table of contents Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

 (QHUJ\

Actions resulting from this FEIS could affect the energy generated from woody biomass. The alternatives presented in this FEIS propose different strategies to deal with accumulations of forest fuels across Sierra Nevada national forests. Each alternative provides direction for conducting fuel treatments to reduce the threat of severe wildland fires. Some treatments include harvesting of small- dimension woody biomass from understory trees and shrubs. Three options are available for using this biomass as an energy source:

• shipping the biomass to electricity-producing cogeneration plants, mostly sited as part of existing timber mills in the Sierra Nevada; • leaving biomass at decks, landings, or along roads for collection by people who hold home fuelwood collection permits for subsistence, personal, or commercial use; and • providing the biomass to businesses that produce stove-pellets.

In the face of future energy shortfalls in California, woody biomass from Sierra Nevada national forests has the capacity, at least during the next two decades, to supply energy via different pathways. Concerns about air quality will play a role in determining socially acceptable methods of energy production and consumption in and near the Sierra Nevada. For a discussion of air quality and its impacts, refer to Part 3.7 “Air Quality” and Part 6.6 “Social Impacts and Environmental Justice” of this chapter.

, $IIHFWHG (QYLURQPHQW A. Energy Production in the Sierra Nevada On-line facilities for energy production in the California portion of the Sierra Nevada supply 19.1 percent of all energy produced in California (California Energy Commission database). The Nevada portion of the Sierra Nevada produces 1.3 percent of Nevada’s energy consumption (Dave McNeil, Nevada State Energy Office, personal communication). The Sierra Nevada region has 276 California facilities and six Nevada facilities. Table 5.9a displays the total production and breakout by source of all energy produced in the Sierra Nevada region.

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 516 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

Table 5.9a. Energy Production Capacity in the Sierra Nevada Region in Megawatts, 1999.

Subregion and Renewable Non-Renewable Total County Oil/Gas/ Biomass Hydropower Wind Geothermal Coal Diesel Sierra-Cascade Axis Butte 18.0 1,152.7 - - - 8.5 1,179.2 Lassen 65.8 26.0 - 2.9 - - 94.7 Plumas 32.0 637.7 - - - 5.7 675.4 Shasta 60.8 813.5 - - - - 874.2 Sierra 10.0 21.3 - - - 0.7 32.0 Siskiyou ------Tehama - 15.6 - - - - 15.6 Subtotal 186.6 2,666.8 - 2.9 - 14.9 2,871.2 Modoc Plateau Modoc ------Gold Country El Dorado - 711.5 - - - - 711.5 Nevada - 124.1 - - - - 124.1 Placer - 424.3 - - - 16.2 440.5 Yuba - 377.0 - - - - 377.0 Subtotal - 1,637.0 - - - 16.2 1,653.2 Carson Range Carson City - - - - - Douglas ------Washoe - 4.0 - 46.4 - - 50.4 Subtotal - 4.0 - 46.4 - - 50.4 Mother Lode Amador 44.1 238.7 - - - 3.0 285.8 Calaveras - 522.7 - - - - 522.7 Mariposa - 102.5 - - - - 102.5 Tuolumne 25.0 1,192.4 - - - - 1,217.4 Subtotal 69.1 2,056.2 - - - 3.0 2,128.3 Southern Sierra Fresno 7.5 2,426.4 - - - - 2,433.9 Kern - 112.1 415.7 - - - 527.8 Madera - 351.7 - - - - 351.7 Tulare - 38.2 - - - 38.2 Subtotal 7.5 2,928.3 415.7 - - - 3,351.5 Eastside Sierra Alpine ------Esmeralda Inyo - 84.1 - - - - 84.1 Mineral Mono - 100.9 - 36.6 - - 137.5 Subtotal - 185.0 - 36.6 - - 221.6

Region Total 263.2 9,477.2 415.7 85.9 - 34.1 10,276.1

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 517 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

Hydropower provides the largest share (92 percent) of energy produced in the Sierra Nevada. Hydropower production is concentrated in three counties: the portions of Butte (Feather River), Fresno (San Joaquin and Kings Rivers), and Tuolumne (Don Pedro Reservoir) Counties in the Sierra Nevada region produce 51 percent the hydropower from the Sierra Nevada. Eastern Shasta County also generates about 885 megawatts of hydropower as part of the Shasta Lake complex. Utility companies export most of the energy produced in the Sierra Nevada region to urban areas in the Central Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Los Angeles Basin.

Wind energy makes a substantial contribution to local energy sources. Tehachapi Pass in Kern County at the far southern end of the Sierra Nevada has numerous “wind farms” that generate power for Southern California Edison Corporation. Small consumer-owned wind projects exist in the Nevada counties of the Sierra Nevada as well. Small amounts of energy sources come from fossil fuel energy plants. Oil fields in Kern County lie just outside the Sierra Nevada region.

The most striking feature of the energy mix produced in the Sierra Nevada region is that 99.7 percent of energy from the Sierra Nevada comes from renewable energy resources.

Hydropower from Water Flowing out of the Sierra Nevada Region One important element to economic and societal functioning of California is the complex of aqueducts, canals, tunnels, and reservoirs outside the Sierra Nevada. This complex transports water from the Sierra Nevada region to population centers of California. Most economic value from this infrastructure comes from water uses for agriculture, other industrial uses, and drinking water. The value of Sierra Nevada water is difficult to estimate accurately as the California water system mixes Sierra Nevada water through the California and Los Angeles aqueducts with waters from the Coast and Transverse ranges and from the Colorado River. This water supply passes through water turbines, particularly at Castaic Lake in northwestern Los Angeles County, to generate additional energy for Californians.

Table 5.9b presents the estimated megawatts produced by the combined waters from the Sierra Nevada, Coast Range, Transverse Range, and Colorado River for areas of California outside the Sierra Nevada. The actual water percentage of contribution from the Sierra Nevada varies annually.

