Natural Resources
Federal Agencies Are Engaged in Various Efforts to Promote the Utilization of Woody Biomass, but Significant Obstacles to Its Use Remain Gao ID: GAO-05-373 May 13, 2005In an effort to reduce the risk of wildland fires, many federal land managers--including the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--are placing greater emphasis on thinning forests and rangelands to help reduce the buildup of potentially hazardous fuels. These thinning efforts generate considerable quantities of woody material, including many smaller trees, limbs, and brush--referred to as woody biomass--that currently have little or no commercial value. GAO was asked to determine (1) which federal agencies are involved in efforts to promote the use of woody biomass, and actions they are undertaking; (2) how these agencies are coordinating their activities; and (3) what agencies see as obstacles to increasing the use of woody biomass, and the extent to which they are addressing these obstacles.
Most woody biomass utilization activities are implemented by the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Energy (DOE), and the Interior, and include awarding grants to businesses, schools, Indian tribes, and others; conducting research; and providing education. Most of USDA's woody biomass utilization activities are undertaken by the Forest Service and include grants for woody biomass utilization, research into the use of woody biomass in wood products, and education on potential uses for woody biomass. DOE's woody biomass activities focus on research into using the material for renewable energy, while Interior's efforts consist primarily of education and outreach. Other agencies also provide technical assistance or fund research activities. Federal agencies coordinate their woody biomass activities through formal and informal mechanisms. Although the agencies have established two interagency groups to coordinate their activities, most officials we spoke with emphasized informal communication--through e-mails, participation in conferences, and other means--as the primary vehicle for interagency coordination. To coordinate activities within their agencies, DOE and Interior have formal mechanisms--DOE coordinates its activities through its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, while Interior and BLM have appointed officials to oversee, and have issued guidance on, their woody biomass activities. In contrast, while the Forest Service recently issued a woody biomass policy, it has not assigned responsibility for overseeing and coordinating its various woody biomass activities, potentially leading to fragmented efforts and diluting the impact of these activities. The obstacles to using woody biomass cited most often by agency officials were the difficulty of using woody biomass cost-effectively and the lack of a reliable supply of the material; agency activities generally are targeted toward addressing these obstacles. Some officials told us their agencies are limited in their ability to address these obstacles and that incentives--such as subsidies and tax credits--beyond the agencies' authority are needed. However, others disagreed with this approach for a variety of reasons.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-373, Natural Resources: Federal Agencies Are Engaged in Various Efforts to Promote the Utilization of Woody Biomass, but Significant Obstacles to Its Use Remain
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-373
entitled 'Natural Resources: Federal Agencies Are Engaged in Various
Efforts to Promote the Utilization of Woody Biomass, but Significant
Obstacles to Its Use Remain' which was released on May 24, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of
Representatives:
May 2005:
Natural Resources:
Federal Agencies Are Engaged in Various Efforts to Promote the
Utilization of Woody Biomass, but Significant Obstacles to Its Use
Remain:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-373]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-373, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Resources, House of Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
In an effort to reduce the risk of wildland fires, many federal land
managers”including the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)”are placing greater emphasis on thinning forests and rangelands
to help reduce the buildup of potentially hazardous fuels. These
thinning efforts generate considerable quantities of woody material,
including many smaller trees, limbs, and brush”referred to as woody
biomass”that currently have little or no commercial value.
GAO was asked to determine (1) which federal agencies are involved in
efforts to promote the use of woody biomass, and actions they are
undertaking; (2) how these agencies are coordinating their activities;
and (3) what agencies see as obstacles to increasing the use of woody
biomass, and the extent to which they are addressing these obstacles.
What GAO Found:
Most woody biomass utilization activities are implemented by the
Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Energy (DOE), and the Interior, and
include awarding grants to businesses, schools, Indian tribes, and
others; conducting research; and providing education. Most of USDA‘s
woody biomass utilization activities are undertaken by the Forest
Service and include grants for woody biomass utilization, research into
the use of woody biomass in wood products, and education on potential
uses for woody biomass. DOE‘s woody biomass activities focus on
research into using the material for renewable energy, while Interior‘s
efforts consist primarily of education and outreach. Other agencies
also provide technical assistance or fund research activities.
Federal agencies coordinate their woody biomass activities through
formal and informal mechanisms. Although the agencies have established
two interagency groups to coordinate their activities, most officials
we spoke with emphasized informal communication”through e-mails,
participation in conferences, and other means”as the primary vehicle
for interagency coordination. To coordinate activities within their
agencies, DOE and Interior have formal mechanisms”DOE coordinates its
activities through its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, while Interior and BLM have appointed officials to oversee, and
have issued guidance on, their woody biomass activities. In contrast,
while the Forest Service recently issued a woody biomass policy, it has
not assigned responsibility for overseeing and coordinating its various
woody biomass activities, potentially leading to fragmented efforts and
diluting the impact of these activities.
The obstacles to using woody biomass cited most often by agency
officials were the difficulty of using woody biomass cost-effectively
and the lack of a reliable supply of the material; agency activities
generally are targeted toward addressing these obstacles. Some
officials told us their agencies are limited in their ability to
address these obstacles and that incentives”such as subsidies and tax
credits”beyond the agencies‘ authority are needed. However, others
disagreed with this approach for a variety of reasons.
Examples of Uses for Woody Biomass:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To improve the Forest Service‘s effectiveness in promoting woody
biomass utilization, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Agriculture
direct the Chief of the Forest Service to appoint an official or
organization responsible for overseeing and coordinating the agency‘s
woody biomass activities.
In responding to a draft of this report, USDA concurred with its
findings and recommendation, while DOE had no comments. Interior
provided no response.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-373.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202)
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Most Woody Biomass Utilization Activities Are Implemented by the
Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and the Interior, and Include
Grants, Research, and Education:
Woody Biomass Coordination Efforts among and within Federal Agencies
Include Both Formal and Informal Mechanisms, but Unlike DOE and
Interior, the Forest Service Has Not Assigned Responsibility for
Overseeing Woody Biomass Activities:
Most Officials Cited Economic Obstacles to Woody Biomass Utilization,
and While Agencies Generally Targeted These Obstacles, Some Officials
Believe Additional Steps beyond the Agencies' Authority Are Needed:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 51:
Figures:
Figure 1: Before and After Photos of Thinning Project, Lassen National
Forest, California:
Figure 2: Chip Truck Being Emptied, California Power Plant:
Figure 3: Wood Chips Being Conveyed to a Boiler, California Power
Plant:
Figure 4: The BioMax 15 Power Generator:
Figure 5: Automated Wood Chip Conveyor, Darby School District Project,
Darby, Montana:
Figure 6: Signs Produced from Woody Biomass Mixed with Plastic:
Figure 7: Kiosk Built from Roundwood and Small-Diameter Wood:
Figure 8: Interior of Darby Community Library Built from Roundwood,
Darby, Montana:
Figure 9: Slash Bundler Processing Small-Diameter Trees:
Abbreviations:
BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
CSREES: Cooperative State Research, Education,:
and Extension Service:
DOE: Department of Energy:
EAP: Economic Action Programs:
EERE: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FEMP: Federal Energy Management Program:
FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service:
NPS: National Park Service:
NREL: National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
TMU: Technology Marketing Unit:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Letter May 13, 2005:
The Honorable Richard Pombo:
Chairman:
Committee on Resources:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Much attention has been paid in recent years to the state of our
nation's forests. Dense, dry forest conditions have fueled extensive
wildland fires and have raised the specter of severe fires in the
future. In an effort to reduce the risk of fire, federal land
management agencies--including the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the
Department of the Interior--are placing greater emphasis on thinning
forests and rangelands to help reduce the buildup of potentially
hazardous fuels.
These thinning efforts will generate considerable quantities of woody
material, including some larger trees that are commercially valuable
timber and many smaller trees, limbs, and brush that generally have
little or no commercial value today. This low commercial value material
is often referred to as woody biomass.[Footnote 1] Unlike commercial
timber, this material typically has been piled and burned, left in the
forest, or deposited in landfills because there is often little or no
demand for it.
Some industries make use of this woody biomass, however--for example,
by burning it to generate electricity or turning it into products such
as road signs or animal bedding. Using woody biomass in these or other
ways can have several beneficial side effects, including stimulating
local economies and potentially facilitating fuel reduction efforts by
creating a demand for thinned material. However, the cost of harvesting
and transporting the material, combined with the relatively low value
of the products produced, has meant that woody biomass has not been
widely utilized.
In this context, you asked us to determine (1) which federal agencies
are involved in efforts to promote the use of woody biomass, and the
actions they are undertaking; (2) how these federal agencies are
coordinating their activities related to woody biomass; and (3) what
these agencies see as the primary obstacles to increasing the use of
woody biomass, and the extent to which they are addressing these
obstacles.
In conducting our review, we used a structured interview guide to
collect information from headquarters and field officials from the
Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and the Interior, and the
Environmental Protection Agency. In total, we interviewed 44 officials
using this guide. We also met with officials from nonfederal
organizations, including state governments, Indian tribes, academia,
environmental organizations, and others. We reviewed agency policies,
regulations, strategic plans, and other documents; federal and
nonfederal studies regarding technological, economic, and other issues
related to woody biomass utilization; and pertinent laws and other
documents. We also toured the Forest Service's Forest Products
Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin; a woody biomass-heated community
center in Nederland, Colorado; and a wood-fired power plant in Burney,
California. Appendix I provides further details on the scope and
methodology of our review. We conducted our work between June 2004 and
March 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
Most woody biomass utilization activities within the federal government
are being undertaken by USDA, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the
Department of the Interior, and include awarding grants to businesses,
schools, Indian tribes, and others; conducting research; and providing
education and outreach. Some of these activities involve multiagency
efforts--for example, the three departments signed an agreement in 2003
to support the utilization of woody biomass, and USDA and DOE jointly
award grants for biomass research and development. Each department also
carries out its own activities. Most of USDA's woody biomass
utilization activities are undertaken by the Forest Service and include
grants for woody biomass utilization, research into wood products by
the Forest Products Laboratory, and outreach and technical assistance
conducted by agency field staff. Most of DOE's woody biomass
utilization activities focus on research into the use of woody biomass
for renewable energy. DOE also is engaged in programs that assist
federal agencies and tribal governments in switching to renewable
energy, including woody biomass. Interior's woody biomass efforts
generally consist of education and outreach, as well as some grant
programs; within Interior, BLM is expanding its efforts to conduct
education and outreach and recently established a woody biomass
utilization strategy that will provide a framework for future
activities related to woody biomass. Other federal agencies, including
the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science
Foundation, implement some activities indirectly related to woody
biomass utilization.
