biomass feedstock supply availability assessment for

1

This document may contain the intellectual

property of private individuals or corporations and

cannot be shared without permission

Item 1.a.

Biomass Feedstock Supply Availability Assessment for Yavapai

County

TSS Consultants Scope of Work 1/6/16 Update

The Upper Verde River Watershed Protection Coalition is seeking alternative value-added utilization

opportunities for excess woody biomass generated as a byproduct of watershed restoration and fuels

reduction activities in central Arizona. Water availability and quality are a major concern for the

Coalition, and wildfire represents the most significant threat to key watersheds within the region.

Alternative uses (e.g., industrial fuel pellets, biochar, animal bedding, post and poles) show promise for

both local use and as a potential export option (e.g., Pacific Rim countries).

The Coalition is interested in a comprehensive feedstock supply availability assessment that can be

utilized to attract investment in commercial scale biomass conversion facilities located within central

Arizona.

Scope of Work Tasks

TSS recommends the following tasks in support of a feedstock supply availability assessment for Yavapai

County:

Task 1. Biomass Feedstock Market Analysis

Conduct a woody biomass feedstock market analysis to determine current fuel pricing and availability

trends within the target study area. Target study area (TSA) is Yavapai County. Exhibit A (attached) is a

map of the TSA.

Emphasis will be on forest and range (pinion juniper) feedstock availability within the TSA. Whenever

possible, local knowledge and resources will be tapped including data from previous studies.

Gather the following critical information:

Documentation of available biomass types, characteristics, sustainable quantities and current market

values. Biomass feedstocks considered will include:

Excess woody biomass from hazard reduction, forest restoration, watershed restoration

and range restoration projects on both public and private lands.

Green waste from residential tree trimming and brush removal operations.

2




Forest residuals generated as a byproduct of commercial forest management activities

(e.g., harvest residuals that are typically piled and burned).

Urban wood waste in the form of clean construction/demolition wood and industrial

wood such as pallets.

Key feedstock availability issues will be addressed, including:

Time of year availability.

Volume (in bone dry tons) available near term (3 to 5 years), and long term (10+ years)

on an economically and ecologically sustainable basis.

Impacts of key variables (such as terrain and removal technique) on the cost of harvest,

collection, processing and transport.

TSA maps highlighting vegetation cover, landownership and operable terrain (< 35%

slope).

Forest maps highlighting vegetation cover, landownership and operable terrain (< 35%

slope).

Task 2. Competition and Risk Analysis

Develop a competition analysis noting where available feedstock generated from within the primary TSA

is currently dedicated to competing plants and/or competing uses. Review potential future competition.

Identify future supply sources and risks.

Task 3. Delivered Cost Analysis

Determine estimated current delivered costs ($/bone dry ton) for woody biomas feedstock sourced

from the TSA and delivered to a central location (such as Prescott Valley). TSS will confirm costs

associated with collection, processing and transport of biomass feedstock material sourced from within

the TSA.

Key feedstock pricing issues will be addressed, including:

Indicative biomass fuel pricing – five year base case and worst case pricing forecast.

Recommendations regarding an optimized blend of feedstocks that meet the Coalition’s objectives (in support of healthy watersheds) and are cost effective for value-added conversion/utilization.

Task 4. Draft Feedstock Supply Assessment Report

Based upon information, and research findings assimilated in Tasks 1 through 3, generate a draft

feedstock assessment report. The feedstock assessment report will be written with the target audience

in mind, including the Coaltion, area stakeholders, local entrepreneurs and informed members of the

public.

The draft feedstock supply assessment report will include, but not be limited to, the following:

3




Title Page

Table Of Contents

List Of Tables/Figures

Introduction

Key Findings

Environmental Setting And Target Study Area

Biomass Feedstock Supply Availability

Current Competition

Future Competition And Risks

Feedstock Cost Forecast

Findings

Recommendations

Appendices

Task 5. Final Feedstock Supply Assessment Report and Presentation of Findings

Based on input from the Coalition, a final feedstock supply assessment report document will be issued.

The final report will be generated within two weeks of receiving input. Findings and a review of the

feasibility study recommendations will be presented in person to Coaltion members and other key

stakeholders.