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 518 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

Table 5.9b. Megawatt Capacity of Hydropower Produced from Water Supplies Generated Outside the Sierra Nevada but Originating in Part from Sierra Nevada Rivers, 1999. Hydrologic Region Megawatts San Francisco Bay 0.1 Central Coast 0.1 South Coast 2,078.9 Sacramento 1,161.2 San Joaquin 459.6 Tulare Lake 192.0 Carson-Truckee-Walker 7.8 Total non-Sierra Nevada 3,899.7

Sources:..California Department of Water Resources, the California Energy Commission, Nevada State Energy Office, US Department of Energy

None of the alternatives in this FEIS would change the long-term supply of water from the Sierra Nevada. Models of climate change, notably from the Committee of Concerned Scientists, predict changes in the timing of flows to hydropower facilities – with increased rain runoff in the winter and reduced water flow in summer months. Loss of water for summer hydropower generation may stress an already taxed summer-season power grid for California.

Assuming a price of $0.025 price per kilowatt produced (Stewart 1996), an apportioned value by land area of water as hydropower streaming from national forests per year in the Sierra Nevada region equals approximately 38 percent of projected value. Stewart’s (1996) estimate would mean that hydropower value of national forest water equals at least $235,500,000.

Woody Biomass as Feed Stock for Energy Generation California has the most diverse and extensive biomass energy generation industry in the world. Wood biomass is one component of biomass residues; other sources are agricultural residues, excess animal feeds, municipal solid waste, and urban wood waste. California produces about 60 million tons of waste biomass annually (Sharon Shoemaker, California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, University of California at Davis, pers. comm.). Before 1995, California facilities peaked at 750 megawatts produced from biomass, but production is now down to 550 megawatts. Most of the reduction has come from shutdowns of Central Valley agricultural biomass waste facilities.

Cogeneration at timber mills has remained more stable. In California, forest biomass currently comprises 20 percent of commercially available supplies, or 7.2 million bone dry tons, of all biomass available. Other sources of woody biomass include wood manufacturing residue, chaparral wood, urban lignocellulosic wastes, and orchard wood. Cogeneration facilities at timber mills mainly use sawmill residues (mill chips), but in-woods chips or biomass chipped at a mill site are also feasible in some instances.

Disposal Options for Woody, Non-Timber Biomass This FEIS makes no decision on how to dispose of the woody non-timber biomass generated under each alternative. At the project-level, Forest Service managers must decide how to dispose of forest understory biomass. Costs to the Forest Service depend on labor costs and the practicality of future options for economic uses of small-diameter tree and shrub biomass. Potential benefits, both economic and ecological, to people from harvested small-diameter biomass include: decreased amounts of hazardous woody biomass left on forest floors; reduced risk of fire losses to property in

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 519 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

communities close to national forests; decreased costs of wildland fire suppression over the long term; reduced fire insurance rates for homeowners and business people; reduced carbon emissions into the atmosphere from large, severe wildland fires; improved air quality; greater opportunities for reintroducing fire in forest ecosystems; improved growth of larger trees; more opportunities for diverse employment for rural residents; and decreased dependence on non-renewable energy sources, such as petroleum.

The following sections outline options and the potential role of the Forest Service in managing small- diameter biomass resources. An issue for Forest Service ecosystem managers in the Sierra Nevada, as well as elsewhere in the American West, is how to reduce the costs, and indeed if possible, derive economic benefit from woody biomass. In particular, this FEIS explores different options for reducing excessive fuel loads in Sierra Nevada national forests. Requirements of healthy ecosystem and needs of people in forest-based communities prompt the Forest Service to respond with management choices tailored to specific sites.

Deferring Fuels Treatments. Not taking steps to reduce forest fuels is one option; however, inaction may increase the number of large fires that can have severe effects on ecosystem structure and function. The U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory has estimated that forest biomass is worth between $0.107 and $0.114 per kilowatt hour generated (Greg Morris, personal communication); most of this value accrues from avoiding catastrophic wildland fires, air pollution, and use of landfills. These latter benefits are not just energy-related benefits but also include the value of improvements to air quality, public safety, and public health.

Prescribed Fire. Another option for the Forest Service is to manage wildfires or initiate prescribed fires to reduce fuel loads. This option may reduce understory fuels, but the risk of a managed fire escaping and becoming a crown canopy fire is high when a forest has extensive ladder fuels and continuous fuels near the ground. Often a manual or mechanical treatment of brush or chaparral, understory shrubs, and small-dimension trees can reduce fuel loads and remove ladder fuels in advance of a prescribed fire.

Mechanical Treatments. The Forest Service can also mechanically treat forest stands by cutting merchantable or non-merchantable trees. Leaving tree stems, branches, and foliage lopped and scattered on the ground is another option of disposal; this method allows the excess biomass to slowly decompose on the forest floor. Such a practice would eventually increase the soil organic matter, and enhance forest soil fertility. However, risk of increased flammability from ground fuels remains for some years after the treatment. Another option is to have Forest Service employees or contractors pile and burn on-site the wood biomass that is not merchantable as timber. This practice may create local air-quality problems from smoke particulates and cause health injuries to people overseeing the pile burning.

Commercial Uses of Woody, Non-Timber Biomass Woody biomass has numerous commercial uses. One challenge to the Forest Service is to maximize the socio-economic utility of woody biomass while also providing more difficult to quantify social benefits from protected air quality, lowered risk of property and resource losses, greater human safety, and more naturally functioning ecosystems. The following sections describe: past commercial woody biomass harvests in Sierra Nevada national forests and existing or planned technological advances and infrastructure changes for economic uses of woody biomass.

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 520 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

National Forest Fuelwood Sales in the Sierra Nevada, Calendar Years 1990 to 1999 One traditional use for small-dimension woody biomass is home fuelwood. Fuelwood comes largely from down wood, standing dead trees, or dead branches on trees. Sometimes local residents can glean residues from timber sales at landings or in slash piles. Most fuelwood gathered from the national forests is from conifer species. Table 5.9d presents the volumes of firewood recorded in Forest Service Cut and Sold Reports for the calendar years 1990 through 1999. It is likely that the amounts of reported fuelwood gathered in the Sierra Nevada national forests are conservative because of unreported or illicit fuelwood gathering.

Volumes of recorded fuelwood sales and sale receipts have dropped off considerably since 1995. The Lassen National Forest was by far the highest and most consistent fuelwood producer in the region during the period, but the greatest value of receipts from fuelwood sales came from the Inyo National Forest (Table 5.9e).

