Woody Biomass Feedstock
Availability from
Family Forests
Sustainable Use of
Renewable Energy Conference
Outline of Presentation
New York’s Forest Resources
General overview of available woody biomass
Obstacles accessing growth
• Absence of Sustained Yield Management
• Ownership fragmentation
• Landowner objectives
Thursday, November 5
Syracuse, NY
René Germain, Associate Professor
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
Department Forest and Natural Resources Management
New York’s Forest:
18.6 Million Acres of Forestland
Forest
Preserve
16%
Urban
Forests
1%
Ownership of New York’s
15.4 Million Acres of Timberlands
(similar pattern in most states east of Mississippi R.)
Forest
Industry/TIMO
8%
Public
7%
Timberland
83%
Family Forests
85%
Standing Volume
27.7 billion cubic feet standing
• 21.2 billion ft3 hardwood
• 6.5 billion ft3 softwood
1800
ft3/acre
Annual
Removals - 2007
Total: 263 million
cubic feet
(estimated 500,000 acres)
across 15.4 million acres
635 million bdft of sawtimber (82 million ft3)
• 470 million bdft hardwood logs (61 million ft3)
• 165 million bdft softwood logs (21 million ft3)
2.2 million tons of pulpwood/chips (79 million ft3)
800,000 cords of firewood (102 million ft3)
(Crawford 2008)
1
New York Sawlog Removals in 2007
by Species:
Red Pine
6%
Other
13%
Sawtimber Drives Harvesting Decisions
Sugar Maple
22%
Hemlock
3%
White Ash
9%
White Pine
13%
Red Oak
11%
Black Cherry
10%
Red Maple
13%
One-third of annual harvest volume
Crawford 2008
What is sustainable?
Our Growth:
Estimate 55 ft3/ac/yr
New York’s 15.4 million acres of timberland
is growing about 850 million ft3/yr
Recall we harvested 263 million ft3 in 2007
Comfortable 3:1 growth to cut
We have the growing stock to double
the harvest area in New York.
Can we dedicate all that growth to
woody biomass markets?
We could, but the 200-plus sawmills and other
primary wood manufacturers may take offense.
Assumption: dedicate about 40% of 850 million cf
annual growth to sawtimber (poles), 60% to
pulp/biomass (unacceptable growing stock, TSI)
510 million ft3/yr is available
• 14.2 million green tons or
• 7.1 million ODT
Is that estimated 510 million
cubic ft/yr available for harvest?
Industry/TIMO will produce close to capacity
State “working forests” will not
The remaining 13 million acres (82% of growing
stock) owned by 500,000 Family Forest Owners
will not
2
Focus on Family Forest Owners
They are not in a good position to supply
the forest products industry, let alone a
burgeoning woody biomass market.
Factor #1
Absence of Sustained Yield
Management on NIPF
The factors:
Poor stocking due to lack of sustained
yield management
Ownership fragmentation/Parcelization
Landowner objectives
Some
recent publications
supporting this
presentation
Our research indicates:
Poor Stocking and
Quality
Descriptive Statistics Catskill Region
Mean:
N = 137
Technically Available
Basal Area
107 square feet per acre
Relative Density
78%
Volume
3,100 board feet per acre
Woody Biomass (est)
Sawtimber: 15 ODT/Ac
Pulpwood: 39 ODT/Ac
Topwood: 13 ODT/Ac
67 ODT/Ac
Germain et al 2007
Descriptive Statistics Syracuse Cropshed
Mean:
N = 49
Technically Available
Basal Area
100 square feet per acre
Relative Density
80%
Volume
2,045 board feet per acre
Woody Biomass
Sawtimber: 10 ODT/Ac
Pulpwood: 26 ODT/Ac
Topwood: 9 ODT/Ac
46 ODT
A few parcels are left
with impressive
residual stands
But for the most part, high
grading and diameter limit
cutting dominate the landscape.
Even the “Gold Standard” landowner did
not exhibit sustained yield management
(Long-term owner (> 25 years)
without any conveyances)
3
Factor #2
Ownership Fragmentation/Parcelization
Parcelization at the National Level
Average Family Forest holding (USFS 2003):
100a
1953 – 44 acres
100a
1978 – 30 acres
1994 – 24 acres
2003 – 24 acres
Parcelization in the Northeast
Average Family Forest holding (USFS 2003):
1978 – 35 acres
Forest Cover Complacency Syndrome
0
•
•
1994 – 33 acres
500 feet
Declining Economies
of Scale
Silviculture
Forest operations
2003 – 20 acres
Good News! Two-thirds of Family Forests still
above 50 acres.
Factor #3: Reasons for Owning Land
(Northern Region)
Aesthetics
Privacy
Nature Protection
Family Legacy
Hunting/Fishing
Other Recreation
Part farm/home
Land investment
Timber/firewood
%Owners
71
65
55
44
31
30
33
29
10
%Area
68
60
54
53
47
40
37
36
21
USDA 2006
Land use changes (Forest cover remains):
Resource Management
Rural Residential
They do harvest!
27% of landowners harvested during the last
five years
6% of landowners plan to harvest sawtimber in
next five years
26% of landowners plan to harvest firewood in
next five years
USDA 2006
4
Given these obstacles, what is
available from that estimated
7.1 million ODT?
Let us assume we start using
silviculture on “working” Family
Forests.
How would it unfold?
Team of researchers at ESF
recently projected
4.8 – 6.4 million ODT
(NYSERDA Road Map Project)
Available Woody Biomass On the Stump
Potential Scenarios During 1st Phase
Roughly 56 ODT/ac (average of 46 & 67)
745 million ODT on Family Forests
First wave of thinnings, reducing relative density
from 80% to 60%, could generate about 14 ODT/ac
over the next few decades
14 ODT/ac @ 200,000 acres = 2.8 million ODT
30 ODT/ac @ 200,000 acres = 6.0 million ODT
8.8 million ODT
Double Harvest Area
First wave of regeneration or rehabilitation cuts,
reducing relative density to 30% to 40% could
generate about 30 ODT/ac over the next few
decades
Next steps require patience . . .
14 ODT/ac @ 400,000 acres = 5.6 million ODT
30 ODT/ac @ 400,000 acres = 12.0 million ODT
17.6 million ODT
Review
After first wave, must wait 15 to 20 years for
forest stands to exceed 80% relative density to
initiate next harvest.
Keep in mind that the residual stand will
(hopefully) be dominated by sawtimber
Next thinning will yield less woody biomass
Future yields dedicated to woody biomass will be
about 1 ODT/ac/year or 400,000 – 800,000 ODT
per year
First 25 years yields roughly 9 – 18 million ODT per year
Thereafter
Yields decline to 400,000 – 800,000 ODT per year
5
Take Home Message
There is surplus feedstock to
contribute to a burgeoning woody
biomass markets, but we must
improve access to and management
of these timberlands.
6