|
Latest
Q&A
Sustainability - Water - Ecology - Appropriate Scale
- Social
Responsibility - Corporate Independence - Data Reliability - Community
support - Science based Assumptions - Etc.
Back on
the water question! You have said in your presentations that OSB is a
small diameter wood application that has a remarkably low water
consumption compared to other applications such as biomass power plant
or ethanol. Can you be specific?
Sure! Our OSB
plant is going to require approximately 34,000 gallons of process water
per day (see "Low water
consumption"). For comparison a 24 megawatt biomass power plant such as the
one being built in Snowflake is going to require approximately 400
gallons of water per minute or about 600,000 gallons per day; and an
ethanol plant such as the one projected in Camp Navajo is going to
require from 400 to 600 gallons per minute, or about 600,000 to 850,000
gallons per day.
Basically,
biomass electricity or biomass ethanol consume about 18 to 25 times more
water than OSB...
Why does
AZFRP use a yield of 10 ccf per acre in their business plan - but only 8
ccf per acre in their sustainability study - while the data from the
White Mountain Stewardship Contract shows only 5.5 ccf per acre? Does
this make sense?
Now this is
really a core question that deserves a complete answer. Let us go step
by step.
Factual data
from the Coconino National Forest shows that across the 8 sales that are
currently under contract and the two that have closed in the last 6
months or so, the average yield is 8.2 ccf per acre. Similar data from
the Kaibab National Forest for the south part of the forest shows an
average yield of 7.6 ccf per acre. Additionally, the Goshawk Demo
treatment in the south Kaibab yielded in average 9.2 ccf per acre. And
indeed the average over 2 years for the White Mountain Stewardship
Contract is 5.5 ccf per acre. This is the data.
Is it
inconsistent? Actually not... Does it make sense? Actually yes...
-
First, it is
normal to have a slightly lower yield for the Kaibab (7.6) than for
the Coconino (8.2) because the Kaibab is in average lower in
altitude and is therefore dryer. This is reflected in growth and in
tree size, both in diameter and height.
-
Second, it
is normal to have a lower yield in the Apache-Sitgreaves (5.5)
because of two reasons:
-
Typically, wildland urban interface (WUI)
prescriptions are implemented to thin "from below" even-aged stands,
and they in fact retain a fairly high basal area (BA). Contrarily to
popular perception, these WUI prescriptions actually yield less ccf
per acre than the "groups & clumps" prescriptions implemented by
the Kaibab and the Coconino that thin uneven-aged classes.
-
Additionally,
and primarily, most of
the White Mountain Stewardship Contract is currently harvested off
the Sitgreaves forest that was consistently thinned out for 37 years
since it was the closest and lowest-cost fiber supply for the Snowflake mill.
Consequently, the Sitgreaves has significantly less overgrowth
than the Coconino and the Kaibab, and yields less ccf per acre
during restorative thinning.
-
Third, it is
normal to have a higher yield in the demo treatment in the
south Kaibab (9.2) because the Goshawk guidelines were implemented in this prescription,
while they were not in the
typical treatments performed otherwise by the Kaibab and the
Coconino.
So, how can we
estimate the correct average number for the coming few years?
There are two
change factors that need to be integrated into the yield analysis over
the coming few years:
-
As the
Apache-Sitgreaves starts implementing the Goshawk guidelines in
2007, the yield of the White Mountain Stewardship Contract will
increase somewhat. How much is the question... Contrarily to some belief
the Goshawk guidelines do NOT increase dramatically the amount of
wood thinned, so it is not unreasonable to
think that only maybe 1 to 2 additional ccf will be harvested per acre. This will
raise the average yield to something between 7 and 8 ccf per acre. Too,
as Goshawk guidelines are more often implemented in the Kaibab and
the Coconino, yields are also going to increase slightly. It is not unreasonable
to project 8 to 9 ccf per acre in the Kaibab, and 10 to 11 ccf per acre
in the Coconino.