Table 5.9d. Fuelwood, Sold from Sierra Nevada National Forests, in Bone Dry Tons, Calendar Years 1990 to 1999. National Forest 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Eldorado 18,083 18,793 14,498 15,305 13,698 14,465 10,728 8,458 7,723 7,933 Inyo 14,378 10,930 12,763 12,270 8,473 11,810 6,905 9,853 7,980 8,210 Lassen 22,973 24,598 18,123 47,975 16,390 24,230 19,260 21,208 23,558 26,415 Modoc 6,740 7,530 6,625 7,003 5,295 6,198 4,413 5,185 4,443 4,333 Plumas 18,223 22,448 16,955 20,375 14,390 21,013 12,425 10,660 7,953 6,770 Sequoia 7,245 10,108 9,905 8,295 7,293 8,020 5,015 5,223 6,058 6,093 Sierra 12,360 13,690 11,143 12,670 11,310 15,263 9,450 10,568 11,715 10,255 Stanislaus 12,028 15,793 17,750 15,155 16,528 20,963 10,708 10,918 10,160 9,395 Tahoe 8,008 6,283 6,450 7,180 5,438 9,790 5,738 4,650 5,673 5,793 LTBMU - 8,383 2,888 4,688 2,223 - - 2,660 - - Humboldt-Toiyabe - 4,638 4,731 4,318 4,874 - - 3,753 - - TOTAL 125,393 143,190 121,828 155,233 105,909 133,613 86,080 93,133 88,075 86,905

Source: USDA Forest Service, Regions 4 and 5 Cut and Sold Reports, assuming one thousand board feet equals 2.5 bone dry tons (Brian Stone, US Forest Service, Region 5, pers. comm.)

Table 5.9e. Receipts from Fuelwood Sold from Sierra Nevada National Forests in 1995 Dollars, Calendar Years 1990 to 1999. National Forest 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Eldorado 151,998 143,071 101,720 108,968 119,787 73,084 58,146 47,238 28,165 23,251 Inyo 158,513 87,246 142,777 128,368 95,370 143,373 79,726 117,314 90,369 103,500 Lassen 74,531 73,025 53,217 93,693 67,934 99,400 86,231 92,485 86,734 58,163 Modoc 5,527 5,504 5,215 5,563 4,347 25,021 19,491 21,798 16,707 16,552 Plumas 77,330 90,069 61,632 81,302 59,132 89,110 56,384 45,492 35,083 25,291 Sequoia 41,724 53,370 81,645 68,408 57,774 64,154 45,132 37,270 45,523 44,990 Sierra 31,940 29,440 25,818 33,768 25,962 62,006 43,421 46,439 47,005 44,272 Stanislaus 44,186 53,480 62,204 50,255 75,951 78,347 24,298 66,202 52,088 59,777 Tahoe 11,577 9,721 18,960 40,266 32,501 32,277 20,970 22,968 21,575 22,551 LTBMU 41,802 84,213 20,531 38,258 16,622 17,737 14,775 34,049 32,654 19,857 Humboldt-Toiyabe - 24,873 31,358 28,100 24,111 - - 18,219 - - TOTAL 639,129 654,013 605,078 676,951 579,491 684,509 448,574 549,474 455,902 418,204

Source: USDA Forest Service, Regions 4 and 5 Cut and Sold Reports

The Forest Service is currently developing important information about fuelwood collection. Since March 1999, each national forest has been maintaining a database of its fuelwood collection permits.

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 521 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

Spatial analysis of home fuelwood use is discussed in Part 6.6 “Social Impacts and Environmental Justice.”

Demand for fuelwood for home heating is high in many Sierra Nevada communities. Changes in amounts of fuelwood made available to the public may affect how easily people can heat their homes or indirectly affect air pollution levels resulting from home fuelwood use. Producing, collecting, and distributing fuelwood may offer job opportunities for entrepreneurs in Sierra Nevada communities.

For many communities, especially those communities where many households rely on firewood for home heating, an available supply of fuelwood makes year-round living possible and affordable in the Sierra Nevada. However, particularly in the winter, inefficient and fireplaces and wood-burning stoves, may cumulatively worsen air quality in communities, damage people’s health, and increase healthcare costs. Part 6.6 “Social Impacts and Environmental Justice” of this chapter discusses in greater detail the costs and benefits of using conifer home fuelwood from Sierra Nevada national forests.

National Forest Biomass Sales, Calendar Years 1990 to 1999 In recent years, harvests of biomass from public lands have been much smaller than similar harvests from private forest lands in the Sierra Nevada Region – averaging about one-half to one-third the annual amount taken from private lands (data from the California Board of Equalization on file at the Sierra Nevada Framework Project Office, Sacramento, CA).

Table 5.9f shows the distribution of woody biomass (convertible wood products and excelsior) sold from Sierra Nevada national forests. (Forest Service Cut and Sold Reports have traditionally documented wood biomass sales as excelsior products or as “convertible” wood products, that is to say, products that cannot substitute for timber volumes. Since 1999, however, the Forest Service also lists wood biomass as a separately defined category.) The Lassen and Plumas National Forests have been the largest producers of in-woods chips. Outside the Sierra-Cascade Axis subregion, only the Modoc and Stanislaus National Forests have been significant producers of commercial biomass. The commercial value from non-timber woody biomass (Table 5.9g) has fluctuated year to year, reflecting changing biomass demand. The Inyo, Humboldt-Toiyabe, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests have produced the small amounts of merchantable biomass in the past decade. Low production in the Southern Sierra and Eastside Sierra subregions is coupled with the difficulty of establishing profitable forest biomass cogeneration facilities. One difficulty may be the lack of assured biomass supplies for energy production in these subregions where the US Forest Service manages by far the largest share of the forested landbase.

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 522 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

Table 5.9f. Commercial Non-Timber Woody Biomass Produced from Sierra Nevada Region National Forests in Bone Dry Tons, Calendar Years 1990-1999.

