Assessing Bioenergy Harvest Risks: Geospatially Explicit Tools for Maintaining Soil Productivity in Western US Forests

Abstract

Biomass harvesting for energy production and forest health can impact the soil resource by altering inherent chemical, physical and biological properties. These impacts raise concern about damaging sensitive forest soils, even with the prospect of maintaining vigorous forest growth through biomass harvesting operations. Current forest biomass harvesting research concurs that harvest impacts to the soil resource are region-and site-specific, although generalized knowledge from decades of research can be incorporated into management activities. Based upon the most current forest harvesting research, we compiled information on harvest activities that decrease, maintain or increase soil-site productivity. We then developed a soil chemical and physical property risk assessment within a geographic information system for a timber producing region within the Northern Rocky Mountain ecoregion. Digital soil and geology databases were used to construct geospatially explicit best management practices to maintain or enhance soil-site productivity. The proposed risk assessments could aid in identifying resilient soils for forest land managers considering biomass operations, policy makers contemplating expansion of biomass harvesting and investors deliberating where to locate bioenergy conversion facilities. OPEN ACCESSForests 2011, 2 798

Biogeochemical Research Priorities for Sustainable Biofuel and Bioenergy Feedstock Production in the Americas

“…However, indicators may be ecosystem-or species-specific, and total C from 0 to 20-cm depth in the mineral soil after harvesting, including residue and deadwood, is an excellent predictor of jack pine productivity across a range of site types and treatments in the boreal forest, but not black spruce (Hazlett et al 2014). Once validated, applying indicators geospatially will help inform management decisions (Kimsey et al 2011;Thiffault et al 2014) and allow refinement of biomass inventories and supply chain analyses (e.g., Biomass Siting Analysis Tool-BioSAT (Perdue et al 2011), Biomass Inventory Mapping and Analysis Tool-BIMAT (AAFC 2015). Appropriate soil indicators may also eventually feed into life cycle assessments (Garrigues et al 2012;Milài Canals et al 2007;Oberholzer et al 2012).…”

Extending theEU RenewableEnergyDirective sustainability criteria to solid bioenergy from forests

“…relevant (Reeves et al, 2012). Other studies acknowledge the importance of forest floor depth (all organic horizons), soil quantity of coarse fragments, and soil depth (Kimsey et al, 2011). Other factors to consider are type of machinery, season and weather conditions during harvesting (Page-Dumroese et al, 2010).…”

A Spatial Index for Identifying Opportunity Zones for Woody Cellulosic Conversion Facilities

“…ZCTAs with "population density" (>58 people/km 2 ) were excluded given the results of previous research [28]. ZCTAs with slopes greater than 30% were excluded given the limitations of ground-based harvest capabilities in the Eastern United States and also given the results of previous research related to soil disturbance [32]. Seven "unsuitable" Level III ecoregions excluded areas from mountain tops in Smoky Mountains, grassland in West Oklahoma, deserts in West Texas, and marshland and swampland in Southern Florida [25].…”