Running Head: ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Forest Biomass Management & Conservation of Ecoservices
from Wildfire
Tim A. Dedrick
12/07/2014
SUS598 Integrative Capstone Project
Professor Christopher Dudding
Marylhurst University
Author Note
Tim A. Dedrick, this paper was prepared for SUS 598 Integrative Capstone Project:
MBA Sustainability Program, Marylhurst University, fall 2014, taught by Professor Christopher
Dudding.
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Copyright 2014 Tim A. Dedrick
This document is copyrighted material. The author hereby does grant to Marylhurst University
permission to electronically reproduce and transmit this document to students, alumni, staff, and
faculty of the Marylhurst University community.
ii
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Table of Contents
Copyright…………………………………………………………………..……………………ii
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………...iii
List of Figures………………………………………………………………..…………………iii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….. ……..……iv
Abstract………………………………………………………………………….…………….02
Introduction and Background………………………………………………...…………….….03
Literature Review……………………………………………………………....……………...06
Stakeholder Analysis…………………………………………………………..……..………..18
SWOT Analysis………………………………………………………………………………..26
Business Model Canvas…………………………………………………………...…………...31
Strategic Sustainability Plan………………………………………………….………...……..36
Monitoring, Evaluating and Revising the Plan….…………………….……………………....46
Conclusion, Recommendation, and Implementation…………………..……………………..48
References……………………………………………………….…….……………………...51
Appendix A - Stakeholder Influence and Impact graphic………..……….…….………….…56
Appendix B - SWOT Analysis Grid graphic……………………………….….……..….……57
Appendix C - Business Model Canvas Building Blocks graphic…..……………..….….……58
Appendix D – Big Windy Fire Complex photographs………………………….….…………59
Appendix E – Fuel Models 11, 12, 13 Logging Biomass Slash photographs….……….…….60
Appendix F – Southern Oregon University Cogeneration Project video……………….…….61
Appendix G – Benefit Cost Analysis, 25 Year Ecosystem Services vs. Wildfire……………62
List of Tables
Table 1. Stakeholder Analysis Summary………………………………………….…….……25
List of Figures
Figure 1. Implementation Timeline……………………………………..…………………….45
iii
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the Prineville Hotshots of 1994 and their dedication to the
suppression of biomass fueled wildfires; they made their ultimate sacrifice on July 6, 1994 on
Storm King Mountain, Colorado. 20 years Brothers & Sisters, Godspeed.
“Prineville Hotshots
Kathi Julie Beck - Ochoco National Forest
Tamera "Tami" Jean Bickett - Ochoco National Forest
Scott A. Blecha - Ochoco National Forest
Levi Brinkley - Ochoco National Forest
Douglas Michael Dunbar - Ochoco National Forest
Terri Ann Hagen - Ochoco National Forest
Bonnie Jean Holtby - Ochoco National Forest
Robert Alan Johnson - Ochoco National Forest
Jon Roy Kelso - Ochoco National Forest
Helitack Crewmembers
Robert E. Browning Jr.- Helitack from Savannah River Forest Station
Richard Tyler - BLM Helitack, Grand Junction
Smokejumpers
Donald K. Mackey - Missoula Smokejumper
Roger W. Roth - McCall Smokejumper
James R. Thrash - McCall Smokejumper” (Always, 2014).
iv
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Abstract
The State Forests of Oregon possess some of the most biologically diverse and complex
ecosystems in the Northern Hemisphere. However, due to the exclusion of natural fire from
these ecosystems for the previous 100 years and its historical role in ecosystem biomass
balancing, the ecosystems have slowly been infiltrated, and are currently stocked with dense
thickets of biomass. Now, when wildfires burn they resist control and suppression efforts. As
they are burning the dense biomass, they are incinerating the ecosystems, damaging their
numerous ecoservices including photosynthesis, transpiration, soil formation, and
hydrological cycles, and destroying their subsequent ecosystem goods of clean air, clean
water, vegetation, animals, and carbon storage.
This strategic sustainability plan provides the Oregon Department of Forestry with a
sustainable business model canvas that integrates with the triple bottom line inspired
Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan, Concepts, and Strategies. This plan is a
business model that provides for the sale of harvest biomass slash to reduce the excess
biomass from forestlands, therefore enabling implementation of four forest management plan
strategies, while generating the supporting revenue to do so. The customer for the sale of the
biomass slash fuel is a partnership between the Oregon Department of Forestry and Southern
Oregon University’s Cogeneration Project, a 2 kilowatt biomass slash fueled steam turbine
that produces electricity and steam heat for the Southern Oregon University campus in
Ashland, Oregon.
2
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Forest Biomass Management & Conservation of Ecoservices from Wildfire
Background
This strategic sustainability plan creates a business plan that aligns the Oregon
Department of Forestry’s (ODF) Biomass Division and the Southwest Oregon District of the
Oregon Department of Forestry (SWO-ODF) with the Southwest Oregon State Forest
Management Plan (SWO-FMP), specifically Chapter 4 – Resource Management, Concepts and
Strategies (ODF-FMP, 2010). The literature research explores the valuation of ecosystem
services and its conservation from wildfire through management of forestland biomass. The plan
includes procedural biomass management goal and objective recommendations. These will
integrate and evolve the ODF field practices and treatment of biomass as an economic
development scenario utilizing ODF biomass for a biomass slash fired cogeneration plant on the
SOU campus, see Appendix F for project video. This business plan creates a proof-of-concept to
illustrate how previously underused forest biomass slash may be harvested, and sold locally to
fuel clean, sustainable, and economical electrical power and steam heat.
History
The client for this plan is Mr. Marcus Kauffman (Mr. K.), Biomass Resource Specialist,
at the Oregon Department of Forestry Biomass Division in Springfield, Oregon (Mr. K., 2014,
personal conversation). Mr. K. M.S. is a native of Southwest Oregon and has extensive
experience in assisting the completion of 17 biomass projects in Oregon. The ODF is a resource
management agency (ODF, 2014, about us) established in 1911 by the state legislature. This plan
integrates and aligns the ODF biomass division with the ODF-SWO southwest Oregon state
forest management plan’s concepts and strategies in Jackson, Josephine, Douglas, and Curry
3
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Counties. The author has chosen to write on the topic of biomass management and specifically
the conservation of ecosystem services from wildfire via biomass management. The author has
worked in natural resources for 36 years and experienced firsthand as a firefighter, crew boss,
and civil engineer, the forestland and ecosystem combustion each fire season, due to the wellintentioned but currently ineffective management of forestland biomass.
Rationale
This plan addresses a specific type of forest biomass called slash. Slash is generated
during the harvest of saw timber trees. The harvested tree’s limbs, tops, and broken pieces
(called defect) have traditionally been left in the woods as a waste product. However, the slash
has also historically caused a problem when left in the woods because it covers a lot of acreage
in spatial horizontal and vertical arrangement, and it soon dries-out to the same internal moisture
content as kiln-dried lumber. The slash’s arrangement is arbitrary, and it is a dead and dry
hazardous fuel that physically connects to all levels and types of living vegetation in the forest.
The slash is a tremendous fire hazard and is known as ‘red-slash’ because the conifer needles
turn red in coloration when they die. There are three fuel models designated in the logging slash
group, Models 11, 12, and 13 (IFRES, 1982), see Appendix E for photographs. The fuel models
are laboratory mathematical models of fire behavior based on fuel moisture, fuel diameter,
spatial arrangement, plant physiology, and tons-per-acre of biomass. The traditional method to
remove this hazardous biomass fuel in southwest Oregon has consisted of ‘cutting and stacking
sticks’ utilizing hand crews and bulldozers to create piles and then burning them onsite in the
forest during the wet winter months. However, even burn-in-place treatments have been limited
due to budget constraints and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) air stagnation
regulations in the southwest Oregon’s Rogue Valley. Add to that a lack of biomass slash fuel
4
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
markets in economically depressed southwestern Oregon, and a dearth of secondary wood
products industries, and the result is an overstocking of forest biomass slash.
This plan proposes a solution to the biomass overstocking through an opportunity to
participate in a long-term business relationship with Southern Oregon University. Partnering
with the SOU Cogeneration Project (SOU, 2014, cogeneration) could provide a fundamental
advantage in funding and development for the ODF Southwestern Oregon biomass management
program. With the projected annual sales of 21,000 bone dry tons of biomass to the SOU
Cogeneration Project (2014) the ODF would generate $735,000 each fiscal year. The revenue
would be used to implement boots-on-the-ground integrated forest management strategies
through biomass reduction and removal within the SWO-ODF unit. This would provide funding
and alignment of the ODF biomass management program with the ODF southwest forest plan
integrated strategies in special forest products, alternative vegetation treatments, forest health,
and soils.
Funding the mechanical thinning and removal of the current high level of biomass slash
(average cost of $837 per acre; Dedrick, 2013) in southwest Oregon forests will produce
forestlands that are fire resilient sustainable ecosystems. Mechanically thinned forests have
evidenced increased large tree growth as well as increased speed in the decomposition of
masticated sub merchantable material (CFSC, 2014). Mechanical thinning the forest mimics the
effects of natural fires thinning processes to achieve lower historic fuel-loading quantities and
greater complexity in the fuel’s vertical and horizontal arrangements. Local annual benefits from
ODF biomass sales revenue of $735,000 would fund the treatment of approximately 875 acres
per year of fire prone wildland urban interface (WUI) forestland in southwest Oregon.
5
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Literature Review
This literature review discusses the previous research, both secondary and primary, that
has been conducted which supports the capstone topic of ecosystem valuation (Costanza, 1997;
Greenfire, 2008; Mates, 2006) and its conservation from wildfire via biomass management.
Secondary data was collected from peer-reviewed articles and papers through Marylhurst
University’s Schoen Library, through review of topic papers via internet searches, through topic
online searches in other universities archives, and through state and federal government research
articles, publications, and journals. Additionally, limited secondary and primary data
(cogeneration plant design information and local biomass information at public meeting) was
acquired from personal conversations with the client and stakeholders. The literature supports the
topic of the paper and identifies gaps in the research records that this plan addresses. It also
identifies and discusses additional secondary data gathered from stakeholders, as well as limited
primary data that was collected, analyzed and synthesized in a supporting benefits cost analysis
(Dedrick, 2013) by the author. The author analyzed the literature to determine the most effective
and efficient concept to create a business model canvas for a state agency. Thus, the stakeholders
involved, and the resultant self-supporting sustainable business plan.
Secondary literature reviewed indicates that the monetization of ecosystem services
(Greenfire, 2008) to conserve them from destruction by wildfire via biomass management is
economically viable. The analysis utilized the accepted ecological, economic value-transfer
method from previous studies (Costanza, 2006; Mates, 2004); said methodology transfers dollars
and cents monetization values to ecosystem services, per acre. The benefit/value to society to
conserve the ecosystem services was weighed against the cost to manage forest biomass with
four treatment prescriptions (Dedrick, 2013; Medford BLM/USFS 2008) in order to avoid their
6
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
loss through wildfire. The benefit/value to society to conserve the ecoservices was weighed
against the cost to suppress the wildfires. The four biomass prescription’s benefit cost ratios
(BCR) were all economically positive.
This literature review’s narrative is organized by topics, to answer the following research
questions (1)What is biomass? (2)What are the current state forest management plans? (3) What
is ecosystem valuation? (4) What is the current biomass situation in Oregon, and (5) What are
the current biomass conditions in southwest Oregon?
(1)What is Biomass?
There is an over accumulation of woody biomass within the forests that range across the
state (OSU, 2004, report). Woody biomass is defined as the accumulation of woody material in a
standing living forest or grassland. It may be evergreen, deciduous, or grasses (ODF-FMP,
2010). It may be either dead or alive, standing like a tree, brush or grass or lying on the ground
and dead (tree, brush, grass). Biomass is woody or cellulosic material that is usually extraneous
to the current growth of dominant healthy trees and indigenous fire resilient brush and grasses.