-
Additionally,
many of the current prescriptions do not remove enough fuel from the
forest for sustained natural balance, and do not meet the restoration
principles outlined in the "New Mexico Forest Restoration
Principles" or the Arizona Forest Health Advisory Council "Guiding
Principles For Forest Ecosystem Restoration and Community
Protection", and will need to be retreated with
15 to 20 years. This is contrary to the purpose of restoration. If
genuine restorative thinning is to be implemented so that it truly
returns the forest to its pre-settlement fire-adapted ecology and so
that maintenance can then be performed through managed low intensity
ground fires, then it
is not unreasonable to expect yields to increase across the board by
another 1 to 2 ccf or so per acre. Apache-Sitgreaves will then yield in
average 8 ccf, Kaibab 10 ccf, and Coconino 12 ccf per acre.
So what is the
overall "magic" number for the next 10 years?
Like for
everything else, everyone has an opinion. We at AZFRP believe that there
is good data and good science to support for the coming few years an
average of 8 ccf per acre. This is why we used this number in our
sustainability analysis.
This also make us err on the conservative side in our 20 year analysis, which
is always good when looking at sustainability...
We also believe
that this average will increase to 10 ccf per acre as
acceptance for genuine restorative thinning that truly returns the
forest to its pre-settlement fire-adapted ecology becomes more
understood, more common, and more implemented. Since we will not
actually start implementing prescriptive treatments until essentially
2009 (2007 will be dedicated to engineering and permitting, 2008 & 2009
to construction, and the production tests in late 2009 will absorb wood already
harvested - see "Time Table") we have used in our
business
plan the number of 10 ccf that we believe will be a reality by the
time we start restorative treatments, and for some time after that.
Acknowledgment: we are grateful to Apache-Sitgreaves' Kerry Nedrow,
Coconino's Kim Newbauer, and Kaibab's Jerry Drury for sharing their data
and contributing their science and expertise to the interpretation of
this data, but all the positions expressed in this website are AZFRP's
positions only and cannot be construed as reflecting or indicating
positions of U.S. Forest Service personnel.
Why does
AZFRP quote a range of wood consumption rather than a specific number?
This is a very
good question! Wood consumption depends on the product mix during
manufacturing. For example, it goes much faster to produce OSB 3/8"
thick than it goes to produce OSB 3/4" thick, hence if the plant only
produces thin commodity board at high speed, it requires more wood than
if it produces thick specialty OSB at low speed, even though there is
obviously more wood strands in thick OSB. Since we are investing in
an equipment that has the capability to produce OSL (oriented strand
lumber) up to 2" thick, we fully intend to manufacture as much OSL as
the market demands, because even though OSL is considerably slower to
press, its commercial value is significantly higher than that of OSB and
competition is limited.
So, in term of wood consumption, a technical
maximum capacity of 680 million square feet of OSB 3/8" thick converts
to a maximum possible wood requirement of 374,000 ccf. But in reality we will
never do this because it does not make business sense. The real-world
output of the plant will include a product mix heavily centered around
thick OSB and OSL. This will reduce by as much as 50% the square
footage manufactured, while maintaining the economic viability of the
company with a higher-value product. This is why we are talking about a
range of 25,000 to 37,000 acres treated per year, because it will depend
on the actual product mix, with a very high
probability that the actual number will be somewhere in the
28,000 to 32,000 acres.
Do
environmental groups support AZFRP?
AZFRP is
sincerely convinced that it brings to the ecological restoration and
fire protection "table" the missing link of small diameter economically
viable use that has been absent between the use of biomass for
co-generation of electricity, wood pellets, ethanol, etc. and the use of
large timber for high quality furniture or decorative beams such as
used in "vigas"
or "latillas." AZFRP is not a big conglomerate that would want
to impose its ways, we are a small local
company created from an Arizonan grassroots effort by Arizonans for
Arizona, we want to operate within a community consensus, and we intend
to remain this way (yeah, I know, I speak kind of a funny Arizonan, but
if we all go back to our roots, we all came from Europe at one time or
another!)