Federal agency efforts to coordinate their woody biomass utilization
activities, both among and within agencies, occur through both formal
and informal mechanisms. Although the departments have established the
interagency Woody Biomass Utilization Group to coordinate their
activities, most agency officials we spoke with emphasized informal
communication--such as telephone discussions, e-mails, participation in
conferences, and other means--rather than this group as the primary
vehicle for interagency coordination. To coordinate activities within
their agencies, both DOE and Interior have formal mechanisms--DOE
coordinates its activities through its Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, while both Interior and BLM have appointed officials
to oversee, and have issued guidance on, their woody biomass
activities. In contrast, while the Forest Service issued a woody
biomass policy in January 2005, the agency has not assigned a specific
individual or office with responsibility for implementing this policy.
As a result, the agency risks diluting the impact of its activities
because different units within the Forest Service may be emphasizing
different priorities--and indeed, some officials we interviewed told us
that the Forest Service's lack of a coordinated approach has resulted
in poor coordination between headquarters and field units. Without
assigning responsibility for overseeing the implementation of its new
policy, the Forest Service cannot ensure that its multiple activities
each contribute to its overall objectives. Therefore, to capitalize
more fully on the Forest Service's potential to promote greater woody
biomass utilization, we are recommending that the Secretary of
Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to assign
responsibility for overseeing and coordinating the agency's woody
biomass utilization activities to a specific official or office within
the agency.
Agency officials cited two principal obstacles to increasing the use of
woody biomass: the inherent difficulty in using woody biomass cost-
effectively and the lack of a reliable supply of the material. Although
agency activities are generally targeted toward these obstacles and
others identified by agency officials, some officials told us that
additional steps beyond the agencies' authority to implement are
needed. Most importantly, officials with whom we spoke cited the
relatively high costs of converting woody biomass into marketable
products as a primary challenge to increasing the utilization of woody
biomass--in other words, using woody biomass is often not cost-
effective given the price that can be obtained for the products
produced. For example, a Forest Service researcher estimated the cost
of producing electricity from woody biomass at about 7.5 cents per
kilowatt hour but noted that this electricity could be sold for only
about 5.3 cents per kilowatt hour in the wholesale market. The costs
cited most frequently were those for harvesting and transporting the
material. Additional costs can be involved as well, such as exit fees
charged by electrical utilities to customers seeking to disconnect from
the electrical grid and rely on their own woody biomass-generated
electricity. The other major obstacle agencies cited was the lack of a
reliable long-term supply of woody biomass from federal lands, which
inhibits potential investment in woody biomass utilization projects
because investors are reluctant to commit to projects without
assurances of a steady supply of raw material. The agency activities we
identified are generally targeted at overcoming the obstacles
identified--for example, working to reduce woody biomass processing
costs by conducting research into less expensive ways to convert woody
biomass into wood products or energy.
Some agency officials believe that their agencies are limited in their
ability to fully address these obstacles, and that additional steps
beyond the agencies' authorities will be required to increase woody
biomass utilization. Such steps include subsidies or tax credits to
offset the costs involved in using woody biomass and federal or state
policies requiring the use of renewable energy sources, including woody
biomass, in generating electricity. Other officials disagreed with this
view, stating that neither subsidies nor tax credits were appropriate
mechanisms for promoting the use of woody biomass and that such
incentives could have adverse, unintended consequences on the
ecological health of the national forests. In responding to a draft of
this report, USDA concurred with our findings and recommendation, while
DOE officials stated that they had no comments. We requested, but did
not receive, comments from Interior. USDA's comments appear in appendix
II.
Background:
The Forest Service and Interior manage about 700 million acres of
federal land between them, much of which is considered to be at high
risk of fire. Federal researchers estimate that from 90 million to 200
million acres of federal lands in the contiguous United States are at
an elevated risk of fire because of abnormally dense accumulations of
vegetation, and that these conditions also exist on many nonfederal
lands.[Footnote 2] Addressing this fire risk has become a priority for
the federal government, which in recent years has significantly
increased funding for fuels reduction. Fuels reduction is generally
done through prescribed burning, in which fires are deliberately lit in
order to burn excess vegetation, and mechanical treatments, in which
mechanical equipment is used to cut vegetation. Figure 1 shows before
and after photos of a site that was thinned to reduce the risk of fire.
Figure 1: Before and After Photos of Thinning Project, Lassen National
Forest, California:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Although prescribed burning is generally less expensive than mechanical
treatment, prescribed fire may not always be the most appropriate
method for accomplishing land management objectives--and in many
locations it is not an option, either because of concerns about smoke
pollution or because vegetation is so dense that agency officials fear
that a prescribed fire could escape and burn out of control. In such
situations, mechanical treatments are required, generating large
amounts of wood--particularly small-diameter trees, limbs, brush, and
other material that serve as fuel for wildland fires.[Footnote 3]
Woody biomass can be put to many uses. Small logs can be peeled and
used as fence posts, or can be joined together with specialized
hardware to construct pole-frame buildings. Trees also can be milled
into structural lumber. Using computer-operated equipment, some mills
can manufacture lumber from logs as small as 4 inches in diameter.
Other wood products such as furniture, flooring, and paneling can be
produced. Woody biomass also can be chipped for use in paper pulp
production and other uses--for example, a New Mexico company combines
juniper chips with plastic to create a composite material used to make
road signs.
Woody biomass also can be converted into other products, including
liquid fuels such as ethanol and other products such as adhesives.
Finally, woody biomass can be chipped or ground for energy production-
-for example, to fire power plants, or produce steam or hot water heat
for manufacturing processes or buildings. Figure 2 shows a trailer full
of wood chips being emptied into a container at a California power
plant fueled by woody biomass; figure 3 shows chips ready to be fed
into a boiler.
Figure 2: Chip Truck Being Emptied, California Power Plant:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 3: Wood Chips Being Conveyed to a Boiler, California Power
Plant:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Citing biomass's potential to serve as a source of electricity, fuel,
chemicals, and other materials, the President and the Congress have
encouraged federal activities regarding biomass utilization--but until
recently, woody biomass received relatively little emphasis. A list of
major congressional direction follows:
The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000[Footnote 4]
* directed the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy to coordinate
their research and development efforts, leading to the production of
biobased industrial products;[Footnote 5]
* created the interagency Biomass Research and Development Board,
supported by a Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory
Committee;[Footnote 6]
* directed the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy to implement a
"Biomass Research and Development Initiative" under which the agencies
would provide grants, contracts, and financial assistance for research
on biobased industrial products; and:
* authorized an appropriation of $49 million for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2005 to carry out the act's provisions.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002[Footnote 7]
* established a federal procurement preference for biobased products
requiring federal agencies purchasing items costing more than $10,000
to give preference to biobased products;[Footnote 8]
* directed the Secretary of Agriculture to award grants for developing
and constructing biorefineries (equipment and processes that convert
biomass into fuels and chemicals and that may produce electricity);
* directed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide grants, loans, and
loan guarantees to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses to
purchase renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency
improvements, and to make available from the Commodity Credit
Corporation $23 million for these activities for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2007;[Footnote 9] and:
* directed the Secretary of Agriculture to make available from the
Commodity Credit Corporation $5 million in fiscal year 2002 and $14
million for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to carry out the
provisions of the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000, and
extended through fiscal year 2007 the Biomass Research and Development
Act's authorization of $49 million each fiscal year.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003[Footnote 10]
* authorized appropriations of $5 million for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2008 for each of two grant programs--a Forest Service program
focusing on community-based enterprises and small businesses using
biomass, and a USDA program providing grants to offset the costs of
purchasing biomass by facilities that use it for wood-based products or
other commercial purposes; and:
* increased the authorization contained in the Biomass Research and
Development Act of 2000 from $49 million to $54 million for each of
fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 contained tax incentives
promoting the use of woody biomass to generate electricity.[Footnote 11]
Utilization of woody biomass also is emphasized in the federal
government's National Fire Plan, a strategy for planning and
implementing agency activities related to wildland fire management. For
example, a National Fire Plan strategy document cites biomass
utilization as one of its guiding principles, recommending that the
agencies "employ all appropriate means to stimulate industries that
will utilize small-diameter, woody material resulting from hazardous
fuel reduction activities."[Footnote 12] Federal agencies also are
carrying out research concerning the utilization of small diameter wood
products as part of the Healthy Forests Initiative, the
administration's initiative for wildland fire prevention.
Most Woody Biomass Utilization Activities Are Implemented by the
Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and the Interior, and Include
Grants, Research, and Education:
Most of the federal government's woody biomass utilization efforts are
being undertaken by USDA, DOE, and Interior. Some activities are
performed jointly. For example, USDA, DOE, and Interior signed a
Memorandum of Understanding to promote the utilization of woody
biomass, and USDA and DOE conduct a joint biomass grant program. Each
department also conducts its own woody biomass activities, which
generally involve grants for small-scale woody biomass projects,
research on woody biomass uses, and education, outreach, and technical
assistance aimed at woody biomass users.
Some Woody Biomass Activities Are Performed Jointly by Multiple
Agencies:
USDA, DOE and Interior have undertaken a number of joint efforts
related to woody biomass. In June 2003, the three departments signed a
Memorandum of Understanding on Policy Principles for Woody Biomass
Utilization for Restoration and Fuel Treatments on Forests, Woodlands,
and Rangelands. The purpose of the memorandum is "to demonstrate a
commitment to develop and apply consistent and complementary policies
and procedures across three federal departments to encourage
utilization of woody biomass." The departments also sponsored a 3-day
conference on woody biomass in January 2004. To discuss woody biomass
developments and to coordinate their efforts, the departments
established an interagency Woody Biomass Utilization Group, which meets
quarterly.
Another interdepartmental collaboration effort is the Joint Biomass
Research and Development Initiative, a joint USDA and DOE grant program
authorized under the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000. The
program provides funds for research on biobased products. In fiscal
year 2004, the two departments awarded $25 million to 22 projects, and
cost sharing by private sector partners raised the value of the
projects to nearly $38 million. While the program generally promotes
all forms of biomass rather than targeting woody biomass, in 2004 the
grant solicitation included woody biomass as an area of emphasis and,
according to a USDA official, 10 projects emphasizing or incorporating
woody biomass were funded that year, for a total of about $7.7 million.
