Bioenergy needs a pathway from forest residue decaying or burned on-site about caland

[aldivi]

Please look into the literature for estimates of the fraction of slash burned under forest management practices. I suspect that our 25% number is low.

[aldivi]

This should be more generally characterized as a pathway for removing understory and dead carbon from the forest so that it can go to either bioenergy or other products rather than just pile-burned or decayed to the atmosphere.

[msimmond]

@aldivi I found some info on post-harvest slash combustion vs decomposition in this ARB report. See table 1 on page A2.1 in sec 2.1.2. It looks they are estimating 90% of logging residue from clearcut and partial cuts is "extracted" for bioenergy, 5% is pile-burned, and 5% decays on site. However in the text it says "95% of partial harvests and clearcuts had residues scattered intentionally post-processing at landing site (Stewart and Nakamura 2012)." Is this maybe referring to 95% of the 90% that was "extracted" for bioenergy?
battles 2013_ARB California Forest and Rangeland Greenhouse Gas Inventory Development FINAL REPORT .pdf

The EPA uses the code SCC 2810015000 or SCC 2810005000 (CA-specific) for managed burning of slash in the national GHG inventory. If we could find a report we might be able to determine the proportion of slash burned from their methods section, or at least contact them about it.

[aldivi]

this has been implemented and merged with the master