A rational
analysis of our plan shows that:
-
there is a
broad consensus that ecological restoration of the forest is
urgently needed (see "Forest Ecological Restoration");
-
the
utilization that we project clearly fits this goal since our
production equipment is geared toward the use of small diameter
trees harvested during thinning, typically from 5 to 12" dbh (see "Manufacturing Process");
-
the
utilization that we project is clearly sustainable (see "Sustainability
of Appropriately Sized Utilization");
-
the proposed OSB plant is
clearly appropriately sized (see "Sustainability
of Appropriately Sized Utilization");
-
the water consumption is
clearly not only sustainable but virtually neutral since we plan to use
almost entirely recycled water out of Winslow's treatment plant (see "Low Water Consumption");
-
we are
committed to an environmentally-sound thinning of the forest (see "MasterLogger
and ProLogger Programs");
-
we are
committed to support other utilizations of the forest and to spread
the synergistic effect of our critical mass to all the local small
wood industries (see "Biomass");
-
we are
committed to support by all possible means, including our own
dollars, the management of the forest as demonstrated by our novel approach to decline cash payments during the
execution of our Stewardship contracts (see
"A New
Approach to Stewardship Contracts");
-
we are committed to
openly work with all local constituencies as demonstrated
in these very pages and in our numerous outreach activities (see "Press Releases"
and other Q&A down in this page);
-
we are
committed to seek long term ecological guidance from the ecological
management experts and to contribute to the education of the public
about ecological forest management (see "Forest Ecological Management Advisory Board and Foundation");
-
we provide a solution to the forest
management problem that public funding or other private biomass
industries are not able to provide (see "Why
Arizona Forest Restoration Products");
There are many
emotional issues about the forest, and there are more than forest issues
to the environment. We recognize this. There is also the legitimate need
to get to know us, to learn our project, to verify that we have
addressed all the issues, to understand us, and to come to the
conclusions that we are sincere. We recognize this too. In the end, we
are confident that we will be appreciated for who we are: another useful
tool in the forest management toolbox; and that the environmental groups
will express a strong support. We need and seek this support. We have
received and continue to receive
numerous private expressions of it, and we look forward receiving public
expressions of it.
Is AZFRP
promoting a new monoculture of harvesting only small trees, that in the
long run will be just as damaging as the old monoculture of harvesting
only large trees?
Absolutely not!
First, AZFRP will not make ecological management decisions; these will
be made by the Forest Service. AZFRP will only execute on the ground the
prescriptions decided by the Forest Service. Second, AZFRP supports the
concepts of multiple age group management and of mosaic pattern
management so that the forest indeed looks like a forest, not like a
tree farm, and so that the requirements for preservation of local
endangered species, such as the opening of flight corridors, are
integrated into a holistic approach to forest management.
Where does
AZFRP gets its data? Is it reliable?
AZFRP uses
data published by the
Rocky Mountain Research
Station of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. This data is widely accepted
by scholars and researchers as credible and reliable, and its accuracy is unchallenged.
Two publications are of
particular interest to those interested in the Arizona and New
Mexico forests:
- Resource Bulletin RMRS-RB-2: "Arizona’s
Forest Resources, 1999"
- Resource Bulletin
RMRS-RB-3, "New Mexico’s Forest Resources, 2000"
Narratives
include a wealth of summarized information, and the numerous tables
provide all the raw unbiased data that one could possibly want. We
highly recommend that those interested in actual data use these
resources, as the data that they provide clarifies many commonly held
perceptions not always entirely accurate... For your convenience we have
linked the title of these publications to the Forest Service website
where you can download them free of charge.
Is AZFRP's wood consumption sustainable?
Oh yes! Using the most conservative assumptions that only 50% of the
Arizona ponderosa pine forest requires thinning and that thinning
operations harvest only 8 ccf per acre, and without even accounting for
re-growth in the areas thinned, the rational calculation of
sustainability utilizing the scientific model demonstrates that Arizona
Forest Restoration Products' utilization is sustainable because after 20
years, at the end of life of its OSB plant, Arizona Forest Restoration
Products will have absorbed only about half of the currently
existing backlog of over 11 million ccf of wood to be thinned for
ecological restoration. Further, Arizona Forest Restoration Products
consumption is nowhere near sufficient for completing the treatment of 50%
of the
northern Arizona forest before it becomes due again in 20 to 30 years.
In other words, the forest will be growing and re-growing about twice as
fast as AZFRP will be able to consume wood... (see "Sustainability
of Appropriately Sized Utilization" for complete and detailed
sustainability analysis).
Is AZFRP's OSB plant
appropriately sized for the northern Arizona forest?
Yes. Arizona Forest Restoration Products' annual consumption represents
only typically around 4% to 7% of the annual available wood balance, hence the
existence of the OSB plant does not threaten in any
respect the existence of other wood industries in northern Arizona. To
the contrary, the existence of Arizona Forest Restoration Products will
create the critical mass necessary to the birth of a new "green" wood
industry since the by-products of our ecological thinning operations
will be available to co-generation plants, wood pellets plants,
ethanol plants, high-value decorative lumber operations, etc. (see "Sustainability
of Appropriately Sized Utilization" for complete and detailed
appropriate size analysis)
Will AZFRP cut mature trees?