For example, the Hayfork Biomass Utilization and Value Added Model for
Rural Development project in California received about $503,000 to
support the design and early implementation phases of a biomass
utilization facility, including a log sort yard, small log processor,
and wood-fired electrical generation plant. Another California project,
the Small-Scale, Biomass-Fired Gas Turbine Plants Suitable for
Distributed and Mobile Power Generation, received about $242,000 to
evaluate the economic benefits of using forestry residues for
generating power in small-scale power plants. USDA and DOE also have
collaborated on an assessment of biomass availability, including woody
biomass, and have prepared a report summarizing their
findings.[Footnote 13]
In another interagency effort, BLM worked with DOE's National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) to identify and evaluate renewable energy
resources--including biomass--on public lands, resulting in a February
2003 report titled "Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on
Public Lands." More recently, USDA and Interior entered into a
cooperative agreement with the National Association of Conservation
Districts in 2004 to promote woody biomass utilization.[Footnote 14]
Activities to be performed by the association under the agreement
include organizing national and regional workshops on woody biomass
utilization and developing outreach materials to stimulate investment
in small wood industries and bioenergy.
USDA, DOE, and Interior also participate in joint activities at the
field level. NREL and the Forest Service have collaborated in
developing and demonstrating small power generators that use woody
biomass for fuel. These generators, known as BioMax units, are being
demonstrated at several sites, including a high school in Walden,
Colorado, and a furniture-making business at the Zuni Pueblo in New
Mexico. Figure 4 shows the BioMax 15 power generator.
Figure 4: The BioMax 15 Power Generator:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Forest Service also collaborates with Interior in awarding and
funding grants under the Fuels Utilization and Marketing program, a
jointly funded grant program targeting woody biomass utilization
efforts in the Pacific Northwest. Another collaborative effort at the
field level involves a Forest Service rural community assistance
coordinator specialist in the Southwest Region and includes officials
from BLM and the state of New Mexico, as well as environmental group
and utility company representatives. In addition to studying woody
biomass availability and conducting market assessments, this biomass
working group is proposing policy changes favorable to woody biomass.
It also has studied barriers to biomass use and provided input on
project designs so that projects are less likely to be challenged.
The agencies also are collaborating with state and local governments to
promote the use of woody biomass. The Forest Service, NREL, and BLM
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Jefferson County,
Colorado, in 2004 to study the feasibility of developing an electricity
generating facility using woody biomass from forest thinning projects
intended to reduce the risk of wildland fire. In addition to the
agencies and Jefferson County, the agreement included the Colorado
State Forest Service and a local energy utility. In its January 2005
feasibility study, the partnership reported that about 166,000 tons of
biomass would be available each year from forest thinnings and new
construction waste. With this development, the local energy utility
announced that it would consider converting a boiler at one of its
plants to burn biomass to generate steam heat for downtown Denver
buildings.
Another example of federal agencies working with local governments
involves a power plant in Canon City, Colorado, that uses coal and wood
chips to fire its boilers. The power plant announced in January 2005
that it plans to sell renewable energy certificates to help recover
costs associated with introducing the renewable fuel source.[Footnote
15] The wood chips used in the power plant are produced by forest-
thinning operations conducted by BLM, the Forest Service, and state and
local governments, while the environmental and market analysis for the
project was co-funded by DOE.
Yet another example of local cooperation involves a January 2005
"declaration of cooperation" signed in central Oregon by officials from
the Forest Service, BLM, state and tribal government, the timber
industry, and environmental groups. The groups have agreed to work
together to stabilize the supply of woody biomass as a way of helping
create a market for the material.
USDA's Efforts Related to Woody Biomass Utilization Are Concentrated in
the Forest Service, with Some Efforts Under Way in Other USDA Agencies:
Most of USDA's woody biomass utilization activities are undertaken by
the Forest Service, with other USDA services playing a smaller role.
USDA's activities involve grants, research and development, and
education, outreach, and technical assistance.
Grants:
USDA implements several grant programs related to woody biomass. The
Forest Service provides grants through its Economic Action Programs
(EAP), created to help rural communities and businesses dependent on
natural resources become sustainable and self-sufficient. In 2003,
according to Forest Service officials, the Forest Service funded 73
projects related to woody biomass utilization; grants ranged from
$5,000 to $225,000, for a total of about $3.5 million.[Footnote 16] A
Forest Service official told us that similar levels of effort existed
in 2001 and 2002, but that the level of effort in 2004 declined because
of reduced funding levels. The Forest Service currently is preparing a
report summarizing the activities carried out under EAP grants
nationwide.
Forest Service officials told us that EAP grant funds are distributed
among Forest Service regional and national units, which in turn
allocate the funds according to regional or national priorities,
respectively. For example, the Northern and Intermountain Regions
decided to use their regional EAP allocations not only to fund Economic
Recovery--a Forest Service program providing financial and technical
assistance to improve the economic, environmental, and social
conditions of rural communities--but also to fund two regional woody
biomass grant programs, one focusing on using small-diameter wood to
create specialty products such as flooring, paneling, and wood-plastic
composites and the other focusing on biomass utilization for energy
production.[Footnote 17] This second program, known as the Fuels for
Schools program, provides grant funds to help public schools retrofit
their fuel and gas heating systems to woody biomass heating systems
that reduce heating costs. The Darby School District in Montana, for
example, provides heat to three schools with wood burning boilers; this
conversion reduced its fuel bill by about 43 percent during the first
year of operation. The project requires about 500 tons of woody biomass
per year, the byproduct of about 50 acres' worth of fuel reduction
treatments, according to project officials. As of December 2004,
according to Forest Service officials, three Fuels for Schools projects
(including the Darby School District) had been completed, and about 20
schools had completed engineering analyses and were preparing to apply
for grant funds. Figure 5 shows the automated wood chip conveyor
installed to provide fuel to the boiler as part of the Darby School
District project.
Figure 5: Automated Wood Chip Conveyor, Darby School District Project,
Darby, Montana:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Forest Service has created an additional grant program in response
to a provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2005,[Footnote 18] authorizing up to $5 million for grants to create
incentives for increased use of biomass from national forest lands. A
congressional committee report accompanying the act directed the Forest
Service "to develop this program with the clear intent to make grants
that will result in increased commercial use of biomass products, and
which will thereby result in reduced overall hazardous fuels program
costs." Specific Forest Service goals for the grant program are to (1)
help reduce management costs by increasing the value of biomass and
other forest products generated by hazardous fuel treatments, (2)
create incentives and reduce the business risk for increased use of
biomass from national forest lands, and (3) institute projects that
target and help remove economic and market barriers to using small-
diameter trees and woody biomass. Grants will be awarded for up to 3
years in amounts from $50,000 to $250,000, and will require a 20
percent match on the part of grantees; applications are due May 16,
2005, with awards to be announced by June 1, 2005.
Two other USDA agencies---the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service (CSREES) and USDA Rural Development--maintain
grant programs that potentially include woody biomass utilization
activities.[Footnote 19] CSREES oversees the Biobased Products and
Bioenergy Production Research grant program, under which a total of
$5.4 million is available to support research into the use of
agricultural materials--including woody biomass--for fuels or products.
CSREES also provides grants to states for research under the McIntyre-
Stennis Act of 1962, which was enacted to promote forestry research by
state colleges and universities. Projects can fall into one of eight
areas listed in the act, one of which is the utilization of wood and
other forest products. However, this grant program does not emphasize
wood products over the other areas, and a CSREES official told us that
most funded projects address issues other than woody biomass.
USDA Rural Development oversees grant and loan programs targeting
renewable energy, potentially providing support to woody biomass
utilization activities. Within Rural Development, the Rural Business-
Cooperative Service oversees the renewable energy grant program
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
emphasizing renewable energy systems and energy efficiency among rural
small businesses, farmers, and ranchers. In September 2004, $22.8
million was awarded to a total of 167 recipients; however, most grants
were directed toward projects using wind power or agricultural biomass
rather than woody biomass. Also within Rural Development, the Rural
Utilities Service maintains a loan program for renewable energy
projects. A Rural Utilities Service official told us that none of the
$119 million loaned under this program since fiscal year 2000 has gone
toward woody biomass, although the program would welcome such projects.
Research and Development:
Forest Service researchers are conducting research into a variety of
woody biomass issues. Researchers have conducted assessments of the
woody biomass potentially available through land management projects--
for example, in 2003, Forest Service researchers prepared an assessment
of the land suitable for mechanical treatment in the western states and
the woody biomass that could potentially be produced.[Footnote 20]
Researchers also have developed models of the costs and revenues
associated with thinning projects, such as the Fuel Treatment
Evaluator. In using this model, users can input the specific area to be
treated (by state or county), the desired end condition of the area to
be treated, and so forth. Users also can enter prices for forest
products--sawtimber, small-diameter biomass, and the like. The tool
then estimates the amount of material in each of various size classes
that would have to be removed to achieve the desired end condition, the
project cost, and the likely revenues from the project. Researchers
also are studying the economics of woody biomass use in other ways; one
researcher, for example, is beginning an assessment of the economic,
environmental, and energy-related impacts of using woody biomass for
power generation.
The Forest Service also conducts extensive research into uses for woody
biomass, primarily at its Forest Products Laboratory. The laboratory's
strategic plan includes the goal of developing new and improved
technologies to use low-value, underutilized forest resources,
including thinnings and small-diameter timber, and the laboratory
Director told us the laboratory has changed its research approach over
the past several years to focus more on the issue of small-diameter
trees. Woody biomass-related research at the laboratory includes
research into a variety of potential uses for the material, including
wood-plastic composites; structures made from small-diameter roundwood;
improved paper pulping processes that can accommodate small- diameter
trees; water filtration systems using woody biomass fibers; flooring,
paneling, and laminated wood beams made from small-diameter trees; and
others. For example, one scientist we met with told us that the
laboratory is using woody biomass to make water filters that can remove
heavy metals, oils, phosphates, and pesticides from water. The
laboratory is currently testing the use of these filters to remove
heavy metal contaminants from mining site runoff. Another scientist we
met with described his efforts to develop techniques for using sound
waves to test the strength of small-diameter timber in order to assess
its suitability for particular applications. Still other officials are
working on less expensive ways of converting woody biomass to liquid
fuels; researchers at the laboratory told us they are working on new
ways of separating wood into its constituent components--lignin,
hemicellulose, and cellulose--in order to improve the conversion
process.
Education, Outreach, and Technical Assistance:
The Forest Service conducts extensive education, outreach, and
technical assistance activities through a variety of staff--small-
diameter utilization specialists, rural development program managers,
regional EAP coordinators, and others. Much of this activity is
conducted by the Technology Marketing Unit (TMU) at the Forest Products
Laboratory,[Footnote 21] which provides technical assistance and
expertise in wood products utilization and marketing. TMU has produced
an extensive array of publications conveying information about specific
aspects of small-diameter wood utilization and marketing--for example,
publications on biomass for small-scale heat and power, structural
grading of logs from small-diameter trees, and the economic feasibility
of making wood products from small-diameter trees--and issues a
bimonthly newsletter titled Forest Products Conservation & Recycling
Review.