Natural forests and grasslands are self-managing of biomass. Natural fire caused by
lightning being the key factor in cyclically burning forestland with low-intensity fires that
decompose the biomass to natural nutrients for the forest or grassland. In this manner, forest
surface fuels are consumed in a mosaic pattern; tree ladder-fuels (limbs reaching from the ground
to crown) are reduced; natural delimbing is stimulated, and random tree spacing is produced.
Results include variability in vegetation species, and the random spacing composition of the
forest and grassland with trees, brush, grasses, and open spaces. Natural fire, therefore, is the
primary factor to the natural balancing of biomass in a forest or grassland.
7
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
However, the understanding of natural fire’s pivotal function with its cyclical role of
recurring low-intensity mosaic burning patterns has been misunderstood in these ecosystems. For
the previous 100 years, state and federal agencies have essentially eliminated natural fire from
forest and grassland ecosystems. The well intentioned but misled exclusion of natural fire from
ecosystems has resulted in the unintended production of extensive thickets of woody biomass
within the forestlands and wildland urban interface zone (WUI). The WUI is a mixed zone where
rural homes, farms/ranches, and rural communities are situated in amongst forest vegetation.
Oregon has an estimated 11 million acres of wildland urban interface zones (OSU, 2004, report).
The present accumulation of forest/grassland biomass has reached epic proportions.
“Evidence suggests that within Oregon there are 5.6 million acres of forestland that is so thick
with biomass that the reduction of the vegetation by the traditional biomass management method
of prescribed burning is not feasible” (OSU, 2004, report p.27). Because of the energydensity/energy release potential, this biomass growth is designated as a hazardous fuel. Biomass
fuel is transferred sunlight energy stored as carbon-based chemical energy, with an energy
release as a heat-exothermic reaction and manifested in heat conduction, convection, and
radiation (Randall, n.d.). The tremendous accumulation of hazardous biomass is now detrimental
to the health of the State’s forests, grasslands, and citizens, when it ignites and burns each fire
season.
(2)What are the Current State Forest Management Plans?
Oregon State Forests are managed by the following plans, and their associated concepts
and strategies; “Northwest Oregon State Forests Management Plan; Southwest Oregon State
Forests Management Plan; Elliott State Forest Management Plan; Eastern Region Long Range
8
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Management Plan”(ODF, 2014, plan). Each ODF state forest management plan is written anew
every ten years to reflect current economic and political climates and scientific research and
development in the myriad of forest sciences.
The existing forest plans utilize the adaptive management philosophy of a watershed
based management approach. Essentially, the overarching goal is to create healthy watersheds,
with the belief that the forestry sciences (silviculture, aquatics, wildlife, soils, botany, hydrology,
fire, entomology) concepts and strategies must be combined and focused at producing healthy
watersheds. This in-turn is supposed to produce key indicator species of overall forest health
such as flourishing populations of indigenous aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.
This is not an unsound philosophy or program except it is incomplete, or imperfectly
implemented. It is missing fulfillment of biomass management, the natural element which will
prevent watershed health success from occurring due to systemic woody biomass overstocking
and the resultant wildfires. The wildfires are destroying the very 15 ecosystem services that are
the foundation of the ecosystem goods of a healthy watershed.
(3)What is Ecosystem Valuation?
Ecosystem services are the natural factory that produce for example, the key ecosystem
goods of; hydrologically produced and filtered clean water; evapotranspiration produced clean
atmospheric gasses and oxygen; vegetation and wetlands that trap and store sediment and carbon
monoxide/sequestration; forest biomes that provide habitat/refugia for both aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife as well as the formation of soil (Costanza, 1992, 1997, 2006; Greenfire, 2008; Mates,
2006). In their paper, Economic Analysis of the 2006 Wayne National Forest Plan (2008),
Greenfire Consulting Group LLC, conducted an economic analysis of a forest plan that was
9
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
being revised/updated for the Wayne National Forest in the State of Ohio. The primary theme of
the Greenfire (2008) research is advancing the idea of placing a value per acre on a forest’s
ecosystem services, with the public costs and benefits calculated and contained in a cooperative
forest management plan that is the product of social choice rather than a federal mandate.
Greenfire (2008) posits that since the Forest Service appropriations are based on
congressionally established budget incentives, then net benefits to the ecosystem services are not
the Forest Service priority, therefore net ecoservices benefits are not being realized by the public.
Which suggests that the Forest Service is not motivated by a philosophy of forest health
management but is simply an economic engine feeding on the nation’s ecosystems. The
Greenfire (2008) team, utilizing the economist-generated approach of the value-transfer method,
permitted Northern Hemisphere forest ecosystem services to receive a dollar value. Greenfire
was able to identify and apply the peer-reviewed literature, among them William Mates (2006)
research study, which determined 12 natural capital ecosystem service values-per-acre. An
additional research team from the University of Vermont led by Robert Costanza (1992, 1997,
2006) also established values-per-acre for not only the 12 ecosystem services, but valuation for
wetlands, riparian zones, and bays/estuaries.
Greenfire (2008) utilized the 12 core ecosystem service valuations and added three
additional ecosystem services through their research for a total of 15 ecosystem services
monetized and given a dollar-value-per-acre. These 15 ecosystem services are; “(1) Waste
removal – air, (2) Storm water control, (3) Pollination, (4) Carbon sequestration, (5) Soil
retention, (6) Hydrological services, (7) Carbon storage, (8) Soil formation, (9) Biological
control, (10) Cultural/spiritual, (11) Habitat/refugia, (12) Aesthetic/recreational, (13) Waste
10
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
treatment, (14) Water supply, and (15) Gas (atmospheric)/climate” (Greenfire, 2008). This
provides a powerful yet simple economic framework with which to approach forest management.
The ecosystem service’s values were utilized in a benefits cost analysis (BCA) titled ‘25
Year Ecosystem Services vs. Wildfire’ (Dedrick, 2013), to determine the annual ecoservices
value to society, and the 25 year discounted value, within a representative 24,000 acre plot of
temperate forest in southwest Oregon known as the Big Windy Complex, BCA available in
Appendix G. The plot of forest (Big Windy Complex) was consumed by a wildland fire in the
summer of 2013, see photos in Appendix D. The BCA (Dedrick, 2010) examined the cost of
treating the entire representative 24,000 acres with four alternative biomass management
prescriptions (Medford BLM, 2008) once over a 25-year lifecycle to remove the biomass to
prevent the ecosystem acreage from burning by wildfire. The assumption being the acreage once
treated would not burn for 25 years.
The result of the BCA (Dedrick, 2013) to treat the representative 24,000 acres via
biomass removal to conserve the value of the 15 ecosystem services from wildfire over a 25 year
lifecycle was very positive. Benefit-cost-ratios (BCR) were calculated for the four biomass
treatments and one BCR for wildfire suppression “(a) alternative A – combination wildland
urban interface 3.21 BCR, (b) alternative B – shrub woodland 2.37 BCR, (c) alternative C –
conifer understory 3.50 BCR, (d) alternative D – conifer/biomass removal & sale 7.12 BCR, (e)
alternative E - wildfire suppression 0.06 BCR” (Dedrick, 2013). The BCA suggests that the
monetized values (Dedrick, 2013) of the 15 ecosystem services in an Oregon forest, lost to
society by wildfire on 24,000 acres of forest/wetland provides for an immediate loss of $67
million, and discounted over the 25-year lifecycle of the project, accounted for a loss of $1.1
billion dollars. When this cost factor is utilized, the lost value of ODF ecosystem services
11
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
(ecoservices) in fire season 2014 in the State of Oregon is the burned acreage of 58,000 acres
times the ecosystem’s value of $2,820/acre for a total lost value of $163 million.
(4)What is the Current Biomass Situation in Oregon?
Congress increased the timber cut (to pay for WWII war debt) in the late 1940s on
western federal lands twelvefold over what it had been pre-war. That was unsustainable. The
increased cut also removed a good measure of annual biomass accumulation through both
logging and biomass thinning crews (it still did not keep up with biomass accumulation due to
fire exclusion). Researcher Tong Wu (2011) states in his team’s research article titled “Investing
in Natural Capital; Using Economic Incentives to Overcome Barriers to Forest Restoration”
(Wu, T. et. al., 2011, p.1), “A century of suppressing fires …have altered the long-term
ecological trajectory of forests across the western United States” (Wu, T., et. al., 2011, p.1). As
stated previously by Greenfire (2008), the Forest Service operates within a system of financial
incentives established by Congress, and not upon the foundation of ecosystem conservation.
Increasing the cut was a double-edged sword. Within 30 years of implementation, the accelerated
federal timber cuts and adherence to fire exclusion resulted in expedited ecosystem service
degradation and ecosystem goods scarcity.
In fall 2010, the University of Oregon’s Ecosystem Workforce Program launched a 15
countywide assessment of Oregon and far northern California counties called the Dry Forest
Zone Project (2010). The assessment targeted 15 counties in a swath from northeastern Oregon,
through central eastern and southwestern Oregon, and reaching into the far northern California
counties of Trinity, Modoc, and Siskiyou. These 15 counties have the common denominators of
high rates of unemployment and poverty, degraded landscapes and severe wildfire risk due to
12
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
biomass overstocking levels. The counties also share the commonalities of strong natural
resource stewardship and innovative entrepreneurship. The land in these counties is primarily
owned by the federal government, therefore any change in productivity (ecosystem or financial)
within the federal forests affects the rural host communities in jobs and payroll (U of O, 2010).
Whatever happens to the federal lands has a direct effect on the myriad counties ecology and
economy.
Research to support the viewpoint of an altered or degraded Oregon forest ecology is
provided by the U of O dry forest zone project (2010), the OSU hazardous fuels report to ODF
(2004), and Wu (2011). Many Oregon forests have an artificial vegetation biomass inventory that
is overly dense and spatially continuous from the forest floor to tree canopy. These degraded
landscapes result in degraded ecosystem services such as compromised hydrological services,
soil formation, wetland storm dispersal, and water filtering to name but a few. Therefore
degraded ecosystem services culminate in the degradation of ecosystem goods including fish,
timber, water, and air.
When the adaptive management philosophy of the Northwest Forest Plan was
implemented in 1994, one of the consequences was a reduction in the timber-harvest (Britell,
1994) in Oregon and Washington from 3 billion board feet to 1.2 billion board feet annually. A
consequence of the federal timber cut reduction after 1994 was that the associated forest biomass
thinning activities were also essentially abandoned. That was 20 years ago.
The OSU (2004) report points out that there is an identified 55 million bone dry tons of
accumulated woody biomass currently available for harvest in the State of Oregon on the
combined state and federal lands. Within those lands, the ODF manages approximately 818,800
13
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
acres of forestland. That biomass equates to approximately 4.4 million chip-van truckloads. The
current market value of one bone dry ton of biomass is roughly $35 per ton (Kauffman, 2012);
this calculates to a market value of the statewide available-to-harvest 55 million bone dry tons at
roughly $1.9 billion.
(5) What are the Current Biomass Conditions in Southwest Oregon?
To provide an indication of how much hazardous biomass fuel is available to harvest in
southwest Oregon, within 30 miles of the SOU Cogeneration Project (2014), current Federal
inventories evidence (Medford BLM, 2008) that forestlands contain approximately 6 billion
board feet of hazardous biomass fuel available for harvest. On the State lands, ODF Biomass
Specialist (personal communication at SOU stakeholder/public meeting 11/12/14) stated that
within 30 miles of the SOU plant there is approximately 105,000 bone dry tons of biomass fuel
available annually, which is five times the biomass required to fuel the facility’s annual needs of
21,000 bone dry tons.