National Forest 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Eldorado - - 3,225 393 - - 15 2,205 8,500 - Inyo - - - 25 ------Lassen 34,248 10,543 1,010,404 177,366 2,321 131,549 34,064 111,123 74,597 73,765 Modoc 2,645 495 6 2,959 73,906 68,109 17,105 35,756 14,664 2,500 Plumas 18,485 8,680 76,628 13,632 22,586 30,144 34,724 40,956 50,027 26,682 Sequoia - - - 1,188 ------Sierra 3 6 8 2,625 - 7,771 775 2,538 406 - Stanislaus 9,665 13,043 26,030 7,939 1,615 17,742 16,028 12,635 1,320 4,818 Tahoe - 55 9,582 35,851 - 55,748 80,413 23,242 3,703 17,324 LTBMU - - - - 6,875 - - 3 - - Humboldt-Toiyabe ------TOTAL 65,047 32,821 1,125,883 241,977 107,303 323,238 183,174 228,457 157,931 125,126

Source: USDA Forest Service, Regions 4 and 5 Cut and Sold Reports

Table 5.9g. The Value of Commercially Produced Non-Timber Woody Biomass Produced from Sierra Nevada Region National Forests in 1995 dollars, Calendar Years 1990-1999 National Forest 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Eldorado - - 60,830 2,168 - - 8 853 160 51 Inyo - - - 39.88 ------Lassen 177,769 273,454 634,255 1,892,811 445 2,223,705 378,358 1,978,985 1,294,213 1,156,672 Modoc 1,128 649 43 1,770 1,227,830 4,256,966 292,629 234,021 184,912 1,195 Plumas 16,901 11,782 1,668,464 277,914 424,939 672,079 180,938 285,726 523,518 283,150 Sequoia - - - 237 ------Sierra 11 20 26 1,369 - 302,805 38,627 14,648 199 - Stanislaus 2,648 38,245 604,876 727,920 1,177 21,845 12,697 6,141 565 2,048 Tahoe - 217 118,999 719,487 - 799,148 186,147 19,833 2,653 19,251 LTBMU - - - - 2,726 16,412 262 43 88,883 242 Humboldt-Toiyabe ------TOTAL 198,457 324,366 3,087,494 3,623,716 1,657,116 8,292,961 1,089,666 2,540,250 2,095,103 1,462,609

Source: USDA Forest Service, Regions 4 and 5 Cut and Sold Reports

Woods-produced fuel chips, or “woody biomass” harvests, do not substitute in the marketplace for “clean” wood chips, which are produced in lumber mills when wood is sawn into lumber. Many cogeneration facilities are adjacent to or part of lumber mills in the region. These facilities serve to dispose of clean chips because there are no chip mills in the Sierra Nevada region. Table 5.9h lists the cogeneration facilities in Sierra Nevada Region counties using or capable of using either clean chips or in-woods chips for energy cogeneration. Most wood biomass cogeneration takes place in the Sierra-Cascade Axis subregion. The Modoc Plateau, Carson Range, and Eastside Sierra subregions have no cogeneration facilities.

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 523 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

Table 5.9h. Biomass Power Plants Using Forest Wood Waste in the Sierra Nevada Region, 2000. Subregion Cogeneration Plants County Community Number of Capacity (in Megawatts) Associated with Facilities Current Full Lumber Mills Sierra-Cascade Axis Butte Oroville 1 18 18 No Lassen Bieber 1 5 7.5 Yes Susanville 1 10 15 Yes Wendel 1 30 35 No Westwood 1 10.5 11.5 No Plumas Chester 1 12 12 Yes Quincy 1 20 27.5 Yes Shasta Anderson 3 62.8 152.9 yes Burney 3 55.8 62 yes Sierra Loyalton 1 10 20 Yes Subtotal 14 234.1 361.4 Gold Country Placer Lincoln 1 8 11 Yes Rocklin 1 25 ? Subtotal 2 33 11 Mother Lode Amador Ione 1 ? 18 Martell 2 27 38 yes Tuolumne Jamestown 1 22 25.4 No Sonora 1 3 3 yes Subtotal 5 52 84.4 Southern Sierra Fresno Auberry 1 7.5 9 No Rio Bravo 1 25 ? No Tulare Terra Bella 1 Closed 9.3 Yes Subtotal 3 32.5 18.3

Sierra Nevada Region Total 24 351.6 475.1 530.2

Source: California Biomass Energy Alliance, California Energy Commission

Other facilities in Sierra Nevada Region counties that currently use only orchard wood waste are located in Delano (Kern County) and Mendota (Fresno County). Other facilities near the Sierra Nevada are in Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Yolo Counties.

Most facilities in the Sierra-Cascade subregion rely on wood biomass no more than 50 miles distant from a power plant. If transportation costs are comparatively high, commercially feasible biomass may drop to as low as 30 miles trucking distance. This constraint can limit the ability of the Forest Service to dispose of wood biomass via shipping to cogeneration plants, particularly in the Southern Sierra and Eastside Sierra subregions.

New Options for Economic Uses for Small-Diameter Forest Trees and Shrubs Discussion of future uses of non-timber woody biomass produced from mechanical fuel-reduction and other treatments must include information about emerging or advancing technologies and the policies implemented or likely to be implemented in the coming decade. The following subsections describe some of the policy instruments, programs, and key State and Federal government agencies that are working to diversify sources of sustainable energy from multiple products. Predicting the ultimate outcome of uses for forest biomass is difficult given the fluid policy environment and rapid technological advances in chemical engineering for new products from woody biomass.

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 524 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

Government Partnerships Public agencies and non-governmental organizations have formed partnerships to incubate new industries in the Sierra Nevada region that use small-diameter trees. These agencies include the Sierra Economic Development District, the USDA Rural Development Service, the Forest Service, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and the University of California Forest Products Laboratory.

The Western Regional Biomass Energy Program is one of five regional biomass energy programs established and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. Thirteen states, including Nevada and California, participate. The program promotes the use of biomass for energy production. One project within the Sierra Nevada region has received funding since 1998: a grant to the Nevada Tahoe Conservation District in Stateline (South Lake Tahoe) to complement matching funds to facilitate using forest biomass from the Lake Tahoe Basin to produce electricity at a power plant in Loyalton, CA.