TMU staff also provide direct technical assistance to individuals or
companies seeking information or assistance. One such user in New
Mexico was interested in finding a use for local woody biomass. TMU
staff worked with the individual to develop a wood-plastic composite
using juniper fibers that could be made into road signs; the composite
signs, unlike wooden signs, are not chewed on by animals--and are thus
favored by the Forest Service because they do not have to be replaced
as frequently. The individual now operates a 15-employee sign-making
business utilizing low-value woody biomass. Figure 6 shows signs made
from woody biomass mixed with plastic.
Figure 6: Signs Produced from Woody Biomass Mixed with Plastic:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Similarly, TMU has worked with businesses in Montana to find uses for
roundwood, including roundwood buildings and bridges. Roundwood
structures developed with TMU assistance include wood kiosks displayed
at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah; a roundwood community pavilion in
Westcliffe, Colorado; and the Darby Community Library in Darby,
Montana. In addition, a 165-foot suspension bridge designed with TMU
assistance and being built primarily with 6-inch diameter lodgepole
pine is currently under construction in Lolo, Montana. Figure 7 shows a
roundwood kiosk made from small-diameter wood; figure 8 shows the
interior of the library in Darby, Montana, which was constructed from
roundwood.
Figure 7: Kiosk Built from Roundwood and Small-Diameter Wood:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 8: Interior of Darby Community Library Built from Roundwood,
Darby, Montana:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Forest Service also has partnerships with state and regional
entities that provide a link between scientific and institutional
knowledge and local users. One such group, the Colorado Wood
Utilization and Marketing Assistance Center, housed at Colorado State
University, provides small grants in Colorado and assists communities
in identifying technologies that will utilize forest thinnings to heat
buildings and generate electricity. Another such partnership is through
the Forest Service's Wood Education and Resource Center in West
Virginia, which assists constituents in addressing economic,
environmental, technological, and social challenges through training,
technology transfer, and applied research. Yet another partnership with
state and regional entities involves the Forest Service and the Greater
Flagstaff Partnership in Arizona, an alliance of 27 environmental and
governmental organizations that researches and demonstrates approaches
to forest ecosystem restoration in the ponderosa pine forests
surrounding Flagstaff, Arizona.
Staff in Forest Service field offices also provide education, outreach,
and technical assistance. Each region has an EAP coordinator, and
coordinators we spoke with provided numerous examples of their
involvement in woody biomass. For example, one EAP coordinator
organized a "Sawmill Improvement Short Course" designed to provide
information to small sawmill owners regarding how to better handle and
use small-diameter material, how to find small-diameter markets, and so
forth. EAP coordinators also have conducted demonstrations of equipment
for handling woody biomass cost-effectively, including several
demonstrations of a "slash bundler" that can bundle and compress woody
biomass for more efficient transportation.[Footnote 22] Figure 9 shows
the slash bundler in operation.
Figure 9: Slash Bundler Processing Small-Diameter Trees:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Other field staff also provide technical assistance; for example, the
Fremont-Winema National Forest in Oregon employs a Forest Products and
Economic Development Specialist, who told us he provides general
information about new technologies and economic issues to entities
looking to engage in woody biomass-related activities; provides
assistance in assessing the woody biomass harvesting, processing, and
utilization infrastructure; and works with potential grant applicants
to help them develop appropriate projects with defined goals and
outcomes, which are more likely to be funded. An EAP official told us
that the assistance provided to small groups or businesses is critical
to getting them established and making them competitive for other
assistance, such as USDA Rural Development grants; the official stated
that many small businesses lack the expertise to prepare a competitive
business plan or to adequately estimate future costs and revenues.
Until November 2004, the Forest Service employed a small-diameter
utilization specialist who served as a national resource to provide
education and technical assistance. This specialist told us he
conducted frequent presentations to both agency and nonagency audiences
on using woody biomass and worked as a liaison between parties
interested in using woody biomass and agency officials or private
companies that can assist them. He also maintained a small-diameter
utilization Web site. However, in November 2004 he transferred out of
the position, and the position has not yet been refilled.
DOE Is Primarily Engaged in Biomass Research and Development
Activities:
Although DOE maintains some grant programs and provides technical
assistance to assist federal, state, and tribal agencies in switching
to renewable energy, most of its activities focus on research and
development. Following a recent reorganization, most of DOE's woody
biomass activities are overseen by its Office of the Biomass Program,
although some activities also are conducted within the Federal Energy
Management Program and the Tribal Energy Program.
Grants:
DOE maintains several grant programs that emphasize renewable energy,
potentially including woody biomass. DOE's Golden Field Office in
Colorado administers the National Biomass State and Regional
Partnership, which provides grants for biomass-related activities
through five regional partners: the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
Policy Research Center, the Council of Great Lakes Governors, the
Southern States Energy Board, the Western Governors' Association, and
DOE's Western Regional Office. DOE provides funds to each regional
partner; the partners, in turn, provide grants to states. Although the
overall DOE partnership does not emphasize woody biomass over other
types of biomass, the Western Governors' Association is directing its
DOE funds toward projects involving woody biomass, according to an
official with the association.
Another DOE grant program that potentially involves woody biomass is
the State Energy Program, which provides grants to states to design and
carry out their own renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.
States manage the funds and are required to match 20 percent of the DOE
grants. In 2004, about $44 million was directed in grants to the
states, and another $16 million was directed to special state projects.
While the grant program does not emphasize woody biomass over other
energy sources, woody biomass projects may be included among those
funded, depending on state priorities.
The Tribal Energy Program promotes tribal energy sufficiency, economic
development, and employment on tribal lands through renewable energy
and energy efficiency technologies. Over the past 2 years, DOE has
funded a total of 45 tribal energy projects, for a total of $8.4
million; the projects are primarily for energy and electricity, with
some specifically targeting the utilization of woody biomass. A DOE-
funded study involving the Yavapai-Apache Reservation in Arizona, for
example, will examine the feasibility of a proposed power generation
facility using woody biomass, while another study involving the Red
Lake Band of the Chippewa Indians in Minnesota will examine the use of
woody biomass for producing power, fuels, and products.
Research and Development:
DOE's woody biomass research and development activities are managed by
its Office of the Biomass Program, which has overall responsibility for
managing DOE's research activities relating to the use of biomass for
fuels, chemicals, and power. Many woody biomass research and
development activities within DOE are carried out by the National
Bioenergy Center, a "virtual center" intended to unify DOE's efforts to
advance technology for producing fuels, chemicals, materials, and power
from biomass. These activities generally encompass research into the
conversion of biomass, including woody biomass, to liquid fuels, power,
chemicals, or heat. In addition, a new biomass laboratory--the Biomass
Surface Characterization Laboratory--was dedicated at NREL in January
2005. An NREL official told us that DOE does not have an effort
specific to woody biomass, though its activities can be applied to the
material. DOE also supports research into woody biomass through
partnerships with industry and academia. Program management activities
for these partnerships are conducted by DOE headquarters, and project
management through DOE field offices.
Education, Outreach, and Technical Assistance:
In addition to its research activities, the National Bioenergy Center
provides information and guidance to industry, stakeholder groups, and
users through presentations and lectures, according to DOE officials.
Information also is made available through the DOE Web site. DOE also
provides outreach and technical assistance through its State and
Regional Partnership, Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), and
Tribal Energy Program. FEMP provides assistance to federal agencies
seeking to implement renewable energy and energy efficiency projects,
including assistance in designing renewable energy systems and
obtaining private-sector financing. Among these efforts is a program
focused on using biomass and alternative methane fuels in energy
projects at federal facilities, and although the program does not focus
specifically on woody biomass, a FEMP official told us that military
and civilian agencies (including the Forest Service) across the country
are increasingly contemplating projects in which woody biomass would be
used to heat and power federal installations. In addition to grants,
the Tribal Energy Program also provides technical assistance to tribes,
including strategic planning and energy options analysis.
Interior's Woody Biomass Activities Include Education, Outreach, and
Grant Programs:
Interior's activities include limited grant programs and education and
outreach; department agencies do not conduct research and development
into woody biomass utilization issues. Interior also works with its
land management agencies to develop policy and direction regarding
woody biomass activities. Interior now requires that the agencies' land
management service contracts include an option allowing contractors to
remove woody biomass generated through the contracts where ecologically
appropriate, and has directed the agencies to develop contract
mechanisms to include biomass removal in timber sale contracts.
Many of Interior's woody biomass activities are implemented by BLM,
which recently established a woody biomass utilization strategy that
will provide a framework for future agency activities and allow it to
expand its biomass utilization efforts. The strategy, made final in
July 2004, includes overall goals related to increasing the utilization
of biomass from treatments on BLM lands, and individual action items
within three substrategies: developing tools, building expertise within
BLM and building networks with other agencies and organizations, and
increasing the percentage of acres treated from which harvested biomass
is subsequently used. Individual action items include developing
contract specifications for appraising biomass and guidelines for
estimating biomass volume; training BLM staff in the use of biomass
guidance and tools; facilitating technology transfer with key partners
such as governments, tribes, and contractors; and increasing funding
available for biomass projects. BLM also is contemplating a small-scale
preferred procurement initiative for woody biomass products, similar to
the preferred procurement program for biobased products established in
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
In addition to BLM, three other Interior agencies--the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park
Service (NPS)--conduct activities related to woody biomass. An official
from the U.S. Geological Survey told us that her agency does not
conduct activities to promote woody biomass utilization.
Grants:
Interior generally does not have grant programs specifically targeted
toward woody biomass. However, BIA has provided a limited number of
grants to Indian tribes, including a 2004 grant to the Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation in Oregon to conduct a
feasibility study for updating and expanding a woody biomass-fueled
power plant.
Education, Outreach, and Technical Assistance:
Interior agencies conduct education, outreach, and technical
assistance, but not to the same degree as the Forest Service. The
primary BLM official responsible for woody biomass activities told us
that BLM does not have staff at field locations assigned to identify
community resources and to build community capacity, as does the Forest
Service. According to this official, BLM's community outreach is
conducted primarily through its land use and management planning
activities, which include interaction with environmentalists, community
leaders, and others. This official said that BLM is making a concerted
effort to promote woody biomass utilization, has hired new forest
management staff, and is studying the possibility of engaging in
outreach activities through proposed demonstration projects called
"incubators," which would serve as examples of successful woody biomass
utilization. Funding has not yet been appropriated for these projects,
according to this official. Interior also will use the National
Association of Conservation Districts, with whom it signed a
cooperative agreement, to conduct outreach activities related to woody
biomass.
BIA provides technical assistance to tribes seeking to implement
renewable energy projects; specifically, the agency works with tribes
to determine appropriate management activities and offers technical
assistance in marketing forest products. Tribal projects include a
proposal by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in Montana to use woody biomass
to provide steam and electricity for a manufacturing plant and a study
by the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of the
feasibility of producing energy from forest thinning projects. BIA also
sponsored a renewable energy conference, including an emphasis on woody
biomass, in September 2004. Interior's primary woody biomass official
told us that tribal officials are very interested in biomass.
