EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
WOODY BIOMASS UTILIZ ATION IN
COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA

CAITLIN PAULUS
MSUS CULMINATING EXPERIENCE PROJECT
APRIL 26, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

2.

PROJECT PARTNERS

3.

METHODS AND APPROACHES

4.

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

5.

PROJECT OUTCOMES AND TAKEAWAYS

6.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

7.

REFERENCES

FOREST RESTORATION BARRIERS
IN COCONINO COUNTY

1. EXTENSIVENESS OF FEDERAL LAND IN THE REGION
2. THE MARGINAL VALUE OF STANDING TIMBER
3. THE LACK OF EXISTING SAWMILLS
4. THE LACK OF A BIOMASS PROCESSING INDUSTRY
5. RISING COSTS OF WILDFIRE SUPRESSION

FIGURE
OF LIVE TREES
ON ARIZONA
FOREST
LAND
FIGURE2:1:DIAMETER
FOREST OWNERSHIP
ACROSS
THE UNITED
STATES
“Forest
Inventory
and Analysis
(2017)
FIGURE
FOREST
SERVICE
FY
2015
APPROPRIATIONS
BY2018)
FUND
FIGURE
3:4:Retrieved
BENEFIT
COST
RATIO
FORResources”
RESTORATION
NEW
MEXICO
Retrieved
fromfrom
“Arizona’s
Forest
(Shaw” IN
et al,
Retrievedfrom
from
“The Rising
Costof ofForest
Wildfire
Operations”
(2015)2018)
Retrieved
“Economic
Benefits
Restoration”
(Talberth,

PROJECT PARTNERS
FLAGSTAFF WATERSHED PROTECTION
PROJECT

FOREST STAKEHOLDERS IN COCONINO
COUNTY
The City of Flagstaff Economic Development Department
The City of Flagstaff Sustainability Department
Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project
Northern Arizona University
Coconino County Forest Restoration Director
Natural Resource Advisors
Forestry Consultation Organizations

METHODS AND APPROACHES:

H O W T O A I D F O R E S T R E S T O R AT I O N I N C O C O N I N O C O U N T Y
BIOCHAR
COMPOST
WOOD PLASTIC COMPOSITES
MUSHROOM CULTIVATION
• PRIORITIZE LOW-TECHNOLOGY PROCESSING METHODS
• FORM PARTNERSHIPS WITH LOCAL RESTORATION PROJECTS
• UTILIZE PRIMARILY MILLING RESIDUALS AND SLASH MATERIALS
• FOCUS ON LOCAL AND STATE MARKETS
• CREATE PRODUCTS WITH GROWING MARKETS
• PROMOTE MARKETING STRATEGIES THAT AID LOCAL RESTORATION EFFORTS

F

TRANSFORMATIONAL SUSTAINABLE ENTERPRISE
(TSE) FRAMEWORK
ANALYTICAL COMPONENT: Systems Approach
EVALUATIVE COMPONENT: Questions & Criteria
• Adapted to evaluate potential enterprises rather than established ones
• Used to assess research gaps, identify alternative business models suited to each enterprise, and evaluate the overall sustainability of each suggested enterprise

ANALYTICAL
COMPONENT

12

12

EVALUATIVE
COMPONENT

PROJECT OUTCOMES AND TAKEAWAYS
3. A large-scale sawmill is critical for the success of forest
restoration projects in the region
4. Potential biomass utilization enterprises could benefit from
working together and forming a “business cluster”

1. There was a high level of interest in this project in Coconino County; and
similar endeavors are currently underway
2. There is an emerging body of literature regarding woody biomass utilization;
but untested and expensive technologies have resulted in high capital costs

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE...
C O L L A B O R AT I O N A N D I N N O V AT I O N A R E K E Y

QUESTIONS?

REFERENCES
Shaw, J., Menlove, J., Witt, C., & Morgan, T. (2018). Arizona’s Forest Resources, 2001–2014(Rep.). United
States Department of Agriculture.
Talberth, J. (2009). Economic Benefits of Forest Restoration In the Signal Peak Assessment Area, Gila
National Forest(Rep.). Retrieved https://sustainable-economy.org/wpcontent/uploads/Restoration-Benefits-Final1.pdf

The Rising Cost of Wildfire Operations: Effect's on the Forest Service's Non-Fire Work(Rep.). (2015, August 4).
Retrieved https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Fire-Budget-Report.pdf
THE STATE OF THE SIERRA NEVADA’S FORESTS: FROM BAD TO WORSE(Rep.). (2017). Retrieved
https://www.nationalforests.org/assets/pdfs/1.30-Hoffman-State-of-the-Sierra-Nevadas-Forest-2017Update.pdf
Western Water Threatened by Wildfire(Rep.). (2016). Retrieved
https://www.forestfoundation.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/1/3d98bbe1b03a0bdf4c726534d438b0ab/
misc/final_fire_report.pdf