or sawtimber. Fire salvage or disease problems
Capturing Opportunity & Reducing Impact Best Management Practices (BMP s) Forest Guild: http://www.forestguild.org/biomassguidelines.html Wisconsin s Forestland Woody Biomass Harvesting Guidelines Herrick et al. 2009; http://council.wisconsinforestry.org/biomass/ Minnesota s Biomass Guidelines (MN Forest Resources Council, 2007) http://council.wisconsinforestry.org/biomass/mn_guidelines.pdf Attention to (examples): Retain woody debris already present and fine woody debris after harvest Identify, protect, and manage sensitive ecosystems and species Soil conditions (e.g., soil depth, dry-nutrient poor soils, wetland soils)
Understanding the economic costs & benefits Case study of the costs and benefits of woody biomass harvesting Study in Brayton Memorial Research Forest (Delhi, Delaware County) Dr. Jesse Randall Conducting a cost analysis (comparing the use of tree shears with hand felling) http://www.ag.iastate.edu/farms/brayton.php Tree shear; J. Randall See Southwest Badger RC&D report (2010): True costs of harvesting woody biomass in the Driftless Area of the Upper Midwest http://www.swbadger.org/uploads/7/1/5/3/71538 53/biomass_true_costs_final.pdf) Tree damage; J. Randall
Conclusion Substantial opportunity for biomass as an energy source, while improving forest sustainability. Considerable landowner interest: Need for greater knowledge and experience related to potential impacts and benefits Complimenting existing goals and minimizing impact through working with a professional forester and following BMP s
Acknowledgements Sincerely thank the woodland owners for sharing their thoughts and perspectives. CSSM staff provided valuable survey support Funding & Support: ISU - NREM Dept. This project was funded in part by a grant from the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture Marketing and Food Systems Initiative. Project descriptions on the web at: www.leopold.iastate.edu/research/ecology.htm Department of Nat. Res. Ecology & Mgt
Questions? Presented by: Tricia G. Knoot, PhD Department of Natural Resource Ecology & Management, ISU tknoot@iastate.edu; 515-294-7344