2013 wildfires in southwest Oregon consumed 43,078 acres of forestland biomass in 348
fires (SWO Fire, 2014). Within these wildfires, ecosystems were combusted and consumed.
According to Dedrick (2013), the ecosystem’s associated ecoservices have an estimated value of
$2,820 per acre, therefore the lost benefits of ecosystem services in 2013 upon the 43,078 state
burned acres in southwest Oregon has an estimated economic value of $121.5 million.
The cost to treat biomass upon the forestland averages $837 per acre (Dedrick, 2013;
Medford BLM, 2008) and the cost to suppress wildfire averages $2,250 per acre (Dedrick, 2013).
The ODF spent approximately $96 million in fire suppression in southwest Oregon in 2013.
These figures suggest that if the $96 million in fire suppression could have been spent on
14
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
biomass reduction at $837 per acre, then 114,695 acres could have been funded for biomass
treatment on southwest ODF lands.
In the forestry wildland firefighting industry, biomass vegetation in the forests and
grasslands are categorized as a combustible fuel. The fuel is subdivided into specific
mathematical fuel models for laboratory analysis in highly controlled combustion experiments.
The fuel is subdivided into 13 fuel models (IFRES, 1982) according to the fuel being dead or
alive, fuel diameter, fuel moisture content, fuel plant physiology, fuel spatial arrangement, fuel
bed depth and density. Fire resilient forests exhibit a biomass fuel loading (fuel models 4, 5, 6, 8,
9, 10) of approximately 2 – 5 tons per acre, with fuel bed depths less than two feet (IFRES,
1982) and with a vertical and horizontal spatial fuel arrangement that supports low-intensity
surface fires with flame-lengths less than 4 feet in height (IFRES, 1982). Four-foot tall flamelengths are the maximum height that is effectively controlled by Human firefighters with handtools (RMRS, 2011).
Current biomass conditions in southwest Oregon forests present logging slash fuel
models number 11, 12, and 13:
a. Model 11, fuel loading 11 tons/acre, flame-lengths of 3.5 feet, fuel bed 1 foot;
b. Model 12, fuel loading 34 tons/acre, flame-lengths of 8 feet, fuel bed 2-3 feet;
c. Model 13 fuel loading 58 tons/acre, flame-lengths of 10.5 feet, fuel bed 3 feet
(Intermountain, 1982).
This places suppression and control efforts out of the 4-foot flame-length range that is within
human firefighters with hand-tools range. Mechanical thinning and removing the current high
15
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
level of biomass stocking conditions in southwest Oregon forests will create forestlands that are
sustainable ecosystems. Mechanically thinned forests will mimic natural fire’s thinning
processes to achieve both lower historic fuel-loading quantities and greater complexity in the
fuel’s vertical and horizontal spatial arrangements. This will produce forests in southwest
Oregon that will have approximate 4-foot wildfire flame-lengths. The resulting fire will,
therefore, remain predominately on forest surface fuels and will not have the fuel continuity to
run to the tree crowns. The forests will then possess fuel arrangements and fuel loading which is
resilient to wildfire, and that can be suppressed by a human with a hand-tool.
Performance Metrics
This capstone is a natural resource project, according to Science for Nature and People
(SNAP), natural resource metrics are complex; “Measuring the outcomes of natural resource
management and ecosystem service-based management remain a challenge. Policy makers and
donors typically prefer straightforward aggregate indicators…, but natural resource and
ecosystem service-based management are not amenable to such an approach” (SNAP, 2014,
website). The author’s research indicates an appropriate metric methodology will be utilizing a
customized version of portions of the Global Reporting Initiative (2014) framework, which
advocates the G4 Guidelines of measurement metrics framework. The internal and external
development components are addressed within the five-step framework of the GRI reporting
process: (1) prepare, (2) connect, (3) define, (4) monitor, and (5) report (GRI, 2014).
Review Conclusions and Limitations to Research
The literature review results provide the evidence of a statewide ODF forestland status of
biomass overstocking (OSU, 2004, report; U of O, 2008, dry forest) with the associated effect of
16
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
wildfires in forests and the wildland urban interface that resist control efforts (ODF, 2014,
protection). The research evidence displays the economic costs to suppress the intense and
extreme wildfires, as well as the collateral environmental and economic damage caused to
Oregon’s ecosystem services and ecosystem goods (Dedrick, 2013). The research provides
evidence that Oregon’s ecosystems have a very real economic value per acre (Costanza, 2006;
Dedrick, 2013; Greenfire, 2008), and on a discounted 25 year timeline they are worth more per
acre to conserve than the cost to thin the biomass to prevent combustion via wildfire (Dedrick,
2013). Limitations to research include an absence of natural resource management agency
research and investigation of alternative forms of biomass management concepts and strategies.
Description of Other Primary and Secondary Research
other secondary research.
Secondary research was obtained from SOU Cogeneration Project panelist Bill Carlson
of Carlson Small Power Consultants (Carlson, 2013) who completed a feasibility study of the
Southern Oregon University Cogeneration Project. Carlson (2013) concludes that locally sourced
biomass fuel is the best choice for the project. Carlson points out that natural gas is a most
fungible resource as it is a highly volatile commodity with multiple uses to include raw feedstock
for plastics manufacture, thus natural gas is sold to the highest commodity market, and it is not
just used for fuel.
primary research.
Primary research data that supports the peer-reviewed secondary research of the OSU
report (2004), the U of O report (2008), and the Medford BLM report (2008) was provided to the
author in a personal conversation by Mr. K. the client for the Oregon Department of Forestry, at
17
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
a SOU Cogeneration Project public meeting at Southern Oregon University on November 12,
2014. Mr. K. has conducted biomass feedstock research for the project and concluded that five
times the required biomass quantity of 21,000 bone dry tons annually, exist locally for harvest.
The author collected additional primary research data in notes obtained from a forum conducted
by the SOU meeting facilitation team. SOU project technical data on the operational design of
the biomass cogeneration plant, availability, type, and options of biomass feedstock, and
environmental impacts of the plants byproducts was provided by Jack LeRoy of Forest Energy
Group, LLC (FEG, 2014) who is a wood fiber utilization specialist, and Bill Carlson of Carlson
Small Power Consultants (Carlson, 2013) who authored the feasibility analysis for the SOU
cogeneration plant.
The author attended the public meeting of the SOU Cogeneration Project on November
12, 2014 on the Campus of Southern Oregon University where the client, Mr. K., made
introductions of the author to the project’s stakeholders. The author also completed a benefits
cost analysis in summer term 2010 for SUS510 natural resource economics titled “25-Year
Ecosystem Services vs. Wildfire: A Benefit Cost Analysis” (Dedrick, 2013) and utilized data
from the analysis in this plan’s formation. The collected primary data and research have
supported the collected secondary data and research that was required to support the research
questions. The following section will identify this plan’s stakeholders, as they are the vital
constituents whose influence and impact will support and permit implementation.
Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholders are the comprehensive possible participants, powerful and docile, impacted
and non-impacted, active and observer, in a business proposition. The key stakeholders have
18
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
more influence and more impact, thus contribute more support and value to the business
proposition. As the stakeholder’s influence and impact from the business proposition are
reduced, they will likewise contribute less support, value, and may become an interested
observer.
The Stakeholder Analysis Summary, see Table 1 below, prioritizes and displays the
stakeholders from most impact, most influence to low impact, low influence, and if they are key
to the viability of the plan. The Stakeholder Influence and Impact graphic, see Appendix B,
displays the groups of stakeholders, their influence levels and impact potential. There are five
key stakeholders in this business proposition, the ODF biomass division, SWO-ODF unit
forester, SWO-ODF stewardship forester division, SWO-ODF protection division, and the SOU
facility division, cogeneration plant (ODF-FMP, 2010; SOU, 2010, green; stakeholder public
meeting November 12, 2014 at SOU).
Key Stakeholders
The ODF biomass division is a small division consisting of two individuals, a supervisor
located in Roseburg, Oregon and the author’s sponsor/client, Mr. K., the State’s ODF Biomass
Specialist, located in Springfield, Oregon. This division’s influence and impact in the plan is the
highest for a stakeholder. Mr. K. has the entire state as his jurisdiction. His function is to create
value in the State’s accumulated biomass as reflected in the Southwest Oregon State Forest
Management Plan, Chapter 4-102 Special Forest Products (ODF-FMP, 2010). The Special Forest
Products strategy states, in part;
The special forest products program will build on business practices that are already in
place, such as the procedures for competitive bidding and negotiated sales. Business
19
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
elements that are missing or in need of modification will be developed and brought up to
date. The Department of Forestry believes that these strategies will enhance the overall
efficiency of the State Lands Program. In addition, Oregon’s Economic Development
Department has an interest in helping this segment of the state’s economy to grow. The
Department of Forestry’s link to this effort will be to provide a reliable source of raw
materials for commercial and personal use (ODF-FMP, 2010, p4-102).
Mr. K’s mission is to create biomass markets where none exists, create partnerships
where none exists, and add value to the waste stream that is defined as a hazardous fuel. Forest
biomass takes many forms, live merchantable timber, live pulp trees/poles, dead pulp trees/poles,
slash (the tops, limbs, branches and broken parts of trees that occur during merchantable timber
harvest), and large brush such as Manzanita.
Logging is alive and well on state and private forestlands, and one of the current
strategies set by the ODF forest concepts and strategies for harvest, requires that all harvest
activity generated biomass be inspected by ODF stewardship foresters to comply with current
management protocols at the harvest sites. However as biomass is not an energy dense fuel and
transportation costs reduce profit, there has been an absence of markets for the biomass slash,
brush, and pulp trees. This has led most logging contractors to pile this biomass in huge piles in
the forest, allowing the sun and wind to dehydrate it, and then burn it on-site in the forests. This
presents several immediate problems, air pollution, and fire control. The Rogue River Valley is a
DEQ non-attainment area for air quality thus open burning of piled biomass is tightly regulated.
Of the 16 million acres in Oregon covered in accumulated biomass, 11 million acres are located
in WUIs and of that; 5.6 million acres are too dense in biomass thickets to burn (OSU, 2004,
report) with prescribed controlled fire.
20
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Because of this, some loggers decide to chip or shred the biomass and scatter it on-site as
mulch for the natural decomposition or as mulch to reduce operations erosion or road erosion.
Burning still takes place which is not inexpensive; Mr. K. is looking for a way to utilize the
State’s logging sale waste biomass to (1) reduce ODF operation expenses, (2) prevent burns from
escaping control (and their tremendous associated suppression costs), and (3) provide a cheap
renewable sustainable carbon-neutral fuel to industrial and commercial heat or cogeneration
biomass plants. Mr. K’s stakeholder approval and support for this strategic sustainability plan is
key and has been granted.
Southern Oregon University’s Facility Division is managed by Drew Gilliland. He is in
charge of all facilities campus-wide. This division’s response to the business plan meets the
highest rating for both influence and impact due to the commitment of the university to the
“SOU Green Purchasing Policy – FAD.026, C. Policy (a) energy efficient equipment – heating
and cooling systems, (b) forest conservation, (c) ensure that all wood …purchased by SOU is
certified to be substantially harvested by a comprehensive, performance-based certification
system, (d) purchase or use of previously used or salvaged wood (biomass slash) and wood
products is encouraged” (SOU, 2010, green).
New administration at SOU has created the SOU Sustainability Council and SOU
Sustainability Center and the administration has adopted a goal of becoming carbon neutral 5%
per year and 100% carbon neutral by 2050 (stakeholder meeting at SOU November 12, 2014).
