Report from Consultant Michael J Furniss to RCEA:
Biomass Power in Humboldt County

Summary of Workshops Consultations, and Research

Intro to forests and carbon (page 2):

• California’s forested landscapes provide a broad range of public and private benefits, including carbon sequestration.

• The long-term impacts of excluding fire in fire-adapted forest ecosystems are being manifested in rapidly deteriorating forest health, including loss of forest cover in some cases.

• Extreme fires and fire suppression costs are increasing significantly, and these fires are a growing threat to public health and safety, to homes, to water supply and water quality, and to a wide range of other forest benefits, including ecosystem services.

• Reducing carbon losses from forests, particularly the extensive carbon losses that occur during and after extreme wildfires in forests and through uncharacteristic tree mortality, is essential to meeting the state’s long-term climate goals.

• Fuel reduction in forests, whether through mechanical thinning, use of ecologically beneficial fire, or sustainable commercial timber harvest to achieve forest health goals, involves some immediate loss of forest carbon, but these treatments can increase the stability of the remaining and future stored carbon

• The limited infrastructure capacity for forest management, wood processing, and biomass utilization, and the limited appropriately trained or licensed supporting workforce, are major impediments to forest restoration and ongoing forest management.

Carbon Plan goals on page 4.

D. Innovate solutions for wood products and biomass utilization to support ongoing forest management activities.

1. Expand wood products manufacturing in California, and take actions to support market growth scaled to the longer-term projections of forest productivity and resource management needs.

2. Increase the total volume of carbon stored through greater use of durable wood products from California forests, particularly in buildings.

3. Continue public investment to build out the 50 megawatt (MW) of small scale, wood-fired bioenergy facilities mandated through SB 1122 (Rubio, 2012).

4. Maintain existing bioenergy capacity at a level necessary to utilize materials removed as part of forest restoration. In the short term, it is critical to meet the public safety and tree disposal needs stemming from widespread tree mortality in the central and southern Sierra Nevada.

5. Continue to support research into the potential to convert woody biomass into transportation fuels and other potential products.

Page 13: “Compared to historic conditions, many forest types in California now have considerably higher live carbon stocks in smaller trees and in the dead pool; these forest conditions are more vulnerable to fire, pest outbreaks, and other disturbances. 20 21 22 23 Consequently, much of the current stocks of aboveground live carbon are not stable and are likely to show significant losses into the future, especially as changes in climate continue to affect the timing, frequency, intensity and extent of disturbances such as wildfire and pest outbreaks.”

Page 21: 2.5 Wildfire Emissions Are Likely to Increase

With the estimated increase in wildfire burn area across California under climate change and no change in present management, wildfire emissions (such as CO2, carbon monoxide, and particulates, including black carbon) are estimated to increase as well. Using 1961 – 1990 as the baseline period, end-of-century (2100) wildfire emissions are projected to increase by 19 – 101% (median increase 56%) in California for a medium high temperature scenario. The largest modeled emissions increases were concentrated in northern California. 54 If status quo forest management and global GHG emissions continue, there will be a significant increase in wildfire smoke in California and the subsequent human health impacts that result from more smoke in the air at the worst times (i.e., late summer when air quality problems are already most severe). 55 GHG emissions will increase commensurate with that smoke. Without action, as fire occurrence, size, and intensity increase under climate change, smoke from fires even in remote areas will impact populated regions with greater frequency and duration, imperiling the health of a greater percentage of the population.56

Page 87: Despite the recent pulses in mortality from wildfire and pests, carbon stored in dead pools and growth from remaining live trees is still enough to currently maintain California’s forests as a net sink. Recent research suggests that, during drought, forest carbon stocks are destabilized, and that drought-induced beetle mortality can transfer large portions of live above-ground carbon into the dead biomass pool that then serves as a protracted emission source due to decay. 247 Over time, if decay and mortality exceeds growth for an extended period California’s forests could become a net source of emissions. A detailed discussion on the recent tree mortality impacts to forest carbon sequestration can be found in the AB 1504 inventory.248 

Page 95: Table 13. (a) 2012 Timber Harvest Carbon in End-Uses (note read the caveats on page 96)

Page 104-105: Key finding and the overall carbon outlook for CA’s forests. “Based on FIA Program data from 2006-2015, all California forests combined on all ownerships were performing as a net sink and are sequestering carbon at an average rate of 0.79 metric tons of CO2e per acre per year, or 0.22 metric tons of carbon per acre per year.” Note in the FRAP report they state this is equivalent to 5% of the state’s emissions.

