Producing Energy from Forest Biomass
Meeting Minutes
Sept. 27, 2012
Friendship Hall, Montrose
Tammy Randall-Parker, District Ranger, Ouray Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service:
 Have received CFLR grant $10,000,000 over 10 years, in the 3rd year, restoration is
happening
Jim Free, Program Manager, Uncompahgre Partnership
 Uncompahgre Partnership has been going for about 12 years
 2008 got a NFF forest restoration grant, brought stakeholders together to discuss how to
manage forests, got help from CFRI
 2010 got a grant from Governor’s Energy Office on Biomass, RMRS got on board
Feasibility of Using Biomass from the Uncompahgre Plateau
Nate Anderson, Rocky Mountain Research Station
 Study looked at: How much biomass is on the Uncompahgre Plateau, cost to use it and
benefits
 Biomass: limbs, etc. from trees/woody plants, byproduct of management (from forest
restoration treatments, mill residues
 Most biomass is used for heat/power; could be used to make chemicals, liquid fuels,
engineered wood products. If not used, usually burned on site.
 Biomass Supply:
o Stocks on landscape, e.g., standing beetle kill, mill residues, treatment residues
that could potentially be available. Not all is extractable and only some is
economically, ecologically, or politically viable to recover.
o Flows: material that’s moved out of the woods
 UP: has Pinyon Juniper, Pine, Aspen, Mixed conifer & different treatments are happening
 Developing markets:
o Pellets, biochar, liquid fuels
o Heat and Power:
 Gasification and combustion
 Distributed institutional heat/CHP
o Co-firing with Coal, e.g., Tri-State in Nucla
John Hogland, Rocky Mountain Research Station
 Could use Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) data, but it’s at a broad scale
 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) data, flown every 3 years, fine spatial
resolution: true color or color infared (CIR)


Developed models and ground-truthed, 1 meter resolution
Can show Most Likely Class: types of trees, water; trees/acre, tons/acre, basal area/acre
Nate Anderson, Rocky Mountain Research Station
 Used realistic treatment model
 Used 70% residue recovery
 Can estimate the total Above Ground Biomass (AGB) in a treatment unit
 Can look at the maximum about of biomass that’s recoverable per unit
 Transportation Costs were modeled spatially: cost to get biomass to Nucla, Montrose,
Delta and Grand Junction
 Supply Models: operations cost/ton (looks at average slope, average haul to landing,
density of biomass) can be added to transportation costs to get total cost
 bdt = bone dry tons
 Emissions analysis:
o Light blue is biomass burned in the field
o Burning biomass is less efficient than burning straight coal
o Methane: less methane if burned where there are scrubbers
o Particulate matter emissions also lower if burned with scrubbers
 Work Ahead
o Complete software and documentation
o Ground truthing
o Run final simulations
o Complete final reposts, manuscripts
o Regional forest operations research
o Integrate UP into the RMRS BRDI project
Q Study, Nate Anderson
 Understanding what stakeholders think about biomass utilization, forest restoration
treatments and incorporate that into resource planning
 Looks at individual person’s frame of reference
 Risk aversion (if like status quo) vs. risk taking (if don’t like status quo)
 Compile statements from newspapers, stakeholders, meeting transcripts from area
 Chose 36 representative statements
 Categories: aesthetic, recreation, ecological, cultural/historic, process/policy, economic
 Person sample: selected to represent as many perspectives as possible
o Recreation
o Collaboratives
o Grazing Permitees
o Conservation groups









o Government: federal, state, local
o Energy Utility industry
o Forest Products industry
o Biomass util.
o Landowner
Had 41 participants arrange the 36 statements (ranged from strongly agree to strongly
disagree), then interviewed, ran statistical analysis
Factor 1: 20 of 41 participants related to Bio-Centric (e.g., habitat)
Factor 2: 10 of 41 participants Industry-oriented
Factor 3: 3 of 41 participants Industrialist (open burning wasteful, jobs important)
Factor 4: Access-oriented Utilization (love to explore OHV roads/trails)
See PowerPoint for details
Dominant perspectives tend to appreciate multiple values
Dominant perspectives not highly correlated with polarizing statements
Is collaborative forest planning the cause, effect, or both?
Pagosa-Area Long-term Stewardship Contract: from idea to
implementation
Steve Hartvigsen, Forester, Pagosa Ranger District, San Juan National Forest
 Many stands too dense
 Demo contract on NEPA-complete, treatable acres for whole tree removal; included 3rd
party monitoring (soil compaction, vegetation studies)
 If it was a normal timber sale, there would have been 20 tons/acre left; whereas this left
3-4 tons/acre; plan to do a prescribed burn (like a maintenance burn)
 Pagosa Area Long-term Stewardship Contract (PALTSC): focus on condition class 3
forests, in Wildland Urban Interface, in areas with Community Wildfire Protection Plans
 50-mile working circle, 60,000 acres
 Service work cost tied to green-ton basis
 One-entry approach: not saw timber removed in one year and small stuff later
 Contract awarded 6/4/12
 JR Ford contractor: run through a gasifier to generate electricity, 5 MW plant
o Likes BRUKS (Swedish made) chipper; it’s quick, chipping close to stumps, can
go to 34% slopes
Successful Biomass Power Projects in the Intermountain West
Kendric Wait, Principal, Eagle Valley Clean Energy, Evergreen Clean Energy
 Started in response to RFP from Holy Cross Energy
 Started construction of a 12.5 MG biomass energy facility in Gypsum, CO last Dec.
 Plan to start operations in Dec 2013











No biomass plants in CO yet, some in other parts of country
Critical Pieces: see PowerPoint presentation
o Get local development experts on team
o A dozen attorneys
Met with stakeholders before public forums
20 year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Holy Cross
Fuel Supply from many areas including FS, BLM, private, landfills, ski areas
Location is very important, near:
o fuel supply
o transmission (power line right next to site)
o buyers: power & heat
o transportation
Took about 20 permits to get plant going
Very difficult financing environment
o Contracts have to be bulletproof
Give ash to hay farmer or composter
Started working on it Nov. 2010, so it’s taken 3 years so far (usually takes 5 years)
Holy Cross is a rural co-op like DMEA. Sent out survey to customers: how much more
are you willing to pay for green energy? About 87% of respondents were willing to pay
up to 5% more on power bill to add 10 MW capacity. This energy from this plant comes
in adding around 3.5% more on people’s bill.