Although FWS and NPS conduct relatively few woody biomass utilization
activities, according to agency officials, in some cases the agencies
will work to find a woody biomass user nearby if a market exists for
the material. After a 2004 thinning project in Denali National Park,
for example, NPS used some cut trees in cabin restoration projects and
for firewood for backcountry cabins; however, the bulk of the biomass
generated was provided to a nearby coal mine, which wanted material for
use in a reclamation project at the mine site. NPS officials told us
that their agency did not charge the mine for the material, but that
the arrangement saved NPS several hundred thousand dollars in
transportation and disposal fees because the material would otherwise
have been sent to a landfill. The officials stated that finding a
market for this material "represented a lot of time and effort on the
part of local Park Service planners." Both FWS and NPS officials told
us that the agencies' woody biomass activities are limited because the
agencies produce only modest amounts of the material; most FWS and NPS
fuel reduction activities use fire rather than mechanical thinning.
Further, according to agency officials, in those instances where woody
biomass is generated, the agencies often use the material for their own
purposes--for example, using chipped biomass to stabilize soils during
restoration projects.
Several Other Federal Agencies Implement or Participate in Woody
Biomass Activities:
Aside from USDA, DOE, and Interior, several other federal agencies also
are engaged in woody biomass activities through their advisory or
research activities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides
technical assistance through its Combined Heat and Power Partnership to
power plants that generate combined heat and power from various
sources, including woody biomass and other sources of renewable energy.
An EPA official told us that the partnership is fuel neutral, meaning
that it does not promote the use of one fuel over another when
producing combined heat and power. EPA also has a Green Power
Partnership Program to assist federal agencies and companies in
procuring power for their facilities from renewable sources.
Three other agencies also have limited involvement in biomass
activities through their membership on the Biomass Research and
Development Board, created by the Biomass Research and Development Act
of 2000. The board, which is intended to focus on all biomass issues,
not solely woody biomass, is responsible for coordinating federal
activities for the purpose of promoting the use of biobased industrial
products. The board consists of membership from USDA, DOE, Interior,
and EPA, as well as the National Science Foundation, the Office of the
Federal Environmental Executive, and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (both within the Executive Office of the President).
Officials we spoke with from the National Science Foundation, Office of
Science and Technology Policy, and the Office of the Federal
Environmental Executive told us that their involvement in issues
specifically related to woody biomass is minimal.
We also contacted officials from the Departments of Commerce and
Transportation. Officials from both told us their departments do not
conduct woody biomass utilization activities.
Woody Biomass Coordination Efforts among and within Federal Agencies
Include Both Formal and Informal Mechanisms, but Unlike DOE and
Interior, the Forest Service Has Not Assigned Responsibility for
Overseeing Woody Biomass Activities:
Federal agency efforts to coordinate their woody biomass utilization
activities, both among and within agencies, occurred through both
formal and informal mechanisms. Formal coordination between agencies
occurs through both the Woody Biomass Utilization Group and the Biomass
Research and Development Board, although most agency officials we spoke
with emphasized informal communication--through telephone discussions,
e-mails, participation in conferences, and other means--rather than
these groups as the primary vehicle for interagency coordination. To
coordinate internal activities, both DOE and Interior have formal
mechanisms--DOE coordinates its activities through the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), while both Interior and BLM
have appointed officials to lead their woody biomass efforts; further,
Interior's woody biomass policy and BLM's woody biomass strategy guide
these organizations' efforts. In contrast, the Forest Service--the USDA
agency with the most woody biomass activities--has not assigned
responsibility for coordinating its woody biomass activities,
potentially leading to fragmentation of effort and diluting the impact
of these activities.
Coordination among Agencies Includes Formal Groups, but Officials Often
Cited Informal Coordination Efforts as More Common:
Two groups serve as formal vehicles for coordinating federal agency
activities related to woody biomass utilization. The Woody Biomass
Utilization Group, open to all national, regional, and field-level
staff across numerous agencies, is a multiagency group that meets
quarterly on woody biomass utilization issues. According to the group's
draft charter (which has not been made final), the group's objectives
are to (1) implement the policy principles of the June 2003 Memorandum
of Understanding between USDA, DOE, and Interior; (2) coordinate, plan,
and encourage woody biomass utilization; (3) serve as technical and
policy advisers on woody biomass utilization; and (4) function as an
information clearing house to help identify relevant woody biomass
utilization technologies, foster joint demonstrations and pilot
projects, identify research and development needs, and highlight
successful woody biomass projects. The draft charter calls for a chair
position to be rotated on an annual basis, generally between USDA, DOE,
and Interior.
The other formal group is the Biomass Research and Development Board,
which is responsible for coordinating federal activities to promote the
use of biobased industrial products. The board consists of membership
from USDA, DOE, and Interior, as well as EPA, the National Science
Foundation, the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, and
Office of Science and Technology Policy, and is co-chaired by USDA' s
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment and DOE's
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The
board is supported by the Biomass Research and Development Technical
Advisory Committee, which includes representatives of nonfederal groups
such as industry, academia, trade associations, and the like.
When discussing coordination among agencies, however, agency officials
more frequently cited using informal mechanisms for coordination than
the formal groups described above. For example, two officials we spoke
with in the Forest Service's Northwest Region told us that although
they were aware of the interagency Woody Biomass Utilization Group,
they were not aware of any of the group's activities--or even whether
the group has a charter. Several officials told us that informal
communication among networks of individuals was essential to
coordination among agencies; one Forest Service field official told us
that, in contrast to formal groups, the more common method for
coordinating among agencies is frequent, informal communication through
e-mail, telephone calls, and discussions at regional or local
conferences or workshops. Another Forest Service field official
emphasized that his informal network of officials--both within and
outside the agency and with whom he converses by telephone and e-mail
regularly--helps him keep abreast of woody biomass developments by
providing reports, documents, and other information. Similarly, a
headquarters official in another agency described a network of
individuals--both within and outside of the agency--with whom he
remains in frequent e-mail and telephone contact. These individuals
exchange information regarding projects, policies, potential impacts of
legislation, success stories, and the like. In each case, the officials
stated that they relied much more upon informal means of coordination
than on formal interagency groups.
Officials also described other forms of coordination. Two officials
described a regional grant application review team that included Forest
Service, BLM, BIA, and FWS staff that jointly reviewed applications for
fuels treatment grants. Although the main emphasis of the grants was
not woody biomass, there was discussion within the review team about
biomass issues that ensue from fuels treatment projects. Another
program that involves interagency coordination is the joint review of
applications by USDA and DOE for renewable energy projects authorized
by the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000. In addition, two
officials told us that the Forest Service was trying to organize a
multiagency team to collaborate on woody biomass efforts within the
agency's Northwest Region. Other officials mentioned state-level
interagency working groups focusing on fire and fuels reduction issues
and consisting of representatives from the Forest Service, Interior
agencies, and nonfederal entities. These groups are primarily concerned
with fire suppression capacity, fuel reduction treatments, and
community wildland fire planning efforts, not with woody biomass.
However, according to these officials, the woody biomass issue is
interwoven with these other issues and is often discussed. Further, the
networks established by these interagency groups facilitate
communication on a variety of issues, including woody biomass, among
the states and agencies involved.
While DOE and Interior Have Formal Mechanisms for Coordinating Internal
Activities, the Forest Service Does Not:
DOE's woody biomass utilization activities are coordinated through
EERE. Within this office, the Office of the Biomass Program directs
biomass research at DOE national laboratories and contract research
organizations, while a small number of woody biomass activities are
undertaken within two other programs, the Federal Energy Management
Program and the Tribal Energy Program.
Interior has appointed a single official to oversee its woody biomass
activities and is operating under a woody biomass policy in the form of
an April 2004 memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget. This memorandum directs all Interior bureaus and
offices to implement the policy principles of the June 2003 Memorandum
of Understanding between USDA, DOE, and Interior. According to the
official responsible for overseeing Interior's woody biomass efforts,
this memo serves as departmental policy until a departmental manual can
be updated. Interior also has appointed a Renewable Energy Ombudsman to
coordinate all of the department's renewable energy activities,
including woody biomass. Similarly, BLM has appointed a single official
to oversee woody biomass efforts, and, as noted, has developed a woody
biomass utilization strategy to guide its activities, including overall
goals related to increasing the utilization of biomass from treatments
on BLM lands.
In contrast, although the Forest Service developed a woody biomass
policy in January 2005, unlike DOE and Interior, it has not assigned a
specific individual or office with responsibility for overseeing its
woody biomass activities. The agency does have an internal group--the
Woody Biomass Utilization Team--that meets to discuss woody biomass
issues, but this group does not have responsibility for implementing
the policy. And according to some Forest Service officials we spoke
with, agency woody biomass activities have been opportunistic, arising
from local awareness of and interest in the issue rather than from a
national strategy for approaching the issue. One Forest Service
headquarters official told us that the agency's woody biomass
activities have been "a grassroots effort on the part of those who have
a real burning passion for improving utilization." However, according
to this official, individuals who do not share that passion have not
been involved in woody biomass because there has been no central
requirement or strategy for addressing the woody biomass issue. Another
headquarters official told us that the extent to which woody biomass
has been addressed has depended on the knowledge, interest, and
availability of the local forest staff and the presence of local
markets for woody biomass. Several field officials we spoke with share
this view; one field official told us that there is a great deal of
interest in woody biomass technology on the part of field staff, but
not much coordination and no formal strategy, while another noted that
woody biomass activities are "largely dependent on local risk taking."
Yet another field official told us that there is no coordinated
approach within the Forest Service to woody biomass; instead,
determining what activities to undertake is left up to the forests and
ranger districts, and depends on local leadership.
The Forest Service does have an individual, located within the agency's
State and Private Forestry branch, who generally serves as the agency's
primary point of contact for woody biomass utilization. However, two
officials noted that this individual serves primarily as a consultant,
with no influence over budgets or activities. They also stated that,
because this official works within the State and Private Forestry
branch, he has no influence over agency activities regarding public
lands and no influence over the Forest Service's National Forest System
or Research and Development branches, with their associated land bases
or budgets. One headquarters official within the agency stated that
without stronger central authority or a stronger woody biomass policy,
the Forest Service will find it difficult to effect change because
while the agency's primary woody biomass official can discuss
technology, innovation, supply, and other issues, he lacks the
authority to influence land management practices.
Two officials attributed the Forest Service's lack of a coordinated
woody biomass effort to the agency's decentralized culture, with
autonomy at the ranger district, national forest, and regional level.