Page 124-125 California is a major producer of timber, while at the same time importing the majority of its wood for consumption from other states and countries. Thus, there is a significant opportunity to build on current production capacity and know-how to increase in-state production of wood products through sawlogs, small diameter trees, and other woody materials supplied from sustainably managed working public and private forests, which are an important part of the implementation strategy for the Forest Carbon Plan….Wood products, bioenergy, and biofuels markets are linked to the health of California’s forests and statewide climate goals in two ways: as revenue-generating mechanisms to finance forest management and restoration activities, and as biomass utilization pathways that can reduce net greenhouse gas (GHG) and black carbon emissions associated with land management, the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires, and emissions from the electricity and transportation sectors.

Potential policy considerations for the County (Page 129, substitute county for state in this section)

“As recommended by the SB 859 Wood Products Working Group389, the state could facilitate greater use of mass timber in construction through:

• Building Code Outreach The State could engage local and county planning offices, developers, and architects on the use of wood and mass timber in buildings by providing a targeted description of current California Building Standards Codes, particularly new elements that went into effect in 2017.

• Encouraging Low-Carbon Building Statewide The state could develop and use life cycle assessment of building materials and encourage builders and local and county planning offices to select and incentivize, respectively, those materials which have the lowest lifecycle GHG emissions and support other statewide climate change mitigation policies, as described in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and the Forest Carbon Plan. Acceptable methods of such a whole building life cycle assessment are codified in the voluntary measures of the 2016 Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Part 11 of Title 24) Section A5.409.

• Encouraging Low-Carbon Building for State Facilities The state could establish guidelines that encourage use of cost-effective building materials with lower lifecycle GHG emissions for new State-owned and/or state-occupied buildings.”

Page 130 “One recent study compared nitrogen oxides (NOx), black carbon, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), PM2.5, and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions of biomass burned in open piles to emissions produced at an 18 MW bioenergy facility utilizing a fluidized bed boiler and efficient control technology. Inclusive of emissions associated with transportation and biomass processing, the diversion of biomass from pile burn to bioenergy facility was found to significantly reduce GHGs, black carbon, and other pollutants (see Figure 19).403 These results suggest that diverting biomass from open pile burn to productive use in a controlled facility or other controlled use should be an intentional consideration in forest carbon policy going.”

Conclusion Page 143: “Forests sequester and store large amounts of carbon and have the potential to store this carbon in a more resilient state. However, wildfire and mortality from drought, pests, and disease cause the release of carbon from forests. Overly dense forests may paradoxically sequester less carbon in the long run than their potential. Managing for forest health and resilience can increase long-term carbon sequestration and storage; reduce vulnerability to wildfire, drought, pests, and disease; boost rural economies; increase the many benefits from the forest that the state relies on; and be central to California meeting of its climate goals. Reducing carbon emissions and increasing sequestration and storage are essential to meeting the State’s long-term climate goals. The Forest Carbon Plan is a foundational component of the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Action Plan identified in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.”

The State’s Carbon Plan also references AB 1504 where there are periodic updates to the forest carbon assessments.  You can find that data here: https://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/ab-1504/

 Additionally there is a lot of information in the Forest Resource Assessment Report most recently updated in 2017: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/3180/assessment2017.pdf

Page 42, has a nice graphic about NC forest types remaining suitable under a potential change in climate.

Page 167, summary of forest carbon storage