The California Energy Commission is supporting a biomass project in Anderson, Shasta County, CA, over a 5-year period with subsidies of $0.0135 per kilowatt hour to use biomass from wood chips, agricultural residues, and residential garden clippings. Other Federal and State agencies have been developing means of alternative energy generation by arranging for new or unconventional technologies using biomass to heat and generate electricity for public buildings.

Status of Industry Technology for Utilizing Small-Diameter Trees for Energy This section draws on technology and product summaries presented in Shelly et al. (1998). The authors point out that high capital investments are needed to develop the technology for producing composite or remanufactured wood products and for producing ethanol. Communities or individual entrepreneurs without access to considerable capital or new technology can, however, use small- diameter trees for local industries to produce densified fuels, round timber, and furniture stock.

Ethanol Production The Federal Clean Air Act requires that petroleum companies use oxygenates in gasoline during winter months. Oxygenates reduce automobile emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. In California, the preferred oxygenate additive until recently has been methyl tert- butyl ether (MTBE). The governor of California's executive order of March 23, 1999, phases out industrial use of MTBE in California as a gasoline oxygenate at the end of 2001 because scientists have found MTBE to be toxic and present in groundwater. Ethanol, or wood alcohol, is an alternative oxygenate believed to have none of the toxic properties of MTBE.

Traditionally, corn biomass from the Midwest has furnished commercial quantities of ethanol through fermentation. Other sources source of ethanol have included sugarcane waste. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO, has proposed designs and cost estimates for six sites in the Sierra Nevada (Quincy Library Group et al. 1997) to convert existing wood biomass cogeneration plants into ethanol factories. Woody biomass from small-dimension trees removed from Sierra Nevada National Forests could comprise the major portion of feedstocks for ethanol production in the Sierra Nevada. Even without the planned phase-out of MTBE, current production of ethanol in California does not meet statewide demand. To substitute MTBE with ethanol, California will require one-third of the 1.6 billion gallons of ethanol produced annually in the United States (Pat Perez, California Energy Commission, personal communication). The facilities needed to meet

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 525 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

demands for ethanol in California after 2002 are inadequate, and the annual state production of 60 million tons per year of biomass is also inadequate. Midwestern suppliers would have to ship ethanol produced from corn waste to California to cover statewide needs for winter gasoline; shortfalls would be likely.

One bone dry ton (bd ton) of woody biomass yields an average of 56 gallons of ethanol (George Craig, HFTA). A steady supply of biomass from forest operations would be necessary to keep production economically profitable. Cost of producing a bt ton of biomass ranges from averages $40 for shearing, skidding, chipping in the woods, plus transportation for 50 miles. Other factors affecting cost are site topography, stand density, and size of work area (Quincy Library Group et al). Transport costs depend on road accessibility and distance from an ethanol facility. Transport can often be the make-or-break factor for financial feasibility.

Two plants within the Sierra Nevada Region counties are slated for completion soon: in 2001 at Gridley, CA (Butte County), using principally rice stubble, and in 2003 at Chester, CA (Plumas County), using wood biomass. The Chester facility will attempt biomass energy production through both ethanol and cogeneration. A biomass facility costs from $5 to $150 million to set up. Constructing and operating a biomass facility based on wood biomass feedstock requires forethought and cooperation. Ample lead-time is necessary to assess feasibility, organize capital, and arrange for steady feedstock supplies from public and private forestland.

The United States produces 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol annually (Front Range Coalition 1998). Fifty production facilities exist nationally and operate as corporations, farmer-owned cooperatives, and private ventures. (Department of Energy 1999). These facilities create 40,000 jobs and generate one billion dollars to national incomes. The USDA estimates that annual national production of ethanol will soon amount to 5 billion gallons of ethanol, creating about 108,000 jobs, concentrated in rural areas, mostly in the Midwest. Shehan (1997) estimated that an ethanol facility attached to an existing cogeneration mill would produce 15 million gallons of ethanol and 28 jobs at a biomass electricity plant in addition to temporary construction jobs. Roughly, one full-time woods job is created for each 2,400 bd tons of biomass delivered on site.

Biofuel Cogeneration Presently, price supports from the State of California make cogeneration a part of a state strategy to diversify sources of energy generation in the event of price shocks from suddenly rising fuel prices. Woods workers may chip small-diameter trees and transport "in-woods" chips to a biomass plant to generate electricity. In 1994, 37 cogeneration plants in California used 8.5 million tons of biomass. Closures or shutdowns followed beginning in 1995, as cost of renewable feedstock biomass at $0.13 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) could not compete with non-renewable fossil fuels such as natural gas at $0.025 per kwh (Shelly and Lubin 1995). Many plants operate intermittently in response to changing prices for woody biomass products, such as in-woods chips, sawdust, orchard wood waste, and urban wood waste.

In Scandinavia and Canada, woody biomass from small-diameter trees or shrubs directly supplies so- called "mini-district heating" systems for one or more buildings. A back-up system link to conventional power sources is frequently necessary in the event of foul weather preventing delivery or stockpiling woody biomass. McCallum (1997) has described community-based cooperative efforts to supply heating in Canada. To make these systems work, rural communities may need to adopt new technology as well as new forms of community cooperation for securing sustainable supplies of wood

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 526 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

biomass.

Gasification Gasification, or thermochemical processing, of wood produces only half the energy content of natural gas. In addition, gasification may generate toxic or carcinogenic compounds. One advantage is that juvenile wood is suitable for gasification products.

Densification Densified wood products include manufactured fireplace logs, briquettes, and fuel pellets. Densification reduces volume of woody material by 75 percent and makes transportation of fuels more economical. Comparatively high production costs for densified products make them best suited in areas where energy costs are high. Minimum capacity for a profitable plant operations would require at least 40,000 tons annually.

,, (QYLURQPHQWDO &RQVHTXHQFHV Projected Biomass Outputs Tables 5.9i and 5.9j depict the volume in bone-dry tons of the woody non-timber biomass generated from Sierra Nevada national forest harvests, including mechanical treatments for reducing understory fuel loads.