Task 6. Outreach and Project Management

Outreach and education is a key component of any value-added converstion project. TSS recommends

that outreach materials (see deliverables below) be made available on the Coalition website.

Activities:

Monthly team meetings via conference call.

Outreach and in-person meetings with specific business enterprises or investors. Not to exceed six meetings.

Deliverables:

TSS will create relevant outreach and education materials, such as:

Project Overview – one page overview of the project. This document would include the project objectives, potential location(s), project sponsors, timeline, types of feedstocks considered, and feedstock sourcing area map.

Monthly progress reports highlighting accomplishments and plans for next thirty days.

Power Point Presentation – clear and concise PPT summarizing findings by task and observations, recommendations and next steps.

Executive Summary – short document summarizing (not to exceed three pages) key findings, and recommendations.

4




Implementation Schedule

TSS will deliver a draft feasibility assessment report within 120 days of the Coalition’s notice to proceed.

Implementation Budget

The implementation budget for Tasks 1 through 6 will not exceed $44,960.

Confidentiality

TSS shall exercise due care in the conduct of this work in order to preserve the confidentiality of this

work and its results.

Exhibit A – Primary Target Study Area

5




Item 1.b.

Harvesting Juniper for Silt Dams and Erosion Control Structures

Landscape-Scale Restoration of Woodlands and Watersheds

Project Description

Problem Statement: Millions of acres of woodlands in Arizona are in need of thinning to reduce fire

hazard and improve watershed conditions. In much of these woodlands, Junipers have encroached on

historic grasslands and closed in the open space between woody vegetation. The presence of Junipers

often coincides with soil erosion problems and head cuts in drainages, compounding the negative effects

of overly dense woodlands. The erosion of soil and competition for resources from Junipers has a

significant negative impact to the native grass cover that provided benefits like providing soil stability,

reducing fire intensity and inducing natural recharge.

In the past, typical Juniper thinning projects resulted in the tree remains being left where they were

harvested without making use of the material. Current work by State Forestry and others includes

developing markets for Juniper biomass to help pay for the cost of removal, but many barriers need to be

overcome, including obtaining approvals from landowners to remove the material without unduly

increasing costs.

Background: The Arizona State Forestry Division recently funded a Biomass Harvesting Pilot Project in

Yavapai County Arizona. The purpose of the project was to develop basic information about the costs

and benefits of machine harvesting of Junipers compared to a baseline (i.e. hand crew). Several

innovative approaches were employed during the month-long study, including harvesting equipment that

uses a cutting head on a 30-foot manipulating arm. During the course of the pilot project, the machine

operator, under the direction of a range specialist, constructed silt dams in several erosional drainages

using material from the harvested Juniper trees (see Photos 1 and 2).

Photo 1: Stilt dams using harvested Juniper.

6




Photo 2: Ponsse Forwarder placing harvested Juniper in an eroding drainage.

The experiment showed that the manipulative arm on the machinery can be used to strategically place

harvested material in drainages to prevent soil erosion or to potentially heal areas that have been damaged

by soil erosion. Additional benefits are expected such as improved native grass cover and increases in

natural recharge. This approach also puts the harvested material to use for a beneficial purpose rather

than leaving it to decompose in place.

Proposal: Use harvested Junipers to reduce soil erosion. Reducing woodland density is an important step

toward woodland and watershed restoration. Juniper encroachment is also often associated with soil

erosion so a dual benefit can be obtained by using the harvested Juniper to construct silt dams and other

erosion control structures. The Ponsse machinery used in the pilot study is well suited for both harvesting

the Junipers and strategically placing the harvested material in and around the erosional features. In

addition, the Ponsse machinery is equipped with an on-board operations computer, GPS and monitor.

The type and amount of material to be placed at each location can be pre-programmed into the operations

computer to instruct the operator what to place at each location.

The proposed Ponsse machinery has several advantages over traditional machine-mounted harvesters (e.g.

an Agra Axe mounted on a skid-steer or loader):

1. The manipulative arm on the Ponsse can place material at strategic locations in the erosional

feature and can stack or build simple log structures.

2. The on-board computer and GPS can inform the operator of where to place material and how to

configure it.

3. Using the 30-foot arm allows the Ponsse machinery to avoid additional compaction near the

erosional feature.