AZFRP will not make prescriptive or ecological decisions but will apply
the restorative prescriptions decided by the Forest Service in
collaboration with the ecological constituencies. We have no use for
large diameter trees and our production plant will actually not be able
to use large diameter trees. If multiple age groups prescriptions are
implemented during the treatment of some sections of the forest and if
large trees are harvested, it would be ridiculous to chip them into OSB.
Such trees are much better used for high-value applications such as
decorative beams and such, and we will make this wood available to the
other businesses that we hope will grow with us in northern Arizona as
we all implement together a rational forest treatment program.
Will AZFRP compete with other local wood industries already
existing or trying to establish themselves?
No. AZFRP is only one of the players in the inventory of solutions
available to manage the forest. We have no pretense of being a
one-size-fit-all solution. To the contrary, we see ourselves as one of
the links in the chain that goes from the highest value-added grand old
timber best used in decorative beams, to the lowest value-added biomass
best used in cogeneration of electricity. We do not think of ourselves
as being in competition with other businesses that were created to serve
the energy markets or the timber markets. We see ourselves as being
actually able to contribute a critical mass effect to the entire value
chain by filling the huge "small diameter gap", say from 12" down to 5",
where the wood is too small for lumber applications, and too big for
being truly considered biomass. In this synergistic role, our OSB
operation will cause wood to become available to all the local
industries, based on the ecological prescriptions that the Forest
Service decides to implement.
What will happen to the existing White Mountain Stewardship
Contract if AZFRP seeks stewardship contracts from the Forest Service?
Nothing. The White Mountain Stewardship Contract will continue to be
executed by those who hold it, and the industries that it supports will
continue to develop. Actually, since the White Mountain Stewardship
Contract generates more wood than the local industries are able to
absorb, AZFRP will seek to purchase wood at a fair market price from the
operators of the White Mountain Stewardship Contract. This in turn will
allow them to implement timely their contract and will further
strengthen their businesses.
Is there enough wood in Arizona for an OSB plant?
Oh yes! A maximum capacity of 680 million square
feet of 3/8" OSB annually seems enormous but actually is not all
that much: the construction market absorbs weekly over half a billion
square feet! Actually, considering that we will produce both thin OSB
(3/8", 7/16", etc.) and thick OSB (up to 1" 1/2) our actual production
will probably be around 450 million square feet and we will
probably treat around 30,000 acres of ponderosa pine forest every year,
spread between probably at least 7 forests (Coconino, Kaibab,
Apache-Sitgreaves, Gila, Cibola, White Mountain, and Chuska). To put
things in perspective, the Forest Service 10 Year Plan calls for the
annual thinning of a strict minimum of 93,000 acres in northern Arizona
and Western new Mexico - they would do much more if they had the budget
for it! - (see "National Forests"),
and the existing ponderosa pine forest covers in Arizona alone almost 3
million acres (see "Arizona Wood
Sources"). We will only treat only about 1/3 of the area prescribed
as a minimum by the Forest Service, or, in other words, we will only
treat approximately 1% of the forest annually.
Will AZFRP consumes large amount of water?
No. The manufacturing of oriented strand board (OSB) consumes remarkably
little water compared to other industrial uses of the forest biomass
such as ethanol or "green" diesel production: typically 12 gallons of
non potable industrial water are used per ton of low value small
diameter logs transformed in high value added oriented strand board
(OSB). We will consume daily approximately the same amount of water as
97 households, but this water will not be potable water; it will be
essentially reclaimed water from the Winslow water treatment plant (see
"Low Water Consumption")
Is AZFRP the disguised "front" of a large wood conglomerate?
No. AZFRP is fully owned by local Flagstaff residents. Investment
participation is limited to a few Southwestern investors, and the
capital required to build the production plant is raised through debt.
AZFRP has no connection whatsoever with any conglomerate and is a
grassroots effort to provide a local utilization solution to a local
problem of hazardous fuel accumulation in our forests. We aim to restore
the forest, provide good paying local jobs, and earn a living doing it.
|