Table 5.9i. The Annual Production of Biomass in bone Dry Tons for the First Decade, 2001- 2010. National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8 Mod. 8 Eldorado 29,574 3,872 53,516 54,113 12,304 35,775 116,707 19,223 38,189 Inyo 3,269 637 4,376 3,013 931 741 13,878 3,351 2,144 Lassen 118,968 23,254 32,070 94,379 33,173 52,820 72,617 37,599 46,594 Modoc 61,254 4,113 11,135 71,326 28,305 2,664 70,286 3,816 24,124 Plumas 123,023 7,770 32,666 125,141 29,888 43,067 66,456 31,760 59,614 Sequoia 26,894 102 43,906 66,173 10,513 41,427 79,799 12,310 43,530 Sierra 39,976 6,002 17,066 56,636 11,918 34,234 124,738 23,428 48,897 Stanislaus 20,998 4,378 19,777 60,090 30,158 29,620 67,078 17,435 44,741 Tahoe 125,139 14,075 25,059 79,501 15,247 45,155 42,691 19,697 46,518 LTBMU 497 238 186 1,986 240 1,102 7,140 500 2,778 Humboldt-Toiyabe 5,989 2,038 3,511 7,955 4,553 4,171 6,175 3,319 564 TOTAL 555,582 66,480 243,267 620,314 177,229 290,775 667,565 172,438 357,693

Source: SPECTRUM model analyses

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 527 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

Table 5.9j. The Annual Production of Biomass in Bone Dry Tons for the Second Decade, 2011-2020. National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8 Mod. 8 Eldorado 35,329 8,733 70,039 103,106 13,966 39,691 55,213 30,304 23,880 Inyo 2,375 591 2,591 4,609 1,822 4,224 4,396 562 548 Lassen 33,884 19,266 17,573 52,974 23,802 34,906 14,676 24,671 35,630 Modoc 47,983 2,781 10,259 54,991 33,535 30,279 100,065 13,682 14,343 Plumas 80,715 32,630 68,717 89,726 40,853 57,297 21,797 49,031 60,903 Sequoia 10,279 321 26,545 67,071 14,147 44,725 112,405 10,720 26,038 Sierra 33,300 5,973 68,706 144,478 17,396 67,176 128,157 33,014 66,308 Stanislaus 64,182 4,849 29,646 56,791 31,682 22,604 48,226 27,581 27,868 Tahoe 79,856 15,338 78,740 105,511 30,247 69,337 60,821 62,296 52,508 LTBMU 746 204 124 5,318 353 1,077 9,024 355 922 Humboldt-Toiyabe 11,766 3,403 4,965 1,282 2,773 3,354 265 517 73

TOTAL 400,414 94,090 377,905 685,856 210,575 374,669 555,046 252,732 309,020

Source: SPECTRUM model analyses

Table 5.9k shows the annualized number of bone dry tons made available to citizens registering for personal use and subsistence firewood permits in the Sierra Nevada national forests between March 1999 and October 2000. Where the amount of biomass harvest projected for a national forest in table 5.9i exceeds the firewood harvests for personal and subsistence use in Table 5.9k, the excess amount of biomass available for energy generation in biomass power plants appears in tables 5.9l through 5.9m. Where projected biomass for a national forest does not equal personal use quantities, no biomass is identified as being available for energy production at power plants.

Table 5.9k. Annualized Amounts of Personal Use and Subsistence Firewood in Bone Dry Tons Made Available in Sierra Nevada National Forests for Holders of Firewood Collection Permits for the Period March 1999 to October 2000.

National Forest Bone Dry Tons

Eldorad 6,704 Inyo 7,387 Lassen 25,640 Modoc 3,898 Plumas 7,501 Sequoia 6,369 Sierra 10,847 Stanislaus 7,686 Tahoe 5,065 LTBMU 2,215 Humboldt-Toiyabe 4,361 TOTAL 87,673

Source: ORACLE queries to national forest firewood permit databases in Forest Service Regions 4 and 5

The economic analysis in this FEIS assumes that the Forest Service would continue to supply wood biomass as home fuelwood at 1999/2000 quantities; remaining biomass would go to power generation facilities to burn if the biomass is within economically feasible reach of a facility. Use of biomass for energy generation at a power plant would depend on travel cost to acquire supplies. Tables 5.9l through 5.9m display approximate biomass quantities that energy producing firms would access if market prices, or a combination of market prices plus subsidies, supported costs of labor for

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 528 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9 producing and trucking woody biomass from treated stands in national forests at 30-, 40-, and 50-mile radii from the existing energy cogeneration facilities listed in Table 5.9h. In each case, volumes available for biomass energy generation already account for amounts of biomass removed for home fuelwood use.

Alternatives 1, 4, and 7 would produce the most biomass and alternative 2 the least.

Table 5.9l. Estimated Woody Biomass in Bone Dry Tons Available for Biomass Energy Generation, Assuming a 30-mile radius of feasible access from existing biomass power plants. National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8 Mod. 8 Eldorado 5,803 - 11,878 12,029 1,421 7,376 27,911 3,176 7,989 Inyo ------Lassen 93,328 - 6,430 68,739 7,532 27,179 46,977 11,959 20,953 Modoc 14,657 55 1,849 17,231 4,909 - 16,965 - 5,169 Plumas 115,523 270 25,165 117,640 22,387 35,566 58,955 24,259 52,114 Sequoia 5,457 - 9,980 15,900 1,102 9,321 19,522 1,580 9,880 Sierra 22,961 - 4,902 36,093 844 18,435 89,774 9,917 29,993 Stanislaus 8,678 - 8,067 34,160 14,648 14,298 38,715 6,355 24,155 Tahoe 75,152 5,639 12,514 46,588 6,373 25,092 23,550 9,158 25,945 LTBMU ------76 - 9 Humboldt-Toiyabe 131 - - 295 - - 169 - - TOTAL 341,690 5,964 80,784 348,676 59,217 137,266 322,616 66,404 176,205