4. The size and type of material to be placed can be specified. The Ponsse Forwarder, in particular,

can select logs, limbs or leafy small branches from its bunker. The Ponsse harvester can cut

material for various criteria to be picked up and relocated by the forwarder.

7




5. The Ponsse machinery can repair damage caused by its own travel activity by placing harvested

material on its travel path.

6. The Ponsse machinery can avoid a significant amount of soil impact because it can access trees

up to 30 feet away on each side with one travel lane.

Photo 3: Typical travel lane before mitigation

Photo 4: Typical travel lane after mitigation

Project Site Description:

Site Criteria:

o Yavapai County ranch property

o Juniper encroachment

8




o Erosion issues,

o Private and/or State Trust Land

Potential Cooperators: Kenson, Kieckhefer, Yavapai Ranch, others

Photo 5: Example of an erosional drainage channel with head cut progressing into ranch road at center

left. Location is surrounded by Junipers and chaparral.

Project Approach:

Conduct Archaeological Survey

Obtain other land access clearances

Create a prescription for harvesting Junipers

Locate erosional features

o Assemble design team

Soil scientists

Range conservationists

Foresters

Engineers

o Design treatment for each location

o Load design criteria and GPS locations into on-board computer

Harvest Junipers and place material in/around erosional features

Monitor Results:

o Impacts to erosion

o Impacts to grassland and soil moisture

o Impacts to hydrologic conditions

9




Item 1.d.

Project Sheet

Virtual Rainwater Harvesting Website

Concept: Construct a virtual rainwater harvesting website that has strong visual and technical

components to help users understand the elements of rainwater harvesting systems and how to install one

(or find a contractor who can).

Incorporate GIS mapping

o Yavapai County GIS rooftop areas - a website visitor can input their lot address and get a

good approximate rooftop area for calculating potential water yield.

o Use precipitation zones to determine the average precipitation expected for the given

lot address

o Use known soil parameters to estimate the percolation rate for soils at the given lot

address

o Use known average watering days verses average rainwater storage period (e.g.

November through March) for the given lot address

o Use known aquifer locations to help the website visitor to understand the potential for

aquifer recharge at the given lot address

o Provide relevant local zoning requirements to the website visitor for the given lot

address

Provide diagrams and pictures of rainwater harvesting systems

o Include the typical pluming requirements, including mechanisms for “first flush” of

debris from roof tops, filtration, pumps, plumbing, etc.

Provide a variety of rainwater harvesting system types, including building codes and permit

requirements:

o Active rainwater harvesting using cisterns or storage tanks

o Passive rainwater harvesting using storage capacity of soils

o Rainwater harvesting and aquifer recharge systems using French drains to benefit the

water table and extend the useful life of the well

Provide a list of resources from technical experts to installers

10




Item 1.e.

Concept Paper

Rainwater Harvesting and Recharge System

Background: Typical rainwater harvesting systems capture precipitation from rooftops and store it in a

reservoir or cistern. The stored water is then used during the dry season by pumping it, carrying it by

hand, or gravity flow to apply it to outdoor landscaping in order to reduce demand for potable water.

However, most of the available rainwater is lost due to insufficient storage capacity. This concept paper

proposes a lower cost solution to increase rainwater harvesting efficiency.

Typical rainwater harvesting system characteristics:

1. An efficient system is expensive. A large reservoir is required to maximize use of the available

rainwater. For Central Yavapai County, rainwater collected during the (typically) wet months

such as November through April would be used to meet landscaping water needs in May and

June. A 2008 water conservation study (Regional Water Conservation Program Development

and Recommended Implementation Plan, Larson and Associates, September 2008) concluded

that a 2,875 gallon storage tank with a pumping and filtration system would cost $7,500.

2. Much of the potentially available rainwater is lost due to lack of storage capacity. In the

example above (using a 2,500 square-foot roof area and an average of 8.5 inches of seasonal

precipitation from November through April in Prescott) approximately 13,200 gallons of

rainwater could be captured. The 2,875 gallon storage system is capable of storing only 22% of

the available supply.

3. Typical rainwater harvesting systems may create an incentive for owners to install additional

plants in their landscaping because of the perception of “free” water. This may actually drive up

demand for potable water during times when the rainwater harvesting system runs dry.

4. Typical rainwater harvesting systems are often complex, incorporating pumps, filtration systems

and backflow prevention devices – effectively creating a separate water system that needs to be

maintained.

5. Water storage tanks are a potential breeding ground for mosquitos and must be managed to

prevent algae growth.

Another alternative is available that is less expensive and more efficient at collecting rainwater. To

capture all of the available rainwater simply recharge the aquifer rather than consume it on landscaping.

For homeowners that rely on private well owners, this concept can extend the useable life of their well.

Instead of constructing an expensive storage reservoir, a simple French drain (AKA “soakaway pit”) is

installed on the well owner’s property and plumbed directly to the rooftop gutter system. There are

several advantages to this type of system:

11




1. The storage capacity of the system can be smaller than the typical rainwater harvesting system

since it is designed to drain into lower stratum between precipitation events. The storage

capacity need only be large enough to capture rain from one storm, not a full season of storms.

2. Costs are about 1/3 of the typical system with a large storage tank.

3. Less operational knowledge is required and maintenance costs are minimal.

4. All of the harvested rainwater is put back into the aquifer to benefit the well. The harvested

yield is much higher than for most rainwater harvesting systems.

5. The landowner operates one water system. The water source for the landscaping still comes

from the well.

6. No opportunity for mosquito breeding since the system drains within a day or two.

7. Once installed, the property above the drains can be used for parking, etc.

Policy/institutional issues:

1. Registration of the system with ADEQ is likely required under the dry well registration program.

Registration fees are $100.00.

2. Under the dry well registration program, there appears to be a setback requirement from

groundwater wells of 100-feet. This requirement may limit the application and effectiveness of

these systems.

3. The landowner would not need to obtain an Aquifer Protection Permit unless other storm water

sources were introduced.

4. Installation of rainwater capture systems could become a requirement for obtaining a permit to

install a private well. This would offset aquifer impacts from private wells.

5. The systems may not be applicable to all areas such as locations with impermeable strata, or

properties that are too small to construct the French drain.

6. Deep rooted plants would need to be planted some distance away from the system.

12




Project Outline

Install one or more pilot rainwater harvesting – aquifer recharge projects

o Determine system costs and benefits

o Outline system requirements

Soil types

Aquifer characteristics

Seasonal and annual precipitation patterns

Gutter and plumbing design requirements

French drain design requirements

Possible incorporation with a septic system and leech field

Using GIS layers:

o Soil drainage characteristics

o Precipitation amounts

o Known aquifer boundaries

Determine policy/legal barriers and requirements

o Existing permit requirements for installation,

o Any necessary changes to facilitate installation

o Possible Incentives, such as:

Reduced development impact fees

Quicker, easier approval of building permit

Cheaper well permit

Incorporate into Low Impact Development Guidelines

Incorporate into Virtual RW Harvesting Website

13




Cost Estimate Example for a Small Scale French Drain for Rainwater Harvesting and Aquifer Recharge

Design Criteria: Capture, store and recharge rainwater.

2,500 square-foot roof, 1 inch rainfall in 1 hour.

Total Water Capture = 208 ft3 or 1,558 gallons

Assume pore space of ¾” gravel is 38% by volume

Need 140 feet of trench, 2 feet wide filled with 2 feet of gravel to store 208 ft3 of water

Install 3" PVC corrugated drainage pipe in top 6” of gravel with 3” of cover and geotextile

Back fill top 3 feet with excavated material (3-foot depth will locate gravel and drain below typical rooting depth of grasses. Trees and shrubs should be kept away.)

Drains should be at least 10 feet away from foundations

French Drains should not compete with leach fields

Drains in soils with poor drainage characteristics may need to be upsized

Cost Estimates Rooftop Rainwater Harvesting/Recharge

(2,500 ft2 Roof captures 1” rain in 1 hour)

Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost

Excavation 52 Cu Yards $ 15.75 $ 819

Haul off-site 21 Cu Yards $ 20.00 $ 420

3/4+ Gravel Delivered 21 Cu Yards $ 30.00 $ 630

Back fill 3/4+ Gravel 21 Cu Yards $ 7.00 $ 147

Back fill excavated material 31 Cu Yards $ 7.00 $ 217

3" PVC drainage pipe 180 feet $ 0.62 $ 112

Geotextile 32 Sq Yards $ 0.26 $ 8

NDS Catch Basin 2 each $ 51.36 $ 103

Labor 8 hours $ 15.00 $ 120

Total

$ 2,576

3” PVC Drainage Pipe

2’ deep, ¾”+ gravel

3’ backfill

Geotextile

2’ Trench

14




Item 3.

Excerpted from:

Testimony of Thomas Buschatzke Director

Arizona Department of Water Resources

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

United States Senate May 17, 2016

Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Hirono and Members of the Subcommittee:

S. 2902

Sections 111-114

These Sections apply a streamlined permitting process to forest and wildland restoration activities in

critical water supply watersheds. The conditions of the national forest system lands, and certain other

wildland areas, in the State are presently near a crisis stage, a circumstance that demands the utmost

sense of urgency and meaningful and measurable action. The health of our watersheds is one of the

biggest environmental challenges for Arizona in the 21st Century. Drought conditions in the West only

magnify the challenges. The largest contiguous ponderosa pine forest in North America, an area

encompassing approximately four million acres, extends from the Grand Canyon National Park to the

Gila National Forest of western New Mexico. This stand, and the other forested and wildland areas in

Arizona, supply water to Arizona communities and provide recreational opportunities for our citizens.

The status of vast portions of these forests is distressingly poor due to several factors. The

implementation of certain forest management methods, spanning decades, and including well-

intentioned yet restrictive administrative and regulatory constraints, have been counterproductive.

Among other things, the practices have resulted in over-stocked and even-aged stands of trees. These

dense thickets of low value younger trees, combined with ineffective or injurious fire management

schemes, have yielded the conditions for catastrophic landscape scale wildfires, endangering people,

flora, fauna, and watersheds.

Unhealthy forests and resulting catastrophic wildfires affect the short and long term management, sustainability, and quality of Arizona’s water supply. In Arizona and throughout the west, reservoir storage is a critical component of water supply and drought management. Catastrophic wildfires, unlike the low intensity fires seen in healthy forests, cause burn areas that devastate the landscape and

15




produce increased loads of sediment, ash and debris causing reservoirs to fill up faster and reduce the life and storage capacity of reservoirs. In addition, the loss of trees and groundcover can also affect the timing and behavior of runoff, impacting the predictability and management of water supplies. Heavily forested and steep walled watersheds have characteristics that amplify the impact of sedimentation due to wildfire. In addition, the water quality impact of catastrophic fire and post-fire flooding has both short and long-term impacts, reaching throughout the watershed, and extending far beyond the immediate impact area of the fire and the surrounding communities. The ash and sediment picked up by runoff after a major fire severely impact the taste and purity of drinking water supplies causing an increase in turbidity, and nutrient and organics loads that must be removed during treatment. Runoff events following fires have also resulted in significant changes in the levels of nitrates, sulfates, and chlorides in runoff. Over the longer term, the increased volume of sediment deposited behind reservoirs due to changes in runoff patterns and soil destabilization can impact the taste and odor as dissolved organics increase in the water. In many cases treatment facilities in Arizona have been upgraded by adding carbon filtration to handle the increased levels of organics and sediment at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. In-pre-settlement conditions estimates show that there were less than 50 trees per acre and today

those estimates have risen to over 1000 trees per acre. In the Salt and Verde River watersheds the

number of acres impacted by fire has steadily increased from 85,000 acres in the 1980s, to 227,000

acres in the 1990s and to almost 2 million acres in the 2000s. According to the Arizona State Forestry

and others, approximately 1.8 million acres of timber have burned since 2002.

These data are indicative of the enormity of the need to take immediate action to reduce the risk of fire

in our forests and wildlands. Expediting the permit processes that are needed to restore these areas to a

heaIthy condition is critical. I am encouraged by the expansion, enabled by Sections 111-114 of this bill,

of categorical exclusion authority along with the “action/no action” evaluation for certain activities. The

incorporation of the categorical exclusion provision in the 2014 Farm Bill, though somewhat limited, was

a positive earlier step. S. 2902 would significantly increase the scope of this authorization and could

result in accelerated forest restoration activities which would assist in the protection of critical

watersheds.

biomass feedstock supply availability assessment for

Documents