SOU had a feasibility study conducted to determine the viable options to replace the two
remaining old failing/failed steam boilers (Carlson Small Power Consultants, 2010). Carlson
(2010) determined that there were two viable options to power new steam boilers, replace the
existing boilers with natural gas-fired boilers or construct a new plant that is fueled by biomass.
21
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Taking into account the fact that SOU’s Sustainability Council has a stated goal of a carbonneutral campus by 2050; the feasibility study reported that 90% of the university’s annual
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are produced by the existing natural gas-fired boilers. To
remain true to their sustainability commitment, these facts presented the university with one
viable alternative to power their new boilers, renewable, carbon-neutral biomass.
The university has also decided to not only replace the gas-fired steam-heat plant but to
build a new plant fueled by biomass slash that produces not only heat but electricity as well,
thus, the SOU Cogeneration Project (2014). The plant will create steam to drive the turbines at
600 psi to create 2KW of electricity, after which the spent steam is conducted into the campus’
existing steam heat-circulation system (SOU panelist Carlson discussion at SOU
stakeholder/public meeting 11/12/14). The SOU campus will be electrified by the biomass plant
with any excess renewable electricity purchased by Pacific Power & Light. The plant will also
produce Renewable Energy Credits (RECS) which will be sold by SOU as a market commodity.
Drew Gilliland has partnered with Mr. K. in the SOU Cogeneration Project to obtain the required
21,000 bone dry tons of biomass required to fuel the plant each year (Kauffman, 2012). Mr. K.
has completed biomass feedstock studies indicating there is five times that amount of locally
produced but as-yet unused biomass available. Thus, SOU’s key stakeholder approval and
support for the concept of this strategic sustainability plan has been received.
Next, is the local ODF Unit’s stakeholder influence and impact description. The
Southwestern Oregon (SWO) unit is divided into forestry and wildland fire protection divisions.
The forestry division’s impact and influence are highest (matches Mr. K’s) and the protection
division’s impact and involvement in the plan are also high. To gain access, knowledge, and
support for this business plan concept, the author worked as an employee in the wildfire
22
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
protection and suppression division of the SWO-ODF from June to August 2014. The author
therefore has included the SWO-ODF Unit Forester, Mr. Dan Thorpe (Mr. T.), in his capstone
since June 2014, and a meeting of the minds and ODF approval with Mr. T. for this business
plan occurred via a telephone dialogue on November 14, 2014. Under this plan, by the Unit
Forester’s direction, the forestry and protection divisions in the SWO-ODF will implement this
plan through Chapter 4 - Resource Management Concepts and Strategies of the current 2010
Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan, Special Forest Products (ODF-FMP, 2010).
This states, in part, “the following strategies have been developed to fulfill the vision that special
forest products will be managed as a viable commodity program” (ODF, 2010, FMP, p4-102/4103). All three divisions (biomass, forestry, and protection) work hand in glove to support the
forest plan for this geographic area, the Southwest Oregon State Forests Management Plan.
Contained within this forest management plan is the ODF’s commitment to manage biomass to
both conserve the ecosystems and to reduce the hazardous biomass fuel buildup that has been
identified in the reviewed literature research (Medford, 2008; OSU, 2004, report; U of O, 2008,
dry forest). The stewardship foresters, with the assistance of a new special forest products
specialist, (see implementation costs), will together take the lead, to bring this plan to fruition on
the southwest Oregon district. They will lead the annual fiscal year metric measuring by
conducting load-ticket accounting with biomass slash sales quantities, conducting the stocking
and canopy surveys, working collaboratively with protection to conduct the after action burn
reports, and working with Mr. K. and Drew Gilliland (OSU Cogeneration Project) to assure
supply chain continuity. These division commitments are one of technical and professional
support to continue to work with the public to ensure adherence to the timber harvest concepts
and strategies which assures the ODF land with accessible and sufficient biomass to sell to the
23
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
developing biomass fuel market. One additional aspect is the fact that each ODF biomass slash
harvest site will occur on an active timber sale. Therefore, all National Environmental Protection
Act requirements have already been completed.
Non-Key Stakeholders
The SOU educational outreach are stakeholders in the Center for Sustainability and the
Sustainability Council, and represent staff and student sustainability education, training,
certification and campus applications. The stakeholder impact is low but the positive influence
may develop to be moderate or even high given the environmental consciousness of the
community of Ashland, the associated student body that has decided to attend SOU with its
green philosophy, and the associated staff who also have made a commitment to teach at a green
university. The author attended a SOU Cogeneration Project stakeholder/public meeting at the
SOU campus, Stevenson Union, on November 12, 2014, and there was a very strong student
body representation in the audience. There was a 30-minute project panel introduction with
panelist statements, and a 90-minute question and answer session facilitated by the SOU’s
contracted public outreach team. Written question cards were received by the team from
approximately 30 of the 36 guests in attendance. The primary theme of the questions revolved
around the biomass plant’s combustion process and airborne emissions. Panel member Bill
Carlson, the engineer who authored the plant’s feasibility study, responded that the plant will
produce the airborne emissions equivalent to 12 fireplaces or 20 woodstoves, and the
centrifugally and electrostatically captured ash will be sold as a soil amendment or garden
fertilizer. Panel member Ryan Brown, who represented the Sustainability Council, reiterated
SOU’s commitment to sustainability throughout its campus facilities and operations complying
with the SOU Green Purchasing Policy – FAD.026 (SOU, 2010, green).
24
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Stakeholder Analysis Summary – Table 1 – created by author
Stakeholders
1. Oregon Department of
Forestry – State Biomass
Division
Stake / Mandate
Potential Role
in Project
Key?
Profitability,
Supply Chain, FMP
Yes
Administrative Concepts & Strategies
2. Oregon Department of Forestry
Administrative
SWO – Unit Forester
FMP Concepts &
Strategies
Yes
3. Oregon Department of Forestry
SWO – Foresters, Wildland
Administrative
Protection Divisions
FMP Concepts &
Strategies
Yes
4. Southern Oregon University
Facilities Division
Supply Chain,
Administrative
Profitability, SOU
Green Purchasing
Policy
Yes
5. SOU Sustainability Council
Educational
Student Outreach
No
6. SOU Center for Sustainability
Educational
Student Outreach
No
This concludes the analysis of the identification of the stakeholders and their
respective influence and impacts on this sustainability plan. “The following process is an
analysis called a SWOT, an acronym for the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats” (Hitchcock & Willard, 2008, p34) of the ODF biomass division in this business
plan.
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT)
25
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
The SWOT is an analysis of four elements that may affect a business plan
proposition, the inherit strengths of the business proposition, its core principals,
offering, and resources (natural, physical, intellectual, legal, emotional); the weaknesses
in the business proposition that may either prevent it from becoming a reality, flaws in
the concept (legal, physical, intellectual), economic-offering dangers, soft/failing
market(s); the opportunities that the business plan presents and offers to the stakeholders
in reaching profitability, sustainability, and societal goal and strategy fulfillment; and
the threats that may prevent plan realization or marginalize plan fulfillment when
implemented. The SWOT analysis grid is a graphical representation of these four
elements and is displayed in Appendix B.
Strengths
The Southwest Oregon (SWO) District of the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF)
combines the State forestland in the four counties of Josephine, Douglas, Jackson, and Curry
Counties. The district holds 18,073 acres of forestland, upon which 307 MMBF (million board
feet) of woody biomass stocks the ODF forestlands (ODF-FMP, 2010). Of the available 307
million board feet of woody biomass 2.8 million board feet (ODF-FMP, 2010, p2-27, Table 2.5)
are fuel biomass available for harvest and sale according to the Southwest Oregon State Forest
Management Plan, Special Forest Products Strategy, page 4-102, 4-103 (ODF-FMP, 2010). This
sustainability plan calls for the annual sale of special forest product biomass in the quantity of
21,000 bone dry tons to the Southern Oregon University (SOU) cogeneration plant in Ashland,
Oregon. The ODF’s Biomass Specialist has built a partnership with the SOU Cogeneration
Project during the previous five years, and is a member of the project panel. The SOU
Cogeneration Project Manager and Facilities Division Manager, Drew Gilliland, is sourcing the
26
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
project’s biomass slash fuel needs through ODF Biomass Specialist utilizing the Southern
Oregon University Green Purchasing Policy – FAD.026 (SOU, 2010, green).
Mr. K. has conducted biomass feedstock studies of the SOU Cogeneration Project and
has calculated the annual local harvest at approximately 105,000 bone dry tons (SOU
stakeholder/public meeting 11/12/14). The author has conducted face-to-face meetings,
dialogued with, briefed, and provided draft capstone material to the State Biomass Specialist
(Kauffman) and the SWO Unit Forester (Thorpe) of the sustainability plan (several draft forms)
for the previous six months and has the ODF’s consent and permission to write and present a
strategic sustainability business plan to them for ODF use (personal communication with
Kaufmann 11/12/14 and Thorpe 11/14/14).
Weaknesses
The SWO ODF has 2.8 million board feet of harvestable biomass upon its four counties
18,073 acres. This is a large quantity of biomass upon the representative acreage, and equals an
average stocking level of 155 board feet/acre of hazardous fuel (Woodland, 2009). This is a
strength in that it represents an untapped natural capital resource but it also represents a current
weakness for the ODF in the form of an existing hazardous fuel that is preventing full realization
of goal accomplishment in forest health and wildfire suppression (ODF-FMP, 2010) The existing
stocking level of biomass equals an approximate Btu heat release of 11 million Btu’s/acre of
extra fuel/acre of forestland. This current biomass overstocking is a present danger to the
ecosystems if the forestland is ignited by lightning or human cause.
The biomass market has not been a traditionally strong market because biomass is not an
energy-dense fuel as compared for instance to coal or petroleum. For this reason, the
27
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
transportation of the fuel is expensive which reduces the profit per bone dry ton, thus much of
the biomass generated in a timber sale is not harvested. It is usually either left as a vegetation
mat on the surface of the forest or cut and piled in stacks. In both methods, the biomass is known
as slash or hog-fuel, or if chipped it is called “dirty-chips” as the bark is a constituent part of the
chip. If left as slash it soon dehydrates to a product known as “red-slash” (Fuel Models 12 &13;
IFRES, 1982) as the needles dry out and turn red. Red slash is an extremely flammable,
hazardous biomass fuel, that is traditionally burned and wasted on-site during the wet winter
months when the Btu heat release has a lesser chance to catch the surrounding woods on fire.
The SWO ODF resides geographically in several DEQ non-attainment air quality basins. For this
reason, the burning of the red slash is strictly enforced by the DEQ through the ODF, US Forest
Service, and the BLM. The author has personally witnessed biomass slash treated by forest crews
25 years ago still residing in slash piles, unburned, and acting as an available hazardous biomass
fuel for wildland fires. In short, disposing of biomass slash in a useful, sustainable, and revenue
generating manner has been a difficult business proposition, thus the current overstocking in the
forestlands.
Opportunities
The opportunities in this business plan for the ODF Biomass Division are numerous. It
represents a starting point for the sustainable and intelligent utilization of a current waste stream
that multiplies in quantity and hazard potential each year if unaddressed. Use of local biomass
slash grants the accomplishment of several Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan
goals, concepts, and strategies (ODF-FMP, 2010, Ch.4 et.al. 4-201, 4-103). The opportunities are
listed as follows:
28
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN

Utilize existing Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan goals,
strategies, and concepts for Special Forest Products 4-102, 4-103 to sell biomass
slash to the public markets (ODF-FMP, 2010).

Utilize existing Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan for Special
Forest Products item 4-102/4-103 to generate sales revenue to establish an annual
biomass slash forestland reduction program for the SWO ODF Unit, thereby
funding additional State Plan Strategies of Integrated Forest Management for
Landscape Management-Structure Based Management (SBM) 4-43/4-45, Aquatic
and Riparian Conservation 4-57, and Forest Health 4-75 (ODF-FMP, 2010).