Table 5.9m. Estimated Woody Biomass in Bone Dry Tons Available for Biomass Energy Generation, Assuming a 40-mile Radius of Feasible Access from Existing Biomass Power Plants. National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8 Mod. 8 Eldorado 14,094 - 28,850 29,218 3,451 17,916 67,794 7,715 19,404 Inyo ------Lassen 93,328 - 6,430 68,739 7,532 27,179 46,977 11,959 20,953 Modoc 24,917 93 3,144 29,293 8,346 - 28,841 - 8,787 Plumas 115,523 270 25,165 117,640 22,387 35,566 58,955 24,259 52,114 Sequoia 14,097 - 25,782 41,076 2,846 24,079 50,435 4,081 25,524 Sierra 28,797 - 6,148 45,268 1,059 23,120 112,593 12,438 37,616 Stanislaus 12,284 - 11,419 48,357 20,736 20,240 54,806 8,996 34,193 Tahoe 114,464 8,589 19,060 70,958 9,707 38,217 35,868 13,949 39,517 LTBMU ------1,274 - 146 Humboldt-Toiyabe 548 187 321 733 332 382 591 304 52 TOTAL 418,052 9,139 126,319 451,282 76,396 186,700 458,134 83,700 238,305

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 529 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

Table 5.9n. Estimated Woody Biomass in Bone Dry Tons Available for Biomass Energy Generation, Assuming a 50-mile Radius of Feasible Access from Existing Biomass Power Plants National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8 Mod. 8 Eldorado 22,678 - 46,421 47,013 5,553 28,827 109,083 12,414 31,221 Inyo ------262 - - Lassen 93,328 - 6,430 68,739 7,532 27,179 46,977 11,959 20,953 Modoc 39,854 149 5,029 46,853 13,349 - 46,130 - 14,054 Plumas 115,523 270 25,165 117,640 22,387 35,566 58,955 24,259 52,114 Sequoia 19,455 - 35,580 56,686 3,928 33,230 69,602 5,632 35,224 Sierra 29,130 - 6,219 45,790 1,071 23,387 113,892 12,581 38,050 Stanislaus 13,312 - 12,375 52,403 22,472 21,934 59,392 9,749 37,055 Tahoe 120,075 9,010 19,994 74,436 10,182 40,090 37,626 14,632 41,454 LTBMU ------2,646 - 303 Humboldt-Toiyabe 878 299 515 1,175 532 611 946 486 83 TOTAL 454,231 9,728 157,727 510,735 87,006 210,825 545,512 91,713 270,510

Estimating energy output from woody biomass harvested in Sierra Nevada national forests requires assumptions about production. Claggett and Wolfe Associates (1998) estimated that one pound of bone dry wood used for biomass energy production yields on average 6,070 British thermal units (BTUs). A more conservative yield of 5,000 BTUs applies here to account for the diverse mix of tree species, added bark materials, and wood quality. This yield extrapolates to 2.93 megawatts per bone dry ton. At a rate of $0.025 per kilowatt, one bone dry ton- produces $73.25 of energy.

The range of energy production by national forest by alternative also depends on the effective access distance from existing power plants using woody biomass. Tables 5.9o and 5.9p respectively show the range of monetary value of energy produced from timber harvested in Sierra Nevada national forests at 30- and 50-mile radii from power plants. The total (direct, indirect, and induced) amounts of wages and numbers of jobs generated from energy produced at wood biomass plants under low and high scenarios follow in tables 5.9q through 5.9t. Estimates come from the model IMPLAN, Version 2.0.

When a 30-mile radius determines the economic use area for national forest biomass for energy production, considerable areas of national forest lands (outside of wilderness areas) lie beyond the radius. More than half of the Eldorado, Inyo, Modoc, Sequoia, Lake Tahoe Basin, and Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forests remain outside the feasible-use area. Forests such as the Lassen and Plumas National Forests are easily accessible to biomass cogeneration facilities, however. These facilities are disproportionately located in the Sierra-Cascade Axis subregion.

Increasing the feasible haul distance to 50-miles allows more than two-thirds of available land area (that is, outside of wilderness areas) of Sierra Nevada national forests to be within haul distance for biomass power plants, except for the Inyo, Lake Tahoe Basin, and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests. This analysis assumes that energy prices are higher than modeled or that a policy decision implements subsidies to cover costs of small-dimension timber extraction for biomass supplies and (1) that the Delano (Kern County) biomass facility can retool to use forest biomass and (2) that the Terra Bella (Tulare County) biomass plant reopens. Otherwise, accessing biomass from the Southern Sierra for use in cogeneration plants, and particularly the Sequoia National Forest, would be difficult to accomplish. Another technical challenge in retooling for increasing capacity is the high likelihood of mixed species and high bark content in Forest Service biomass supplies to biomass energy facilities (Shelley et al. 2000).

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 530 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

Currently, under provisions of the Lake Tahoe Presidential Deliverables, the Nevada State Energy Office works with the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit to remove both green and salvage biomass from the Basin to accomplish management objectives for reducing risk of intense fires and for improving the scenic quality of forests in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Biomass extracted thus far has gone to facilities in the westside Sierra Nevada foothills of Amador County, California, well beyond the 30-mile haul distance.

The Humboldt-Toiyabe and Inyo National Forests are not easily accessible by the current network of power plants using woody biomass. However, community needs for home fuelwood, particularly in the Mono and Inyo Counties, already exceed the projected biomass amounts for these two national forests under most alternatives. Expanding fuelwood sales for domestic use may help to dispose of harvested woody biomass from overly dense forest stands. Currently, many residents from Inyo and Mono counties are applying for fuelwood permits from the Sequoia National Forest as well. The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest has inititated a program to sell large quantities of biomass to Nevada State agencies and horticultural firms among others. In addition, the Sierra Nevada portions of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest supply fuelwood to Sierra Nevada residents and residents in urban centers of Carson City and Douglas, Washoe, and Lyon counties in Nevada

Although energy produced has high value, comparatively few jobs stem from energy cogeneration, largely due to the labor-saving efficiencies inherent in energy production. Alternatives 1, 4, and 7 produce the most jobs and wages of all the alternatives and alternative 2 the least.