One official told us that this culture serves the agency well for some
purposes but works against the agency when it tries to promote an idea
or issue--such as woody biomass utilization--that has not been widely
emphasized. Another official noted that each region in the Forest
Service has considerable autonomy in developing its own policies,
setting its own priorities, and establishing its own procedures, and
that, while there is often value in having ideas originate from the
field, a more formalized structure is often more effective at
accomplishing overall agency objectives. According to this official,
the woody biomass issue has reached the stage where a formalized,
coordinated national strategy is appropriate.
One official told us that the Forest Service's emphasis on fuel
reduction planning and implementation efforts under the National Fire
Plan had focused the agency's attention away from woody biomass. The 10-
year comprehensive strategy for implementing the National Fire Plan
contains four overall goals: (1) improving fire prevention and
suppression, (2) reducing hazardous fuels, (3) restoring fire-adapted
ecosystems, and (4) promoting community assistance, which includes
woody biomass utilization. This official told us that the Forest
Service's emphasis on goals 1 and 2 has reduced its ability to focus on
the other goals, and "now that the biomass is starting to pile up," it
is time for the Forest Service to begin focusing on woody biomass. The
Western Governors' Association issued a report in November 2004
concurring with this view, stating "Goal 4 must be given the same
emphasis Goals 1 and 2 have received in order for its action items--and
the 10-Year Strategy as a whole--to be accomplished."[Footnote 23]
Without an individual or office with responsibility for overseeing
woody biomass activities within the agency, the Forest Service risks
diluting the effects of its activities because individual units within
the agency may undertake woody biomass activities that are not
consistent with the activities of other units--or they may choose to
undertake no woody biomass activities at all. Further, given the
magnitude of the woody biomass issue and the finite funds available to
the agency, it is important that the Forest Service ensure that
activities on which it places a high priority are undertaken so that it
can maximize its accomplishments within its budget.
Most Officials Cited Economic Obstacles to Woody Biomass Utilization,
and While Agencies Generally Targeted These Obstacles, Some Officials
Believe Additional Steps beyond the Agencies' Authority Are Needed:
Agency officials cited two principal obstacles to increasing the use of
woody biomass: the difficulty in using woody biomass cost-effectively-
-particularly the obstacles posed by the high cost of harvesting and
transporting woody biomass--and the lack of a reliable supply of the
material. Agency activities--grants, education and outreach, and
research and development--are generally targeted toward the obstacles
identified by agency officials. Many officials, however, told us that
their agencies are limited in their ability to fully address these
obstacles and that additional steps--such as subsidies and tax credits-
-beyond the agencies' authority to implement are needed. But agency
officials generally did not specify the level of subsidies or tax
credits they believe would be necessary, and not all agree that such
additional steps are appropriate.
Most Officials Noted the Difficulty in Using Woody Biomass Cost-
Effectively, and Many Also Cited the Lack of a Reliable Woody Biomass
Supply:
Most officials we spoke with cited the difficulty in using woody
biomass cost-effectively--that is, in using the material to create
products that generate more revenue than is required for their
creation. Other obstacles cited include the lack of a reliable supply
of woody biomass; internal agency barriers to effectively promoting
woody biomass, including the lack of agency commitment to the issue;
and the lack of a local infrastructure to harvest, transport, and
process woody biomass.
Most Officials Cited Economic Factors, Particularly the High Cost of
Harvesting and Transporting Woody Biomass Relative to Its Value, as
Primary Obstacles to Increasing Woody Biomass Utilization:
The obstacle most commonly cited by officials we spoke with (30 of 44
officials) is the difficulty of using woody biomass cost-effectively.
Officials told us that the products that can be created from woody
biomass--whether wood products, liquid fuels, or energy--often do not
generate sufficient income to overcome the costs of acquiring and
processing the raw material. For example, a Forest Service researcher
in California estimated that the cost of generating electricity from
woody biomass was about 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour, including costs to
harvest, transport, and process the material, as well as operations,
maintenance, and capital amortization costs. However, the same
researcher noted that at the time of his study, the wholesale price
paid for power in California was 5.3 cents per kilowatt hour--meaning
that, without receiving additional income for their electricity,
producers of woody biomass-generated electricity would lose about 2.2
cents for each kilowatt hour generated if they sold their electricity
on the wholesale power market.[Footnote 24]
One factor contributing to the difficulty in using woody biomass cost-
effectively, according to 23 officials, is the cost incurred in
harvesting and transporting woody biomass. For example, one Forest
Service official pointed out that while a single 18-inch-diameter tree
of a given height contains the same volume as 20 4-inch-diameter trees
of the same height, it is much more expensive to harvest 20 trees than
1. Two officials told us that when the end use for woody biomass calls
for chipped or ground material--for example, for use in power plants--
it is often more efficient to chip the material in the forest and haul
the chips to the plant rather than hauling the unprocessed woody
biomass. However, these officials noted that the vehicles typically
used to haul chips--known as chip vans--cannot navigate many forest
roads, which were designed for logging trucks. Because hauling material
in smaller vehicles is more costly, this adds to the difficulty in
using the material cost-effectively. Officials pointed out that small
installations located close to woody biomass sources will have lower
transportation costs, enhancing their ability to use the material cost-
effectively. Schools and other buildings located in communities near
forests are thus particularly well-positioned for woody biomass use,
according to officials--especially if these buildings are heated with
natural gas or fuel oil, because once buildings convert their heating
infrastructure to accept woody biomass, they can be heated at a lower
cost by using woody biomass than by using natural gas or fuel oil.
However, officials also noted that such installations consume
relatively small amounts of woody biomass.
Five officials primarily involved in research and development noted the
costs involved in converting woody biomass to liquid fuels such as
ethanol. For example, the chemical makeup of wood makes it more
difficult and expensive to convert into ethanol than other substances
such as corn, according to officials.[Footnote 25] Thus, although
ethanol represents a potentially large opportunity for utilizing woody
biomass (because of the demand for transportation fuels), the
availability of cheaper raw materials such as corn presents an obstacle
to its use.
Other Obstacles Cited Include the Lack of a Reliable Supply of Woody
Biomass from Federal Lands and Internal Barriers to Effective Promotion
of Woody Biomass:
Of the 44 officials we spoke with, 22 told us that even if cost-
effective means of using woody biomass were found, the lack of a
reliable supply of woody biomass from federal lands presents an
obstacle because business owners or investors will not establish
businesses without assurances of a dependable supply of material.
Officials identified several factors contributing to the lack of a
reliable supply, including the lack of widely available long-term
contracts for forest products, environmental opposition to federal
projects, and the shortage of agency staff to conduct activities.
Regarding long-term contracts, projects that use stewardship
contracting authority may include contracts of up to 10 years--
potentially stabilizing the long-term supply of woody biomass--whereas
projects conducted outside of this authority must use contracts of a
shorter duration.[Footnote 26] Agency officials cited one stewardship
project--the White Mountain project in Arizona, which has a 10-year
duration and is expected to treat 50,000 to 250,000 acres--as an
example of the benefits of stewardship contracting in stabilizing
supply. An official told us that two manufacturers are negotiating with
the contractor to establish manufacturing plants using woody biomass
removed as part of the project. According to this official, without the
assurance of supply offered by a long-term contract, these
manufacturers would not have shown interest. However, another official
pointed out that Forest Service stewardship contracts must be approved
at the regional level, making their use more cumbersome than other
contract types.
Adding further to the uncertainty of supply, 10 officials told us that
environmental opposition poses an obstacle--for example, in the form of
appeals and litigation that delay planned projects. Finally, according
to five officials, staffing constraints make accomplishing projects in
a timely manner difficult even without external opposition; two Forest
Service officials told us that even if long-term contracts were
available and environmental opposition were not a factor, the lack of
staff still hampers the agency's ability to implement projects.
Six officials cited internal agency barriers that hamper agency
effectiveness in promoting woody biomass utilization. Prior to the
Forest Service's January policy statement on woody biomass, one Forest
Service official told us that the lack of a strong policy stating that
using woody biomass is preferable to piling and burning it hampered the
agency because no incentive existed for "field staff to think
creatively about how to move [woody biomass] to potential users." This
official told us that even if the Forest Service received no payment
for the material, putting it to use was better than piling and burning
it--which also brings no revenue--and this preference should be
embedded in policy. Two Forest Service officials also noted that the
agency's mechanisms for designing and implementing projects were still
geared toward larger, merchantable timber to the detriment of woody
biomass. One official stated that "the Forest Service needs to improve
its capabilities to design treatments, contracts, and agreements that
will encourage utilization of smaller diameter material," while another
official echoed this view by stating that "timber operations [in
contrast to woody biomass] account for the bulk of institutional
knowledge about material removal." Finally, several officials stated
that federal agencies have not been effective in communicating the
potential benefits of fuel reduction. According to the officials, fuel
reduction would reduce fire suppression and rehabilitation costs, avoid
damage to watersheds, avoid smoke pollution, and the like. Officials
told us that communicating these benefits could reduce opposition to
fuel reduction projects, which was cited as a factor in the uncertainty
of woody biomass supply.
Other officials cited the lack of agency commitment to the issue. For
example, a BIA official told us that BIA has not provided the resources
and structure required for promoting and developing woody biomass
utilization projects. Six officials told us that more funds should be
devoted to researching new or less expensive ways to use woody biomass
in order to overcome economic obstacles to its use. And two Forest
Service officials cited that agency's lack of a woody biomass policy as
an obstacle to effective agency promotion of woody biomass utilization.
A variety of other obstacles were noted as well. One official told us
that some large facilities such as prisons could use woody biomass to
generate their own electricity for less than the cost of electricity
sold by electrical utilities. However, such facilities generally would
need to have electricity available from the grid in the event that
their own generators were unavailable--and, according to this official,
utilities can charge rates for this electricity (known as standby
power) that are equal to the rates charged for electricity that is
actually delivered. In other words, for every hour the utility is
prepared to deliver electricity to the facility, the utility charges a
fixed portion of the rate that would have been charged had the
electricity actually been delivered--100 percent of the rate in some
cases, according to this official. As a result, installations would pay
not only the costs of generating their own electricity but also the
standby power rates charged by the utility--costs that, when combined,
may exceed the cost of simply purchasing electricity from the utility.
Withdrawing from the electricity grid entirely can be problematic as
well; this official stated that utilities can charge fees--known as
exit fees--for doing so.
Another obstacle cited by officials is the lack of a local
infrastructure for harvesting, transporting, and processing woody
biomass, including loggers, mills, and appropriate equipment for
treating small-diameter material. Three Forest Service officials we
spoke with told us that in some cases the decline in federal logging
has left areas without any infrastructure at all, while in other cases
the infrastructure that is left is equipped to handle large trees
rather than woody biomass. According to officials, contractors need
equipment designed for handling woody biomass rather than larger trees
in order to cost-effectively harvest and transport the material.
However, contractors may not have the capital to purchase this new
equipment, and may be unable to obtain loans without assurances of a
long-term supply of woody biomass.
Agency Efforts Are Generally Targeted toward the Obstacles Identified,
but Officials Cited the Need for Additional Actions Such As Subsidies
and Tax Credits:
The agency activities we identified were generally targeted toward the
obstacles agency officials cited. Agencies provided grants, engaged in
outreach, and conducted research aimed at overcoming economic obstacles
to woody biomass use, and conducted activities to address other
obstacles as well. However, several officials believe that additional
steps beyond the agencies' authorities are needed to fully address the
woody biomass issue.
Agency Activities Are Generally Targeted at Overcoming the Challenges
Identified:
Agency activities related to woody biomass were generally aimed at
overcoming the obstacles agency officials identified, including many
aimed at overcoming economic obstacles. For example, staff at the
Forest Service's TMU have worked with potential users of woody biomass
to develop products whose value is sufficient to overcome the costs
involved in harvesting and transporting the material; EAP coordinators
have worked with potential woody biomass users to overcome economic
obstacles; and Forest Products Laboratory researchers are working with
NREL to increase the yield of ethanol from woody biomass, making wood-
to-ethanol conversion more cost-effective.
Some agency activities also are targeted at providing more certainty of
supply. A Forest Service official in New Mexico has been meeting with
environmental groups to try to obtain consensus on the need for forest-
thinning activities. Obtaining consensus can reduce the likelihood of
environmental opposition, making Forest Service projects easier to
accomplish and allowing a steadier supply of biomass. Although not all
groups will support the projects, according to this official, obtaining
agreement from major groups can blunt opposition from other groups.
Other officials are working on models to predict the amount of woody
biomass potentially available, giving users a better sense of the
supply of raw materials.
Some Officials Stated That Additional Actions beyond the Agencies'
Authorities, Such As Subsidies and Tax Credits, Are Needed to Stimulate
the Market for Woody Biomass:
Despite ongoing agency activities, 14 officials told us that additional
steps--such as subsidies or tax credits--that are beyond the agencies'
authorities are necessary to develop a market for woody biomass.
According to several officials, the obstacles to using woody biomass
cost-effectively are simply too great to overcome by using the tools--
grants, outreach and education, and so forth--at the agencies'
disposal. One official stated that "in many areas the economic return
from smaller-diameter trees is less than production costs. Without some
form of market intervention, such as tax incentives or other forms of
subsidy, there is little short-term opportunity to increase utilization
of such material." Three officials stated that subsidies have the
potential to reduce the per-acre cost of thinning, because if there is
a market for woody biomass, contractors will be willing to harvest the
material for a lower fee, knowing that they can recoup some of their
costs by selling the material. According to these officials, subsidies
thereby create an important benefit--reduced fire risk through
hazardous fuels reduction--if they promote additional thinning
activities by stimulating the woody biomass market.
Officials told us that tax incentives, subsidies, and low-interest
loans may serve to stimulate infrastructure for harvesting, processing,
and transporting woody biomass, and that such assistance should target
not only larger plants and facilities but smaller operators as well.
Harvesters and loggers, for example, could use the assistance to
purchase the expensive equipment and machinery required to treat woody
biomass and thus help to build the required infrastructure.
It is not only federal officials who hold this view. In testimony
before the Congress, the owner of a sawmill that uses woody biomass to
generate electricity for the mill stated that woody biomass-to-energy
does not work as a stand-alone enterprise. According to this
individual, "The cost structure associated with removing woody biomass
from the forest, hauling the material to a facility and converting the
fiber into a product suitable for electricity production is prohibitive
without massive subsidization."
Others see a need for state requirements that utilities procure or
generate a portion of their electricity by using renewable resources,
known as renewable portfolio standards.[Footnote 27] Forest Service
officials in the Southwest Region are encouraging states in the region
to enact renewable portfolio standards that include a woody biomass
component. These officials are urging states to go beyond simply
requiring electricity from renewable resources and require, or provide
favorable treatment of, electricity generated from woody biomass
produced as part of forest restoration projects. The official primarily
responsible for this effort stated that "using this biomass source will
help lower costs and allow restoration activities to occur on many more
thousands of acres than present budgets allow."
Agency officials generally did not specify the level of subsidies or
tax credits they thought necessary, and not all officials believe that
these additional steps are efficient or appropriate. One official told
us that, although he supports these activities, the creation of tax
incentives and subsidies would create enormous administrative and
monitoring requirements. Another official stated that although federal
policy changes such as increased subsidies could address obstacles to
woody biomass utilization, he does not believe they should be made.
Rather, he believes that research and development efforts, combined
with market forces, will eventually result in "equilibrium"--in other
words, in woody biomass utilization finding its appropriate level. If
cost-effective uses of woody biomass can be found, its utilization will
increase. Yet another official stated that while production tax credits
or subsidies may be successful in getting businesses or industries
started, he does not believe they are sustainable over the long term.
In addition, he is reluctant to create credit-or subsidy-dependent
businesses that would be at the mercy of the annual appropriations
cycle. Instead, market-driven solutions are more appropriate--for
example, providing information to exploit the existing market, or
developing requirements or incentives (such as renewable portfolio
standards) that create a market on their own.
Further, not all agree with the assumption that the market for woody
biomass should be expanded. One agency official told us he is concerned
that developing a market for woody biomass may result in overuse of
mechanical treatment (rather than prescribed burning) as the market
begins to drive the preferred treatment. In other words, given a choice
between mechanical thinning and prescribed burning, a forest manager
might choose mechanical thinning not because it was the most
appropriate tool for the project at hand but to satisfy the demand for
woody biomass. This official stated that "if we do that, we are not
being good stewards of the land."
Environmental group representatives also have urged caution in taking
any steps that expand the market for woody biomass. Representatives of
one national environmental group told us that relying on woody biomass
as a renewable energy source will lead to overthinning, as demand for
woody biomass exceeds the supply that is generated through responsible
thinning. They also questioned the incentive to create or reconstruct
roads in the forests to facilitate inexpensive transportation of woody
biomass because they believe doing so introduces unwanted side effects-
-increased erosion and sedimentation, increased access to areas of the
forest that previously had no roads, and increased maintenance and
enforcement costs for the federal agencies. Finally, the
representatives questioned the true energy gain of using woody biomass-
-that is, whether the energy involved in harvesting, transporting, and
processing woody biomass exceeds the energy contained in the biomass--
stating that "it doesn't make economic sense to burn expensive gasoline
to get cheap biomass." However, they stated that the benefits gained by
using the biomass rather than piling it in landfills or leaving it in
the forest where in some locations it would continue to pose a
significant fire risk may justify any net energy loss.
Conclusions:
The amount of woody biomass resulting from increased thinning
activities could be substantial, adding urgency to the search for ways
to use the material cost-effectively rather than simply disposing of
it. The use of woody biomass, however, will become commonplace only
when users--whether small forest businesses or large utilities--can
gain an economic advantage by putting it to use. Federal agencies are
targeting their activities toward overcoming this and other obstacles-
-for example, by providing technical assistance and grant funds to
businesses facing economic challenges in using woody biomass. But some
agency officials believe that these efforts alone will not be
sufficient to stimulate a market that can accommodate the vast
quantities of material expected.
While additional key steps may be necessary at the federal and state
levels, we believe the agencies will continue to play an important role
in stimulating woody biomass use. However, while both DOE and Interior
have designated individuals or offices for coordinating woody biomass
activities, no individual or office within the Forest Service has been
similarly designated. Without an individual or office with
responsibility for overseeing and coordinating woody biomass activities
within the agency, the Forest Service can neither ensure its multiple
activities contribute to the agency's overall objectives nor assess the
effectiveness of individual activities. Further, by taking a piecemeal
approach to the issue, the agency risks diluting the impact of its
activities because different agency units may be emphasizing different
priorities. Some local variation may be appropriate--to account for
regional differences in infrastructure, for example, or in forest type.
Nevertheless, a coordinated approach is essential if the Forest Service
is to capitalize fully on its potential to increase woody biomass
utilization.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To improve the Forest Service's effectiveness in promoting woody
biomass utilization, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture
direct the Chief of the Forest Service to assign responsibility for
overseeing and coordinating the agency's woody biomass utilization
activities to a specific official or office within the agency.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Energy, and the Interior for review and comment. USDA concurred with
our findings and recommendation, and the department's comment letter is
presented in appendix II. DOE officials stated they had no comments on
the report, while Interior did not provide comments.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the
Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of the
Interior, Chief of the Forest Service, Director of BLM, and other
interested parties. We also will make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of our review were to determine (1) which federal
agencies are involved in efforts to promote the use of woody biomass,
and the actions they are undertaking; (2) how these federal agencies
coordinate their activities related to woody biomass; and (3) what
these agencies see as the primary obstacles to increasing the use of
woody biomass and the extent to which they are addressing these
obstacles. To get a better understanding of woody biomass issues, we
initially met with officials at the Forest Service and Office of the
Chief Economist within the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the National Park Service. We also met with representatives from
nonfederal organizations, including the Western Governors' Association,
Colorado State University, the state of New Mexico, the state of
California, the Santa Ana Pueblo, the Wilderness Society, the Nature
Conservancy, Public Service Company of New Mexico, and others. We also
visited the Forest Service's Forest Products Laboratory in Madison,
Wisconsin; a woody biomass-heated community center in Nederland,
Colorado; and a wood-fired power plant in Burney, California.
We subsequently developed a structured interview guide to collect
information on woody biomass utilization activities, coordination
efforts, and challenges to utilizing woody biomass. Because the
practical difficulties of developing and administering a structured
interview guide may introduce errors--resulting from how a particular
question is interpreted, for example, or from differences in the
sources of information available to respondents in answering a
question--we included steps in the development and administration of
the structured interview guide for the purpose of minimizing such
errors. We pretested the instrument at two locations by telephone and
modified it to reflect questions and comments received during the
pretests.
To determine whom to interview, we began with agency headquarters
officials who had been identified by the agencies as points of contact
for woody biomass activities. As part of these interviews, we asked for
the names of additional officials--regardless of location or agency
affiliation--who could provide additional information on, or insights
into, woody biomass issues. We continued this expert referral technique
until the references we received became repetitive. In all, we used our
structured interview guide to interview a nonprobability sample of 44
officials in various agencies and geographic locations.[Footnote 28]
Our sample included officials at various levels within the agencies,
including agency headquarters; Forest Service regional, national
forest, and ranger district offices; Forest Service research
facilities, including regional research stations and the Forest
Products Laboratory; a BLM district office; DOE national laboratories;
and others. Our structured interviews were conducted with officials
from the following departments and agencies:
USDA:
* Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.
* Forest Service (including the National Forest System, Research and
Development, and State and Private Forestry branches).
* Natural Resources Conservation Service.
DOE:
* Golden Field Office.
* National Energy Technology Laboratory.
* National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
* Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (including the
Federal Energy Management Program, the Office of the Biomass Program,
the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program, and the Tribal Energy
Program).
Interior:
* Department of the Interior.
* Bureau of Indian Affairs.
* Bureau of Land Management.
* Fish and Wildlife Service.
* National Park Service.
* U.S. Geological Survey.
Other agencies:
* Environmental Protection Agency.
* National Science Foundation.
* Office of Federal Environmental Executive, Executive Office of the
President.
* Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the
President.
We also contacted officials from the Departments of Commerce and
Transportation, who told us their departments have no activities
related to woody biomass utilization.
Federal Agency Woody Biomass Utilization Activities:
To collect information on federal agency woody biomass utilization
activities, we used our structured interview guide to ask officials to
identify individuals or organizations responsible for biomass
utilization activities within their agencies and to identify other
federal agencies involved in such activities. We also asked them to
provide information about the activities their agencies had under way
as well as policies, strategic plans, and goals related to woody
biomass. We also reviewed agency policies, strategic plans, and other
documents; federal and nonfederal studies regarding technological,
economic, and other issues related to woody biomass utilization; and
pertinent laws and other documents. To corroborate the information we
gathered through interviews, we compared interviewees' responses with
other information we reviewed. Because the documentary evidence we
reviewed generally agreed with the information provided by key agency
officials involved in woody biomass efforts, we believe the data are
sufficiently reliable to be used in providing descriptive information
on federal agency woody biomass utilization activities.
Federal Agency Coordination of Woody Biomass Activities:
To determine how agencies coordinate their woody biomass activities, we
asked officials to provide information on individuals or organizations
responsible for coordinating activities within their agencies and those
responsible for coordinating activities involving other agencies, as
well as on the types of formal and informal activities they undertook.
We also reviewed agency documentation regarding coordination issues,
including draft and final coordinating team charters and notes from
coordinating team meetings. We then compared the information provided
by agency officials with this documentation. Because the documentary
evidence we reviewed generally agreed with the information provided by
key agency officials involved in woody biomass efforts, we believe the
data are sufficiently reliable to be used in providing descriptive
information on agency woody biomass coordination efforts.
Obstacles to Increasing the Use of Woody Biomass:
To obtain information on obstacles that federal agencies face in their
efforts to increase the use of woody biomass, we asked agency officials
to identify and provide their opinions on the major obstacles to
increasing the use of woody biomass, describe agency efforts that
target the obstacles they identified, and discuss additional steps they
believe are necessary to address these obstacles. Because we asked only
for opinions about obstacles to woody biomass utilization and
additional steps needed to overcome them, we made no attempt to
corroborate these responses. To corroborate responses regarding agency
efforts to target the obstacles identified, we compared interviewees'
responses with the documentary evidence we gathered regarding the
agencies' woody biomass utilization activities. Because the documentary
evidence we reviewed generally supported the information provided by
interviewees, we believe the data are sufficiently reliable to be used
in providing information about the extent to which the agencies are
addressing these obstacles.
We performed our work from June 2004 through March 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250:
APR 12 2005:
File Code: 1430:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N. W.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
The Department of Agriculture has reviewed the GAO Report, GAO-05-373,
"Natural Resources: Federal Agencies Are Engaged in Various Efforts to
Promote the Utilization of Woody Biomass, but Significant Obstacles to
its Use Remain." The report recognizes the Forest Service's progress
toward addressing the woody biomass utilization issue and working with
the departments of Interior and Energy from 2004 through 2005. The
report also identifies the Agency's need to develop a stronger
leadership role and strategic plan that defines management goals,
obstacles, corrective actions, responsible parties, and target dates
and resources. It also prioritizes improvement initiatives and provides
additional woody biomass utilization details. The Forest Service
concurs with the audit findings and recommendations.
The Forest Service has created the Staff Directors Biomass Utilization
Steering Committee in its Washington Office. The committee leads are
Chuck Myers, Director, Forest Management, and Ed Gee, Forest
Management. The woody biomass strategic/business plan is being
prepared.
If you have any technical questions regarding this audit, please
contact Ed Gee, Forest Management, at (202) 205-1787. For general
questions regarding the audit, please contact Sandy T. Coleman, Agency
Audit Liaison, at (703) 605-4940.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Mark Rey:
Under Secretary:
Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841;
David P. Bixler, (202) 512-7201:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, James Espinoza, Steve Gaty, Richard
Johnson, and Judy Pagano made key contributions to this report.
(360489):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Although biomass can be considered any sort of organic material--
including trees, grasses, agricultural crops, and animal wastes--the
term woody biomass in this report refers to small-diameter trees and
other traditionally noncommercial material cut as part of thinning,
harvesting, or other activities on forests or rangelands. The term
"woody" is used to distinguish this material from agricultural biomass
such as corn stalks or sugar cane residue.
[2] For more information about the risks and effects of wildland fire,
see GAO, Wildland Fires: Forest Service and BLM Need Better Information
and a Systematic Approach for Assessing the Risks of Environmental
Effects, GAO-04-705 (Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2004).
[3] Fuel reduction efforts are not the only source of this material.
Woody biomass can result from a variety of activities related to
improving or maintaining forest and rangeland health, as well as forest
management activities such as timber harvests. Further, according to
Forest Service officials and others, millions of acres of pine trees in
the southeastern United States face a depressed market because of the
closure of pulp mills. These trees thus constitute another potential
source of woody biomass.
[4] Pub. L. No. 106-224, Title III, 114 Stat. 428, as amended (2000).
[5] The act defined biobased industrial products to include fuels,
chemicals, building materials, electric power, or heat produced from
biomass, but did not specify the type of biomass--agricultural, woody,
or other--to be used.
[6] These groups replaced interagency groups created by Executive Order
13134, "Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy." See
64 Fed. Reg. 44639 (Aug. 16, 1999). Executive Order 13134 directed the
establishment of the Interagency Council on Biobased Products and
Bioenergy, as well as an Advisory Committee on Biobased Products and
Bioenergy, to provide information and advice for consideration by the
council.
[7] Pub. L. No. 107-171, Title IX, 116 Stat. 475 (2002).
[8] Specifically, the statute requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
develop a list of items that are or can be produced with biobased
products and whose procurement by federal agencies will carry out the
statute's objectives. Federal agencies then must generally give
preference to such items composed of the highest percentage of biobased
products practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level
of competition. Procurement preference is to be given to biobased
products for items costing more than $10,000 or "where the quantity of
such items or of functionally equivalent items purchased or acquired in
the course of the preceding fiscal year was $10,000 or more."
[9] The Commodity Credit Corporation is a government-owned corporation
within USDA.
[10] Pub. L. No. 108-148, Title II, 117 Stat. 1901 (2003).
[11] Pub. L. No. 108-357, § 710, 118 Stat. 1552 (2004).
[12] Departments of Agriculture and the Interior and the Western
Governors' Association, A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland
Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: A 10-Year Comprehensive
Strategy (Washington, D.C.; August 2001). Note that the National Fire
Plan is not a single document. Rather, it is composed of several
strategic documents that set forth a priority to reduce wildland fire
risks to communities. The various documents that make up the National
Fire Plan include (1) a September 2000 report from the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior to the President in response to the
wildland fires of 2000, (2) congressional direction accompanying
substantial new appropriations in fiscal year 2001, and (3) several
approved and draft strategies to implement all or parts of the plan.
[13] Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biomass as Feedstock for a
Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a
Billion-Ton Annual Supply (Oak Ridge, Tennessee; April 2005).
[14] The National Association of Conservation Districts is a nonprofit
organization that represents the nation's 3,000 conservation districts-
-local units of government established under state law to carry out
natural resource management programs at the local level.
[15] Renewable energy certificates represent the environmental
attributes of renewable energy generation and can be sold separately
from the underlying commodity electricity. Because the certificates are
sold separately from electricity, they can be purchased from locations
anywhere, enabling organizations to purchase renewable energy even if
their local utility or power marketer does not offer a renewable energy
product. Customers do not need to switch from their current electricity
supplier to purchase certificates, and they can buy certificates based
on any fixed amount of electricity.
[16] Forest Service officials noted that the data do not include grants
made by the Forest Service's Southern Region or Northeast Area Office
because these units did not provide information on their EAP grant
programs.
[17] The Northern and Intermountain Regions administer national forests
and grasslands in all of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and
Utah, and in parts of South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming.
[18] Pub. L. No. 108-447.
[19] CSREES's mission is to advance knowledge for agriculture, the
environment, human health and well-being, and communities by supporting
research, education, and extension programs. CSREES does not perform
actual research, education, and extension, but rather helps fund it at
the state and local level and provides program leadership in these
areas. USDA Rural Development assists rural individuals, communities,
and businesses in obtaining financial and technical assistance to
address their needs.
[20] USDA Forest Service, A Strategic Assessment of Forest Biomass and
Fuel Reduction Treatments in Western States (April 2003).
[21] Although TMU is located at the Forest Products Laboratory, it is
funded by the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry branch--in
contrast to other activities at the laboratory, which are funded by the
Forest Service's Research and Development branch.
[22] A Forest Service official told us that the slash bundler was the
result of a research effort led by the Forest Service's Research and
Development branch.
[23] Western Governors' Association Forest Health Advisory Committee,
Report to the Western Governors on the Implementation of the 10-Year
Comprehensive Strategy (Denver, November 2004).
[24] Officials pointed out that some power plants, particularly in
California, are able to burn woody biomass cost-effectively. However,
these officials stated that this is in part due to economic incentives
offered by the state.
[25] Officials told us that corn is higher in starches, which can be
converted into sugar and then fermented into ethanol. In contrast, wood
contains lower amounts of starch and also contains lignin, which cannot
be converted into ethanol.
[26] Stewardship contracting involves the use of any of several
contracting authorities first authorized in 1998, including the ability
to enter into contracts of up to 10 years in length. For a description
of the agencies' use of stewardship contracting authority, see GAO,
Federal Land Management: Additional Guidance on Community Involvement
Could Enhance Effectiveness of Stewardship Contracting, GAO-04-652
(Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2004).
[27] According to the Database of State Incentives for Renewable
Energy, a DOE-funded project, 19 states and the District of Columbia
had renewable portfolio standards as of February 2005.
[28] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make
inferences about a population, because in a nonprobability sample, some
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown
chance of being selected as part of the sample.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