Create a custom annual-sales customer-market, sized to ODF Southwest Oregon
Unit production capabilities for biomass slash (Markus Kaufmann personal
conversation 11/12/14 biomass feedstock study; ODF-FMP, 2010).

Create a new partnership with the DOD Veterans Affairs Southwest Oregon
Rehabilitation Center campus in White City Oregon to create a cogeneration
biomass-fueled power and heat facility (USDVA, 2014) and provide biomass fuel.

Develop partnerships with Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative,
Southern Oregon Land Conservancy, and the National Wildfire Suppression
Association to educate and extend the concept to private woodlot owners (less
than 40-acre parcels) and to employ local citizens (4 county area) as the labor
pool (NWSA, 2014; ODF-FMP, 2010; SOFRC, 2014; SOLC, 2014).

Incorporate Southern Oregon University students and faculty through the SOU
Sustainability Council and Sustainability Center, through SWO ODF Unit
stewardship foresters, to provide internship or practicum experiences in
sustainable forestry/renewable energy training opportunities (SOU, 2014
sustainability council; SOU, 2014, sustainability center).
Threats
The literature review provides evidence of the overstocking of accumulated biomass
(OSU, 2004, report; U of O, 2008, dry forest zone) and the rationale of management (Costanza,
29
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
2006; Dedrick, 20103; Greenfire, 2008; Medford BLM, 2008) of the hazardous biomass slash
from the State forestlands. There has historically been little to no market value for biomass slash
sales (ODF Biomass Specialist SOU Cogeneration Project stakeholder/public meeting at SOU
campus 11/12/14. Employing the correct methodology/vehicle to create a viable and stable
market for biomass slash sales has been unfocused. This business plan refocuses the SWO ODF
to utilize the existing but underutilized Special Forest Products strategy (SWO-FMP, 2010, Ch.4
et.al. 4-102, 4-103) to enable the fulfillment of the legislation to create a commodity market for
sales to the public of biomass slash.
The threats to the business plan success are the overdevelopment of this local niche
market or the consumption of the biomass by wildfire. The ODF has completed feedstock
surveys (Mr. K. SOU Cogeneration Project stakeholder/public meeting SOU campus 11/12/14)
that indicate that five times the required sales amount to SOU of 21,000 bone dry tons per year
(21,000 x 5 = 105,000 BDT/year), is available for harvest within 30 miles of the SOU facility.
The SOU cogeneration plant will not require more biomass slash than the 21k BDT unless it
replaced its two other existing natural gas boilers with two additional biomass boilers, but that
would still not overtax the supply at 42k BDT/year.
If the SWO-ODF developed a partnership with the local Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation
Facility in White City Oregon and they also built a cogeneration facility, it would probably not
be any larger than the SOU facility as their campus size and population are comparable. Selling
an additional 21k BDT to 42k BDT per year to the Veterans Affairs would not foreseeably
exhaust the supply chain of available local biomass slash. Additional local cogeneration plant
development beyond those consuming roughly 100,000 BDT/year would exhaust the local
supply chain and would create market failures for the cogeneration plants and the SWO ODF.
The second threat to the business plan is the consumption of the accumulated biomass
slash by wildfire. This may occur in two ways, through wildfire burning unharvested timber units
and thus the slash in its raw form, or through loss of control of prescribed burns meant to
consume neighboring timber unit slash on federal land or private timber lands. With the present
accumulation of overstocked biomass (Medford BLM, 2008; OSU, 2004, report) this is a very
real and present danger. Wildfire consumed biomass slash, if in great enough quantities would
also cause market failure for the cogeneration plants and the SWO ODF.
30
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
The stable market to be created is in its infancy, but it has begun with the partnership
with the SOU Cogeneration Project (SOU, 2014, cogeneration). Growing the biomass sales
program too big/fast will not work for the SWO ODF Special Forest Products sales strategy
(ODF-FMP, 2010), as the markets for biomass slash are limited and niche in southwest Oregon.
Also, wildfire pre-suppression and suppression activities must continue to take place in the SWO
ODF with current or possibly temporary increased activity (10+ years) to protect the biomass and
until the reduction of biomass on a landscape scale is implemented on not just ODF lands but on
adjacent federal and private forestlands Care must be exercised to match the capacity and
productivity of the land to the harvested biomass slash quantities. In this way, a local sustainable
biomass fuels market may be established in a self-supporting and on-going business model.
Business Model Canvas
The business model definition as provided by Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010) states “A
business model describes the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and captures
value” (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, pg.14). The business model canvas (BMC) therefore
provides a visual depiction, like a painting/persistent object, that makes the business model
tangible and shifts discussion from abstract to concrete by depicting the business model’s nine
building blocks: “(1) customer segments, (2) value proposition, (3) channels, (4) customer
relationships, (5) revenue streams, (6) key resources, (7) key activities, (8) key partnerships, and
(9) cost structure” (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, pg.16-17). The author has taken the business
model representing this strategic sustainability plan for the Oregon Department of Forestry,
Biomass Division, and discussed and analyzed it in its nine interconnected vectors/building
blocks and their interrelationships. The business model canvas is represented in graphical form in
Appendix C.
This BMC is multiple-epicenter driven (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010); it is resourcedriven in the fact that the ODF’s offering is from within its existing infrastructure but an as yet
31
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
unutilized/underutilized resource (biomass slash); it is offer-driven in that it offers a value
proposition that is owned and ‘on the books’ but not being utilized (it’s usually being burned);
and it is finance-driven in that it offers a new revenue stream (biomass sales to public) by
activating a seldom used special forest product strategy that is already in the SWO ODF forest
plan (ODF-FMP, 2010).
Customer Segment
The customer segment for this strategic sustainability plan for the ODF is a niche market
of the Southern Oregon University Cogeneration Project (2014) in Ashland, Oregon. The project
is a 2KW biomass slash fueled steam turbine that produces both electricity and steam heat for the
campus. SOU will be the first Special Forest Products customer that the ODF has provided
biomass slash fuel to. Enabled by a new 2010 Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan,
Chapter 4 Resource Management Concepts and Strategies, Landscape Management Goal,
Strategy for Specific Resources, Special Forest Products Strategy 4-102/4-103, [1a, 1b, 1c, 2a,
2b, 2c, 2d] (ODF-FMP, 2010) introduction states, in part… “The following strategies have been
developed to fulfill the vision that special forest products will be managed as a viable commodity
program” (ODF-FMP, 2010, pg.4-102-103). This strategy will permit the sale of biomass slash
to a customer segment as a commodity, in this case the public university of Southern Oregon
University’s cogeneration plant.
Value Proposition
The value proposition for this strategic sustainability plan for the ODF will be to provide
cheap biomass slash fuel to the local southwest Oregon public as a commodity. Enabled by the
new 2010 Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan, Chapter 4, Resource Management
32
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Concepts and Strategies, Landscape Management Goal, Strategy for Specific Resources, Special
Forest Products Strategy 4-102/4-103, [1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d] (ODF-FMP, 2010). Current
waste stream of biomass slash to be sold to the SOU Cogeneration Project (2014) at the rate of
21,000 bone dry tons (BDT) annually at a fixed price of $35/BDT for an annual revenue of
$735,000 (ODF Biomass Specialist SOU panelist at stakeholder meeting SOU campus
11/12/14).
Channels
The channels for this strategic sustainability plan for the ODF are the partnership
between the ODF biomass division and the SOU Cogeneration Project for the sales and purchase
of the biomass slash, respectively, and the relationship within ODF of its biomass division,
stewardship foresters, and wildland protection supervisors for the actual implementation of the
plan’s goals and objectives; for them to actually carry out the management of biomass on the
ground over an extended period of time according to and fulfilling the forest plan’s strategies.
The success of the implementation of this sustainability plan is contingent upon these channels
functioning effectively and efficiently over the lifecycle of the SOU cogeneration plant, or until
the ODF has created another appropriately sized customer segment niche and associated channel
(perhaps the White City, Oregon, Veteran’s Affairs Rehabilitation Center campus).
Customer Relationships
The external customer relationships for this strategic sustainability plan for the ODF is
based on personal assistance and an ongoing professional relationship (finance driven epicenter)
between the SOU Cogeneration Project’s manager Drew Gilliland and the southwest Oregon
ODF Unit’s Forester, the Unit’s Protection Supervisor’s, and the author’s client/sponsor ODF
33
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Biomass Specialist. Extensions of this business plan could include developing additional niche
customer segments such as with the Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Center campus with a
personal assistance relationship to develop a similar cogeneration facility. The internal customer
relationships that exist and are also key to success are within the ODF infrastructure of the
stewardship foresters (resource driven epicenter), who will be carrying the majority of the burden
of plan implementation, annual measurement and monitoring of the goals and objectives, and
their working relationships with the biomass division and the wildland fire protection supervisors
to implement the biomass slash raw material sales process in the offer-driven epicenter.
Revenue Streams
The revenue stream for this strategic sustainability plan for the ODF is exclusively
biomass slash sales revenue, as authorized to “be managed as a viable commodity program”
(ODF-FMP, 2010, pg.4-102) by the 2010 Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan,
Chapter 4 Resource Management Concepts and Strategies, Special Forest Products Strategy,
pages 4-102, 4-103 (ODF-FMP, 2010); additionally, biomass slash as authorized to be purchased
by Southern Oregon University Green Purchasing Policy – FAD.026, Items [1h, 5a, 5b, 8a]
(SOU, 2010, green). The calculated ODF revenue for this business plan is $735,000 annually;
from the sale of 21,000 bone dry tons of biomass for $35 per ton to the SOU cogeneration plant.
Key Resources
Key resources for this strategic sustainability plan for the ODF are the natural capital
item of biomass slash; the human capital of the ODF’s ODF Biomass Specialist (facilitated
acquisition of biomass), SWO ODF Unit Forester (administration of acquisition and sales of
Special Forest Products), SWO ODF Unit Stewardship Foresters (field implementation of plan),
34
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
SWO ODF Protection Supervisors (field implementation of plan), and SOU’s Drew Gilliland
(administration of purchase of biomass slash by SOU Cogeneration Project); and the intellectual
capital of the ODF Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan (2010) and the SOU Green
Purchasing Policy-FAD.026 (2010).
Key Activities
Key activities for this strategic sustainability plan for the ODF will be the facilitation,
acquisition, coordination, and sales per Special Forest Product Strategy (ODF-FMP, 2010, 4-102,
4-103) of the biomass slash by SWO ODF stewardship foresters. The biomass slash will be
accumulated on southwest Oregon timber harvest and thinning operations as inspected and
managed by the stewardship foresters; per Landscape Management, Structure Based
Management, Aquatic and Riparian Conservation, and Forest Health Strategies as contained in
the 2010 Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan, Chapter 4 Resource Management
Concepts and Strategies (ODF-FMP, 2010).
Key Partnerships
Key partnerships for this strategic sustainability plan for the ODF are; continue the
existing partnership between Mr. K. and Drew Gilliland, SOU Cogeneration Project Manager
and Facility Division Manager, and develop a relationship through Mr. K. between SWO ODF
Administration and Stewardship Foresters and Drew Gilliland. Continuance and strengthening of
this partnership will reduce risk and uncertainty in both the consistent sales and steady annual
acquisition of the biomass slash fuel, which will create an optimized economy of scale for both
parties (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010).
Cost Structure
35
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
The administrative cost structure for the strategic sustainability plan for the ODF to
implement will utilize the existing ODF and SWO ODF personnel that fill the existing
stakeholder positions of Biomass Coordinator (1 position), Unit Forester (1 position),
Stewardship Forester (3 positions), and Wildland Supervisors (2 positions). The product cost
structure for the strategic sustainability plan for the ODF will utilize a fixed cost structure for the
product cost of biomass slash sales per bone dry ton (ODF-FMP, 2010; Osterwalder & Pigneur,
2010) to the SOU cogeneration plant facility in Ashland, Oregon (ODF Biomass Specialist SOU
stakeholder/public meeting SOU campus 11/12/14.) The visual canvas graphic to display the
business model canvas for this strategic sustainability plan is displayed in Appendix C.
Strategic Sustainability Plan
The supporting research in the literature review, the identification of the Oregon
Department of Forestry’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to implementation;
the analysis of who the stakeholders are and what they can and cannot do to create a successful
implementation; and the identification, analysis, and synchronization of the business model’s
nine building blocks; together tell a story, paint a picture, and provide a salient argument that this
strategic sustainability plan is viable, and has utility for the Oregon Department of Forestry to
make its own through the triple bottom line framework. The overarching essence of this plan is
to conserve ecosystem services from compromise by wildfire through the management of
accumulated forest biomass. The following strategies, goals, objectives, and metrics in this
section provide the framework, rationale, methods, and confirmation for the business plan’s
implementation within the Oregon Department of Forestry, Biomass Division and the Southwest
Oregon Unit.
36
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Oregon Department of Forestry Mission Statement
“To serve the people of Oregon by protecting, managing and promoting stewardship of Oregon's
forests to enhance environmental, economic, and community sustainability” (ODF, 2014, about
us).
Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives herein, to manage the forestland ecosystems and conserve them
from wildfire consumption through the management of biomass fuel, have been formulated and
are recommended for implementation by the author. The goals and objectives represent
application of the ODF’s adherence to the triple bottom line framework of managing the state
forests for economic, environmental, and social values surrounding Oregon forest resources
(ODF, 2009, roundtable). After careful analysis of the information gathered and presented in the
literature review, review and analysis of the Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan
(2010), empirical evidence gathered while working for the ODF during fire season 2014, and a
25 year career in natural resource management, the author presents the following goals,
objectives, and metrics for the ODF to implement in this strategic sustainability business plan.
SWO-ODF to use special forest products strategy in the sale of biomass slash to SOU
Cogeneration Project.
Goal 1. SWO-ODF to implement in 2017 the provision of the sale of biomass slash to
SOU cogeneration plant per SWO forest plan Chapter 4, special forest products strategy 4-102,
4-103. Currently, the provision exists in the SWO-ODF forest plan for the sale of special forest
products to be managed as a viable commodity program; to implement a structured program of
biomass slash sales within this provision, to SOU and the public, is the goal submitted.
37
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Objective 1.1. SWO-ODF to continue to move forward with its partnership with the
SOU Cogeneration Project and their intention to sell 21,000 bone dry tons/year of biomass fuel
to SOU.
Objective 1.2. SWO-ODF to conduct an annual inventory of accumulated biomass slash
available for public sale.
Objective 1.3. SWO-ODF to further develop the load-ticket/sales revenue manual to
annually update the statewide pricing list for special forest products to ensure products are
selling at optimum commodity price to ensure maximization of market(s).
Metric to measure Goal 1, objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 - Utilize the Special Forest Products
Strategy, manage special forest product strategies as a viable commodity program, Chapter 4,
Special Forest Products Strategy 4-102, 4-103, and Forestry Department Annual Performance
Progress Report, “Key Performance Measure #14 – Forest Biomass Utilization - Million bonedry tons of forest biomass converted to biofuels, electricity or steam” (ODF, 2013, appr p63).
Stewardship Foresters to complete the annual fiscal year Performance Progress Accomplishment
Report (APPR; APPR, 2013) for the SWO unit that includes tracking and recordation of biomass
slash sales volume and revenue generation. The initial Measure #14 APPR for fiscal year 2017
will measure against a current SWO unit baseline of biomass slash sales of zero quantity and
zero revenues. After the initial fiscal year analysis of the 2017 Fiscal year, the APPR will use the
previous year report as a baseline. Foresters to utilize the existing ODF forest management plan
processes in the load accountability system for special forest products load-tickets and sales
revenue tracking. This utilizes the statewide pricing list for special forest products as tied to loadtickets (ODF-FMP, 2010). SWO Report to analyze trends in biomass sales and to calculate fiscal
38
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
year annual sales as a percentage of the annual, available, 105,000 bone dry ton inventory
(Kauffman, 2014, SOU public meeting 11/12/14). Annual sales calculations to be monitored and
adjusted to maintain an on-going sustainable inventory of raw material to meet operational
considerations of unit’s forest management plan Concepts and Strategies for biomass slash, as
identified by the ODF team of Unit Forester, Biomass Specialist, Stewardship Foresters, and
Wildland Protection Supervisors.
An expansion of this goal would be to open sales of biomass slash to small-scale personal
use permits similar to current fire wood permit load tickets. This would enhance the sales
revenue for the SWO, provide low cost biomass heating fuel to the public in an economically
depressed region of rural Oregon, and would assist to clean-up and remove biomass slash from
especially difficult (steep, remote, thicket) logging harvest units to prepare the units for fire
resilient tree replanting operations (American Softwoods, 2014).
SWO-ODF to manage alternative vegetation treatment strategies to change the vegetative
community.
Goal 2. SWO-ODF to introduce biomass slash thinning/removal of hardwood in
hardwood stands in fiscal year 2017, create gaps to increase recruitment of fire tolerant softwood
species (western larch, lodgepole pine, sugar pine, ponderosa pine; American Softwoods, 2014).
Current dense hardwood stands serve as ‘jackpots’, thickets of high-Btu release energy-dense
hardwood fuels that can adversely affect properly functioning aquatic habitat conditions.
Objective 2.1. SWO-ODF to use biomass slash thinning as a tool to create fuel-gaps in
hardwood stands to reduce the Btu heat release in wildfires or prescribed burning to prevent soil
sterilization thus conserve ecosystem services of soil formation, water filtration/hydrological
39
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
services, and reduce erosion and sedimentation yields to indigenous salmonid riparian systems,
wetlands, and estuaries.
Objective 2.2. SWO-ODF to optimize unique Oregon hardwood slash wood as an
additional special forest product commodity for existing Oregon niche markets (Ashland &
Portland) of wine barrels (Oregon white oak), food-processing to smoke meats (hickory, alder,
maple, oak) veneer or frames for high-end furniture (black oak, red alder, black walnut, Oregon
ash, bigleaf maple), and hardwood leaves (Oregon myrtle) for specialty food preparation.
Metric to measure Goal 2, objectives 2.1, 2.2 - Utilizing the Aquatic and Riparian
Strategy 4, manage alternative vegetation treatment strategies to change the vegetative
community, Chapter 4, Aquatic and Riparian Strategy 4, 4-66, 4-67 (ODF-FMP, 2010).
Stewardship Foresters are to complete an SWO unit, basin-level hardwood-stand vegetation
inventory in 2016, before biomass removal to create a baseline, and then annually, each fiscal
year, after biomass removal treatments of the hardwood stands. The comparative measured
changes in vegetative community tree species will determine if the changes are effective in
producing properly functioning aquatic habitat conditions, according to the aquatic and riparian
strategy 4 of the SWO forest plan.
An extension of this goal would be to open and sell exclusive hardwood tree harvesting
permits with load tickets to the public. This would assist the Foresters to reduce thick hardwood
stands that are not in a logging harvest unit, but pose a significant risk of wildfire in the wildland
Urban Interface (WUI) zones. The Foresters and the Wildland Protection Supervisors would
conduct wildland fire pre-suppression planning of WUI hazard zones near significant historic
structures or near significant infrastructure facilities (natural gas pumping stations, electricity
40
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
power stations, municipal water system pump intakes, fish hatcheries, campgrounds). The SWO
ODF would then mark the hazard hardwood trees for harvest and sell local permits with load
tickets to the public for the specifically targeted small-sale units.
SWO-ODF to use Forest Health Strategy 2; manage the forest to minimize unwanted fire.
Goal 3. SWO-ODF to maximize revenue and ecosystem benefit prior to prescribed
burning; conduct biomass slash removal activities in fiscal year 2017 to reduce hazardous fuel
loading and improve forest health. Implement the sale of biomass special forest products, per
forest plan sold as a commodity.
Objective 3.1. SWO-ODF to conduct mechanical thinning operations of biomass slash
removal on southwest Oregon forestland and sell it as a special forest product prior to
prescription burning.
Objective 3.2. SWO-ODF to monitor all fuel treatment areas for long-range biomass
slash treatments followed by low intensity prescribed burning.
Objective 3.3. SWO-ODF to encourage stand structure diversity in the vegetative
community and create fuel breaks and fuel modifications to conserve state forestland ecosystems
from wildfire.
Objective 3.4. SWO-ODF to cooperate and coordinate with adjacent federal and private
forest landowners to create a connected system of vegetative structure diversity, fuel breaks, and
fuel modifications to conserve ecosystems from wildfire.
Metric to measure Goal 3, objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 - Utilizing the Forest Health
Strategies 1-7, manage the forest to minimize unwanted fire et.al., Chapter 4 Forest Health
41
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Strategies, 4-75-4-78 (ODF-FMP, 2010), Stewardship Foresters and Protection Supervisors to
complete standardized vegetation stocking level surveys and canopy coverage surveys of each
selected treatment unit, beginning in fiscal year 2016, before and after both biomass slash
removal, and secondary low intensity burning. Comparative measurements of the quantity (tons
per acre) of biomass removed and reduction of canopy cover (percentage) per acre, before and
after treatments, are utilized to calculate Btu-reduction in fire severity and intensity per acre and
per treatment unit. Stewardship Foresters to conduct standard accounting for treatment unit’s
load-tickets and associated sales revenue of removed and sold biomass slash per KPM #14
Forestry Department Annual Performance Progress Report (2013).
SWO-ODF to manage for Soils Strategy, manage quantities of organic material in the soil,
duff and litter, Chapter 4, Soils Strategy, 4-100, 4-101 (ODF-FMP, 2010).
Goal 4. SWO-ODF to balance the amount of biomass slash remaining on harvest units,
beginning in fiscal year 2018, with both the consideration of its contribution to soil fertility and
its distribution and composition as a hazardous fuel.
Objective 4.1. SWO-ODF to integrate harvest operations of biomass slash with the
integrated management strategies of the Oregon Forest Practices Act to protect ecosystem
services by minimizing soil disturbance and deterioration, protecting long-term soil productivity
and hydrologic function, while reducing the amount and distribution of biomass slash to facilitate
low-intensity prescribed burns.
Objective 4.2. SWO-ODF to ensure that detailed presale plan reports and written plans
for riparian management areas, implement specific strategies as contained in the ODF forest
42
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
management plan (2010), recognize the importance of maintaining organic materials in the soil
to include an optimum mixture of decaying biomass.
Metric to measure Goal 4, objectives 4.1, 4.2 - Utilizing the Soils Strategy, manage
quantities of organic material in the soil, duff and litter, Chapter 4, Soils Strategy, 4-100, 4-101
(ODF-FMP, 2010). Stewardship Foresters and Protection Supervisors to complete standard
operating procedure after action reviews (AAR) of prescribed burns in select biomass slash
harvested unit. Anticipated to begin prescription low-intensity surface burns in 2018 of biomass
harvested units. These reports will be compared to each non biomass slash harvested, plain
prescription-burned post-harvest unit, to determine comparative percent of biomass consumed,
soil-horizon composition, percent of unit available for replanting, and percent of canopy cover.
This will determine if the harvest presale plan reports, and riparian management plans, goals and
objectives were achieved to retain, build, and maintain proper soil complexity and fertility.
An extension of this goal would be to substitute a mechanical masticator in the place of
low-intensity prescription burning after biomass slash harvesting of units. According to the
California Fire Science Consortium (2014), to create resilient forest ecosystems a variety of
treatment methods are to be utilized in the treatment of forestland. Biomass removal, biomass
slash removal, biomass slash burning, biomass removal with burning, biomass slash removal
with burning, prescription burning of biomass, biomass removal with mastication, and biomass
slash removal with mastication, all represent valid methods of forestland biomass management to
create diverse vegetation communities with fire resilient characteristics.
Implementation Timeline
43
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
The implementation timeline for this strategic sustainability business plan is presented in
graphic form below. The implementation of biomass sales to SOU represents a long-term
business relationship. The plan will be implemented, and metrics measured annually for the 50
operational years of the cogeneration plant. The timeline started in 2013 with the establishment
of a formal partnership between ODF and SOU Cogeneration Project, and the persons of Mr. K.
and SOU’s Drew Gilliland Facilities Division Manager. The sale and delivery of the biomass
slash are contingent upon the operational start date of the SOU cogeneration plant. A funding
request for $12 million has been sent by SOU to the Oregon Legislature, which is scheduled for
design and build in early 2016, and completion, with a start of operations in early 2017. The
triple functions of (1) facility start date, (2) biomass fuel delivery date, and the (3) goal and
objective initiation will begin on the same date in early 2017. Each year-anniversary thereafter
for the 50-year operational lifecycle of the cogeneration plant, through to 2067, the SWO-ODF
will utilize the metrics to measure the goals and objectives. The measurements will delineate
their effectiveness, if economies are being realized, and the adjustment(s) necessary to the goals
and objectives to best meet the SWO-ODF state forest management plan (2010) to conserve
ecosystem services through the integrated management approach of economic, environmental,
and social value creation.
44
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Implementation Timeline
Formal ODF
Agreement
to Provide
Biomass
Fuel to SOU
Cogenplant
2014
2015
Partnership
between
SOU & ODF
to provide
feedstock
biomass fuel
2016
SOU Submit
Funding
Request to
Legislature
$12 Million
for Plant
SWO-ODF
Begin
Delivery to
SOU
Cogenplant
of Biomass
Fuel
2017
SOU Plant
Final Design,
Bid Process,
Construction
Begins on
Cogenplant
SWO-ODF
Begin to
Implement
Business Plan
Goals &
Objectives
2018
SWO-ODF
Complete
Annual
Metric
Measurement
Goals &
Objectives
2019
2020
SWO-ODF
Complete
Second
Annual
Metric
Measurement
Goals &
Objectives
Revise &
Proceed
2030
SWO-ODF
Continues
Annual
Metric
Measurement
Goals &
Objectives & Revise
Annually
to 50 Year
Facility LIfecycle
2040
2050
2060
2070
Begin
Operations
New SOU
Cogenplant
Online
Implementation timeline. Figure 1 created by the author.
Implementation Costs
The implementation costs to fund the position(s) necessary to facilitate the special forests
products sales in the SWO ODF Unit were not calculated by Chapter 4 Special Forest Products
Strategy, pages 4-102 and 4-103. However, the forest plan does discuss that a manual must be
developed with the plan to guide special forest products sales (ODF-FMP, 2010). The manual to
be developed “will contain all of the guidance needed to offer sales and personal use permits”
(ODF-FMP, 2010, 4-103) Examples given include “procedures for competitive bidding or
negotiated sales, contractual considerations, pricing guidelines, accountability guidelines,
develop a state-wide pricing list for all known special forest products, harvesting procedures and
seasons, cultural requirements, and the sustainability of the resource(s)” (ODF-FMP, 2010, p.4-
45
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
103). The author’s 25 years experience in natural resources (civil engineer and wildland
firefighter) estimates that this level and quantity of work could initially be handled by one
permanent full time employee functioning at the stewardship forester level (SimplyHired.com,
2014) for an annual salary of $54,000 per year. If this program extends beyond the SWO ODF
unit, the actual quantity of work encountered per ODF administrative unit would determine if
one biomass sales coordinator position per geographical unit is necessary.
Monitoring, Evaluating, and Revising Sustainability Performance
This strategic sustainability business plan has a 50-year lifecycle. The author utilized the
planning philosophy of The Natural Step’s (2014) process of backcasting to the desired end state
goals of fire resilient ecosystems, then working back to the present in iterative steps, or
objectives. The plan’s objectives are achievable, reachable, and iterative action steps that lead
back to the present, a pathway leading backward and forward, measured by metrics for
achievability. After initial implementation in 2017, the four goal’s annual fiscal year metric
measurement results will determine iterative adjustments to the objectives as the 50-year
lifecycle of the plan unfolds.
Annually, at the end of each fiscal year, the SWO ODF will conduct an analysis of the
four goals and their objectives with the following metrics to measure the products of the
objectives. These analyses will produce tangible measurements to determine the degree of goal
and objective accomplishment. At that time, the author anticipates that the goals and objectives
will be updated, rearranged, and revised to suit the ODF stewardship forester’s standard
operating protocols and to more closely align with specific SWO ODF operational conditions.
The following metrics are designed to permit measurement of the four goals and their objectives.
46
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Metric to measure Goal 1, objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. In coordination with the start of
operations of the SOU cogeneration plant, projected for early 2017, Stewardship Foresters will
complete the annual Performance Progress Accomplishment Report (Key Performance Measure
#14 Forest Biomass Utilization; ODF, 2013, APPR) for the SWO ODF unit. The APPR tracks
and records the unit’s biomass slash sales volume and revenue generation. The APPR will utilize
the statewide pricing list for special forest products as tied to load-tickets (ODF-FMP, 2010).
The SWO will utilize the APPR data to calculate biomass slash sales trends and to calculate
fiscal year annual sales as a percentage of the available annual 105,000 bone dry ton inventory.
Biomass slash sales will be monitored and adjusted by SWO to maintain an on-going sustainable
inventory to meet operational requirements of SWO ODF and SOU.
Metric to measure Goal 2, objectives 1.1, 1.2. In anticipation of the start of operations
of the SOU cogeneration plant in early 2017, Stewardship Foresters are to complete in 2016 a
baseline basin-level hardwood-stand inventory of the SWO ODF unit. After the initial baseline
inventory, an annual end of fiscal year inventory of the SWO ODF unit’s hardwood-stands will
be completed to measure the percentage change in tree species in the vegetative community that
has been produced by the removal of hardwood biomass slash. The measured changes in
vegetative community tree species will determine if the changes are effective in producing
properly functioning aquatic habitat conditions, according to the aquatic and riparian strategy 4
of the SWO forest plan.
Metric to measure Goal 3, objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 – In anticipation of the start of
operations of the SOU cogeneration plant in early 2017, Stewardship Foresters and Protection
Supervisors will complete, beginning in 2016, standard ODF vegetation stocking level surveys
and canopy coverage surveys of each planned and selected treatment unit. At the conclusion of
47
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
each fiscal year, biomass treated units will receive a vegetation stocking survey and canopy
coverage survey. Comparative measurements of the quantity (tons per acre) of biomass removed
and reduction of canopy cover (percentage) per acre (before and after removal) will be calculated
to determine Btu-fuel-reduction in fire severity and intensity per acre, and per treatment unit.
Stewardship Foresters to conduct standard accounting for treatment units load-tickets and
associated sales revenue of removed and sold biomass slash per KPM #14 Forestry Department
Annual Performance Progress Report (2013).
Metric to measure Goal 4, objectives 4.1, 4.2 Anticipated to begin in 2018, after the
first year of biomass slash sales to the SOU cogeneration plant, Stewardship Foresters and
Protection Supervisors to annually complete standard operating procedure of after action reviews
(AAR) of prescribed burns in selected post biomass slash harvested units. Burn result report
measurements will be compared to each non biomass slash harvested, plain prescription-burned
post-harvest unit, to determine comparative percent of biomass consumed, soil-horizon
composition, percent of unit available for replanting, and percent of canopy cover. This will
determine if the harvest presale plan reports, and riparian management plans, goals and
objectives were achieved to retain, build, and maintain proper soil complexity and fertility.
Conclusion, Recommendation, and implementation
Conclusion
It is the conclusion of the author that the Oregon Department of Forestry should develop
partnerships with an appropriate number of local biomass slash combusting cogeneration plants
that will place the ODF, and the partners, in a decades-long-term, steady, financially solvent
business plan relationship. Right-sizing the quantity harvested with the sustainability of the land
48
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
is critical to a successful implementation of this, or any, sustainability business plan. When the
ODF implements an aggressive balanced sustainability forest plan, it should provide the
additional revenue to the local unit biomass management plan (forest plan), as it is called to be
comprehensively implemented by numerous concepts and strategies (integrated forest
management, landscape management, aquatic & riparian, forest health, special forest products)
that are currently primarily unfunded.
Recommendation
The author recommends that the Oregon Department of Forestry should accept and utilize
this strategic sustainability plan to assist it in more fully implementing the concepts and
strategies in its Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan (2010). This will permit the
SWO ODF to place more emphasis in the conservation of ecosystem services and ecosystem
goods. The valuation of ecosystem services has been discussed and analyzed for nearly 25 years
(Costanza, 1992). The validity of placing an economic value in dollars and cents upon the
foundational ecosystem services provided by nature is accepted (Costanza, 1992, 1997, 2006;
Dedrick, 2013; Greenfire, 2008; Mates, 2006) and should be developed as an ODF forest
management plan strategy. Conserving ecosystems and their services through biomass
management is far less expensive to implement (Dedrick, 2013; Greenfire, 2008) as a proactive
land management strategy, at an average cost of $837/acre, than the current reactive land
management strategy of fire suppression at an average cost of $2,250/acre (rehabilitation of
ecosystems not included).
Biomass has a hard time paying for its way out of the woods. It depends on the value
conferred on the raw material by the market, which is determined by the value the market pays
49
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
for the finished product. This business plan deals with the least valued and least market desirable
form of biomass, logging harvest slash. Traditional wisdom says that the slash has one purpose,
that of being gathered on-site and burned. This business plan proposes to use the slash as a fuel
to power a steam turbine cogeneration plant (SOU, 2014, cogeneration) that creates heat and
electricity for Southern Oregon University in Ashland Oregon. It also proposes to use the
hardwood slash as a raw material for exotic custom furniture, cabinetry, flooring, and its leaves,
for specialty cooking spices. These are called special forest products by the Oregon Department
of Forestry (ODF-FMP, 2010).
Implementation
Implementing this strategic sustainability business plan step-by-step, per the timeline, is
the author’s recommendation to the Oregon Department of Forestry. This plan advocates the
harvest and sales of what is currently waste biomass slash, to the Southern Oregon University’s
new biomass slash fueled cogeneration facility. The cogeneration plant will require 21,000 bone
dry tons of biomass annually beginning in 2017, and thereafter for the next 50 years. The SWO
ODF is in a position to facilitate this biomass sale to the SOU plant for $35 per bone dry ton. The
annual sales revenue calculates to approximately $735,000. Projected annual sales revenue is
anticipated to sufficiently fund the Southwest Oregon Department of Forestry’s implementation
of the goals, objectives, and metrics listed herein. To conduct the operation of a biomass sales
program that facilitates the forest plan concepts and strategies of (1) special forest products, (2)
aquatic and riparian strategy, (3) forest health strategy, and (4) soils strategy (ODF-FMP, 2010);
all the while removing hazardous biomass fuel from the southwest Oregon forestlands and
conserving its ecosystem services from wildfire.
50
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
References
Always Remember (2014). 1994 07/06 CO South Canyon/Storm King. Retrieved from website
http://www.wlfalwaysremember.org/incident-lists/118-south-canyon-storm-king.html
American Softwoods (2014). A guide to American softwood species. Retrieved from website
http://www.softwood.org/cms/data/img/uploads/files/American%20Softwoods%20Specie
s%20Guide.pdf
Britell.com (1994). Conservation report, January 94 storm petrel. Retrieved from website
http://britell.com/articles/finalclintonforestplan.html
California Fire Science Consortium (2014). Managing forests for future resilience: field trip
summary, Joint Fire Science Program. Retrieved from website
http://www.cafiresci.org/blog/2014/6/2/2q3t8h9n2uzolyvwco0es5923l6q4s
Carlson Small Power Consultants (2008). Ft. Bragg biomass power facility feasibility analysis.
Retrieved from website http://cemendocino.ucanr.edu/files/17416.pdf
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R.S., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M.
(1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature (387),
253–260.
Costanza, R and Daly, H. E. (1992), Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation
Biology, 6: 37–46. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.610037.x.
Costanza, R; Wilson, M; Troy, A; Voinov, A; Liu, S; D’Agostino, J (2006). The value of New
Jersey’s ecosystem services and natural capital, Rutgers University, Gund Institute for
Ecological Economics, Burlington VT: University of Vermont, Mates, William , New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
51
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Dedrick, T. (2013). 25 year ecosystem services vs. wildfire: a benefit cost analysis, prepared for
SUS510 Natural Resource Economics, summer 2013, Marylhurst University.
Forest Energy Group, LLC (2014). Wood fiber utilization specialists, Jack W. LeRoy,
Operations Manager, Central Point, OR.
Forest Restoration Collaborative (2014). An update. Retrieved from website
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/sorec/SO-Collaborative
Greenfire Consulting Group, LLC (2008). Economic analysis of the 2006 Wayne National Forest
plan, commissioned by Heartwood, May 2008, prepared by Christine Glaser, Ph.D. and
Karyn Moskowitz, MBA, Bloomington, IN.
GRI Metrics (2014). Support for first time reporters. Retrieved from website
https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/reporting-support/support/Pages/default.aspx
Hitchcock, D., Willard, M. (2008). The step-by-step guide to sustainability planning, New York,
NY, Taylor & Francis.
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station (1982). Aids to determining fuel models for
estimating fire behavior, Hal E. Anderson, Ogden, UT 84401, General Technical Report
INT-122 April 1982 http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr122.pdf
Kauffman, M. (2012). Heating Cascadia: Oregon’s biomass thermal strategy, PFI Annual
Conference 2012. Retrieved from website http://pelletheat.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/01/Kauffman-Heating-Cascadi-PFI-2012.pdf
Mates, W; Reyes, J (2004, 2006), The economic value of New Jersey state parks and forests,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Science, Research, &
Technology, June 2004, revised version issued November 2006.
52
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Medford District Bureau of Land Management and Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest
(2008). Southwest oregon interagency biomass utilization strategy, january 2008,
Moody, Blair - BLM; Reilly, Edward - BLM; Gerritsma, John - BLM; Roney, Mike USFS; Sensenig, Tom - USFS; Drehobl, Rich – BLM, Tuesday September 11, 2007,
retrieved from website http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/files/Biomass.pdf
Oregon Department of Forestry (2013). Annual performance progress report (appr) for fiscal
year (2009-2010) – proposed key performance measures (2011-2013). Retrieved from
website http://www.oregon.gov/odf/docs/appr.pdf
Oregon Department of Forestry (2014). About us. Retrieved from website
http://www.oregon.gov/odf/Pages/about_us.aspx
Oregon Department of Forestry (2014). Forest management plans. Retrieved from website
http://www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/state_forests/forest_management_plans.aspx
Oregon Department of Forestry (2014). SWO Protection from fire program. Retrieved from
website http://www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/fire/fire_protection.aspx
Oregon Department of Forestry (2009). Roundtable on sustainable forest management subgroup
meeting. Retrieved from website
http://www.oregon.gov/odf/indicators/docs/agenda_060109.pdf
Oregon Department of Forestry (2010). Southwest Oregon state forest management plan –
resource management concepts and strategies, April 2010. Retrieved from website
http://www.oregon.gov/odf/state_forests/docs/management/swfmp/sw_fmp_revised_april
_2010_combined.pdf
53
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Oregon State University (2004). Report of the forest fuels and hazard mitigation committee to
the Oregon department of forestry, Oregon fire program review. Submitted by the Forest
Fuels and Hazard Mitigation Committee, December 10, 2004, prepared by: Institute for
Natural Resources. Retrieved from website
http://www.oregon.gov/odf/fire/docs/forestfuelsgrp.pdf
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation, Hoboken New Jersey, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Randall, C. (n.d.). Fire in the wildland-urban interface: understanding fire behavior. Retrieved
from website http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fire-understanding.pdf
Rocky Mountain Research Station (2011). How to generate and interpret fire characteristics
charts for surface and crown fire behavior, Patricia L. Andrews, Faith Ann Heinsch, and
Luke Schelvan, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-253March 2011. Retrieved from
website http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr253.pdf
Science for Nature and People (2014). Snap is. Retrieved from website http://www.snap.is/about/
SimplyHired.com (2014). Stewardship Forester salary. Retrieved from website
http://www.simplyhired.com/salaries-k-stewardship-forester-located-jobs.html
Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative (2014). Forest restoration collaborative.
Retrieved from website http://extension.oregonstate.edu/sorec/SO-Collaborative
Southern Oregon Land Conservancy (2014). Connecting people, nature, community. Retrieved
from website http://www.landconserve.org/
Southern Oregon University (2014). Southern Oregon University cogeneration project.
Retrieved from website http://www.soucogeneration.org/
54
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Southern Oregon University (2010). Green purchasing policy – FAD.026, approved by
President, Finance & Administration, April 21, 2010. Retrieved from website
http://www.sou.edu/assets/policies/docs/Green-purchasing-policy.pdf
Southern Oregon University (2014). SOU center for sustainability. Retrieved from website
https://sou.edu/sustainable/center-for-sustainability/index.html
Southern Oregon University (2014). SOU sustainability council. Retrieved from website
https://sou.edu/sustainable/center-for-sustainability/index.html
University of Oregon (2010). The dry forest zone project, Institute for a Sustainable
Environment, Ecosystem Workforce Program, Eugene Oregon. Retrieved from website
http://ewp.uoregon.edu/research/dfz
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (2014). Southern Oregon rehabilitation center. Retrieved
from website http://www1.va.gov/directory/guide/facility.asp?ID=146
Wu, T; Kim, Y-S; Hurteau, M (2011). Investing in natural capital: using economic incentives to
overcome barriers to forest restoration. Opinion Article, Restoration Ecology, (Vol.19,
No. 4), 441-445.
55
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Appendix A – Stakeholder Influence and Impact
Stakeholder Influence & Impact
Stakeholders, ODF
Admin - High
Influence/High
Impact, 6
Stakeholders, ODF
& SOU
PartnershipHigh
Influence/High
Impact, 2
Stakeholders, SOU
Ed Outreach - Low
Influence/LowHigh Impact, 2
ODF & SOU PartnershipHigh
Influence/High Impact
SOU Ed Outreach - Low
Influence/Low-High Impact
ODF Admin - High
Influence/High Impact
56
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Appendix B - SWOT Analysis Grid
Strengths
Weaknesses
Internal - What ODF does well?
Internal - What could ODF improve?
 ODF has existing partnership SOU.
What unique resources can you draw on?
 ODF has existing forest plans with
Special
Forest
(biomass)
What
do others
seeProducts
as your strengths?
goals, strategies, and concepts.
 ODF may lose biomass to fire.
Where do you have fewer resources than
 ODF improve biomass utilization
mindset, poor
markets.
others?



 ODF could turn around biomass
ODF has existing biomass, foresters, What are
overstocking
over
25 years.
others likely
to see
as weaknesses?
and wildland fire specialists.
 ODF doesn’t have pilot projects.
ODF has partnership w/industry.
 ODF in DEQ non-attainment area,
ODF has SWO sufficient biomass
sell biomass rather than burn it.
inventory of 2.8 MMBF.
 ODF may spend $$ on suppression.
Opportunities
Threats
External - Opportunities open to ODF?
External - Harm ODF? Competition? doing?
What trends could you take advantage of? What threats do your weaknesses expose you
can create
you turn
yourright-sized
strengths into
to? limited thus no
HowODF
a local
 ODF “competition”
opportunities?
threat-pressure to adapt/evolve.
customer
market for biomass.
Unfocused existing biomass program,
 ODF utilize existing Southwest
must be developed by business plan.
Oregon State Forest Management
Plan, Special Forest Products
 ODF may overdevelop this biomass
niche market and outstrip raw supply
Strategy to sell biomass to public.
of material, could lead to market
 ODF utilize existing SWO-FMP to
failure.
sell biomass to implement Aquatic &
Riparian and Forest Health
 ODF may lose raw biomass material
due to combustion and consumption
Strategies.
by wildfires during the time it takes to
 ODF could develop partnership with
get the overstocked material harvested
Veteran’s Affairs White City campus
and an annual biomass reduction
to develop a biomass fueled
program into full production.
cogeneration plant and supply fuel.
57
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Appendix C - Business Model Canvas
Key
Partners
(1)SOU
cogeneration
project.
(2)SWO-ODF
Unit.
Key Activities
(1)Utilize ODF
biomass slash
wastestream
from timber
harvesting.
$$ Value
Propositions
Customer
Relationships
(1)Sell ODF
wastestream
of cheap
biomass fuel
to SOU
cogeneration
project.
(1)SOU
cogeneration
project.
(2)SWO ODF
biomass
specialist,
foresters,
wildland
specialists.
Key
Resources
(1)SWO ODF
biomass
slash.
(2)SWO ODF
biomass
specialist,
foresters,
wildfire specs.
(3)SWO –FMP.
(4)SOU Green
Purchasing
Policy.
Cost Structure
(1)ODF fixed personnel costs for biomassslash, biomass specialist, foresters, wildland
fire specialists.
Customer
Segments
Southern
Oregon
University
cogeneration
project.
Channels
(1)External
partnership
between
ODF/SOU
cogeneration
project.
(2)Internal
relationships
among ODF
biomass
specs.,
foresters,
wildland specs.
$$ Revenue Streams
(1)ODF special forest products
sales of biomass.
58
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Appendix D – Big Windy Fire Complex Southwest Oregon 2013
Big Windy Fire Burning Forest
Biomass & Ecosystem
(For scale, look for the firefighter
standing by the tree, **bottom-left).
**firefighter here
Aftermath of Fire
Compromised
Ecosystem Services
Evidenced: waste
removal-air, storm water
control, pollination, soil
retention, hydrological
services, soil formation,
biological control,
habitat refugia,
aesthetic, water supply,
gas/atmospheric.
59
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Appendix E – Logging Slash Fuel Models 11, 12, 13
Fuel Model 11 logging biomass slash – 11 tons per acre.
Fuel Model 12 logging biomass slash –
34 tons per acre (red slash).
Fuel Model 13 logging biomass slash –
58 tons per acre (red slash).
60
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Appendix F – Southern Oregon University Cogeneration Plant Project
SOU biomass cogeneration plant project video - http://vimeo.com/109863413
61
ECOSERVICES SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Appendix G – Benefits cost analysis, by the author, Tim Dedrick, titled ’25 Year Ecosystem
Services vs. Wildfire, A Benefit Cost Analysis’.
Hyperlink SUS510 Week 5 - Ecosystem Services vs Wildfire BCA.5- Tim Dedrick Summer 2, 2013.docx
Password = 2048801
62