Table 5.9o. Projected Value from Energy Produced from National Forest Woody Biomass, Obtained Within a 30-Mile Radius of Power Plants, in Thousands of 1995 Dollars. National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8 Mod. 8 Eldorado 410 - 838 849 100 521 1,970 224 564 Inyo ------Lassen 6,587 - 454 4,852 532 1,918 3,316 844 1,479 Modoc 1,035 4 131 1,216 347 - 1,197 - 365 Plumas 8,154 19 1,776 8,304 1,580 2,510 4,161 1,712 3,678 Sequoia 385 - 704 1,122 78 658 1,378 111 697 Sierra 1,621 - 346 2,548 60 1,301 6,337 700 2,117 Stanislaus 613 - 569 2,411 1,034 1,009 2,733 449 1,705 Tahoe 5,305 398 883 3,288 450 1,771 1,662 646 1,831 LTBMU ------5 - 1 Humboldt-Toiyabe 9 - - 21 - - 12 - - TOTAL 24,118 421 5,702 24,611 4,180 9,689 22,772 4,687 12,437

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 531 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

Table 5.9p. Projected Value of Energy Produced from National Forest Woody Biomass, Obtained Within a 50-Mile Radius of Power Plants, in Thousands of 1995 Dollars National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8 Mod. 8 Eldorado 1,601 - 3,277 3,318 392 2,035 7,700 876 2,204 Inyo ------19 - - Lassen 6,587 - 454 4,852 532 1,918 3,316 844 1,479 Modoc 2,813 11 355 3,307 942 - 3,256 - 992 Plumas 8,154 19 1,776 8,304 1,580 2,510 4,161 1,712 3,678 Sequoia 1,373 - 2,511 4,001 277 2,346 4,913 397 2,486 Sierra 2,056 - 439 3,232 76 1,651 8,039 888 2,686 Stanislaus 940 - 873 3,699 1,586 1,548 4,192 688 2,615 Tahoe 8,475 636 1,411 5,254 719 2,830 2,656 1,033 2,926 LTBMU ------187 - 21 Humboldt-Toiyabe 62 21 36 83 38 43 67 34 6 TOTAL 32,062 687 11,133 36,050 6,141 14,881 38,505 6,473 19,094

Table 5.9q. Projected Employee Wages for Producing Energy from National Forest Woody Biomass, Obtained Within a 30-Mile Radius of Power Plants, 1995 Dollars National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8 Mod. 8 Eldorado 8,799 - 18,011 18,241 2,155 11,185 42,324 4,817 12,114 Inyo ------Lassen 138,393 - 9,534 101,931 11,169 40,303 69,661 17,733 31,071 Modoc 13,599 51 1,716 15,987 4,555 - 15,740 - 4,795 Plumas 160,120 374 34,880 163,055 31,029 49,297 81,715 33,625 72,232 Sequoia 8,513 - 15,569 24,805 1,719 14,541 30,457 2,464 15,413 Sierra 33,460 - 7,144 52,596 1,230 26,863 130,821 14,451 43,707 Stanislaus 9,721 - 9,037 38,267 16,410 16,017 43,370 7,119 27,059 Tahoe 115,384 8,658 19,213 71,529 9,785 38,524 36,156 14,061 39,834 LTBMU ------149 - 17 Humboldt-Toiyabe 133 - - 299 - - 171 - - TOTAL 488,121 9,083 115,104 486,709 78,051 196,730 450,564 94,270 246,242

Source: IMPLAN Professional Version 2.0

Table 5.9r. Projected Jobs for Producing Energy from National Forest Woody Biomass, Obtained Within a 30-Mile Radius of Power Plants National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8 Mod. 8 Eldorado 0 - 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 Inyo ------Lassen 6 - 0 5 1 2 3 1 1 Modoc 1 0 0 1 0 - 1 - 0 Plumas 7 0 2 8 1 2 4 2 3 Sequoia 0 - 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 Sierra 1 - 0 2 0 1 5 1 2 Stanislaus 0 - 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 Tahoe 5 0 1 3 0 2 1 1 2 LTBMU ------0 - 0 Humboldt-Toiyabe 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - TOTAL 22 0 5 22 4 9 20 4 11

Source: IMPLAN Professional, Version 2.0

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 532 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 5.9

Table 5.9s. Projected Employee Wages for Producing Energy from National Forest Woody Biomass, Obtained Within a 50-Mile Radius of Power Plants, in 1995 Dollars National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8 Mod. 8 Eldorado 34,388 - 70,391 71,289 8,421 43,713 165,410 18,824 47,342 Inyo ------229 - - Lassen 138,393 - 9,534 101,931 11,169 40,303 69,661 17,733 31,071 Modoc 36,976 139 4,665 43,469 12,385 - 42,799 - 13,039 Plumas 160,120 374 34,880 163,055 31,029 49,297 81,715 33,625 72,232 Sequoia 30,351 - 55,508 88,435 6,127 51,842 108,585 8,786 54,952 Sierra 42,449 - 9,063 66,726 1,561 34,080 165,966 18,334 55,448 Stanislaus 14,913 - 13,863 58,704 25,173 24,571 66,533 10,921 41,510 Tahoe 184,355 13,834 30,698 114,285 15,633 61,552 57,769 22,466 63,645 LTBMU ------5,153 - 590 Humboldt-Toiyabe 889 303 521 1,190 539 619 959 493 84 TOTAL 642,833 14,649 229,123 709,084 112,038 305,977 764,777 131,181 379,913

Source: IMPLAN Professional, Version 2.0

Table 5.9t. Projected Jobs for Producing Energy from National Forest Woody Biomass, Obtained Within a 50-Mile Radius of Power Plants, in 1995 Dollars National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8 Mod. 8 Eldorado 1 - 3 3 0 2 7 1 2 Inyo ------0 - - Lassen 6 - 0 5 1 2 3 1 1 Modoc 2 0 0 2 1 - 2 - 1 Plumas 7 0 2 8 1 2 4 2 3 Sequoia 1 - 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 Sierra 2 - 0 3 0 1 7 1 2 Stanislaus 1 - 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 Tahoe 7 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 3 LTBMU ------0 - 0 Humboldt-Toiyabe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 28 1 10 31 5 13 33 6 17

Source: IMPLAN Professional, Version 2.0

FEIS Volume 2, Chapter 3, part 5.9 – page 533 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences