Appendix K - Energy
APPENDIX K
ENERGY

Energy Production in the Sierra Nevada

Within the California portion of the Sierra Nevada Region as defined in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP), facilities for energy production supply 18.1 percent of all energy produced in California. If the Sierra Nevada Region counties are considered, the share of energy rises to 27.2 percent. By far, the greatest share of energy comes from hydropower sources; however, across the Sierra Nevada, windpower, geothermal energy, and, more recently, woody biomass are locally important sources. Oil, natural gas, and coal contribute small amounts to the energy production, in marked contrast to other parts of California. Table K-1 displays the total production and break-out by source of energy produced in counties and subregions with the SNEP area.

Table K-1. Energy production by power source and by county and sub-region in the Sierra Nevada, 1998.
Energy Produced in Megawatts
Hydropower Wind Biomass Geothermal Oil/Gas
Diesel
Coal Total Energy 
Sierra Nevada- Cascade Axis
Butte
1142.7
0.0
18.0
0.0
8.5
0.0
1169.2
Lassen
26.0
0.0
60.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
89.4
Plumas
637.9
0.0
32.0
0.0
5.4
0.0
675.3
Shasta
942.0
0.0
60.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
881.3
Sierra
21.3
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
42.0
Siskiyou
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tehama
15.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.6
Subregional
Total
2785.6
0.0
191.3
2.9
14.6
0.0
2872.8
Modoc Plateau
Modoc
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gold Country
El Dorado
702.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
702.2
Nevada
123.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
123.9
Placer
403.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.6
0.0
418.6
Yuba
364.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
364.0
Subregional
Total
1593.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.6
0.0
1608.7
Mother Lode
Amador
237.7
0.0
27.0
0.0
3.0
18.0
285.7
Calaveras
540.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
540.4
Mariposa
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tuolumne
1140.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1165.0
Subregional
Total
1918.1
0.0
52.0
0.0
3.0
18.0
1991.1
Lake Tahoe
Carson City
Douglas
Washoe
Regional
Subregional
Total
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Southern Sierra
Fresno
2117.4
0.0
7.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2124.9
Kern
59.8
456.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
515.9
Madera
351.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
351.7
Tulare
36.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.5
Subregional
Total
2565.3
456.2
7.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3029.0
Eastside Sierra
Alpine
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Esmeralda
Inyo
82.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
82.1
Mineral
Mono
100.5
0.0
0.0
35.5
0.0
0.0
136.0
Subregional
Total
100.5
0.0
0.0
35.5
0.0
0.0
136.0
Regional
Total
8962.5
456.2
250.8
38.4
33.2
18.0
9637.5
Source: The California Energy Commission (1998).

This EIS may impact the production of energy in the Sierra Nevada from diverse renewable resources. Intensified ecosystem management in riparian zones of Sierra Nevada National Forest may improve water quality and reduce wear on hydropower facilities in the Sierra Nevada Region. Management of fire and fuels may change the amount of woody biomass from suppressed small-diameter trees and shrubs in forest understories as well.

Economic Uses for Efforts for Small-Diameter Trees

Background. Across the American West, woody biomass has accumulated in forests over the last fifty to one hundred years. Many forest ecologists believe that current woody biomass exceeds natural variability found in forests in the past (citations) and that the unprecedented biomass amounts result from active fire suppression by land management agencies. Conditions in the Sierra Nevada mirror the status of forest fuel loads elsewhere in the West.

Residents of the Sierra Nevada are particularly concerned about the flammability of excessive woody biomass and the heightened risks of catastrophic fires to communities and to the structure and function of old forest ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada. Public discussion about practical means to reduce the risk of destructive wildland fires focus on eventual reintroduction of near-natural fire frequencies and intensities. Achieving ecosystem conditions that permit more frequent and less intense fires may first require the US Forest Service to treat extensive forest areas by first removing small standing trees. Reducing forest fuels region-wide in the Sierra Nevada is a large task. On average about 12.5 bone dry tons of woody biomass are available per acre in the Plumas and Lassen National Forests and 75 gallons of ethanol are produced from one bone dry ton of woody biomass (TSS Consultants 1997).

Net costs to the Forest Service for removing forest understory biomass will depend on the practicability of options for economic uses for small-diameter biomass in the near future as the Forest Service decides where, how much, and at what pace to remove biomass from small-diameter trees. Potential benefits to people include:

· Decreased volumes of wood waste left on the forest floor
· Reduced risk of losses to property
· Reduced fire insurance rates for homeowners and business people
· Decreased costs for fire suppression
· Reduced carbon emissions into the atmosphere from catastrophic fire
· Improved air quality
· Near-natural fire regimes
· Improved growth of the largest trees left standing to recreate or preserve old forests
· Increased and diversified employment for rural residents
· Decreased dependence on petroleum for energy
From an economic standpoint, the challenge for the Forest Service and residents in Sierra Nevada communities is to create value-added products or energy services locally while accomplishing ecosystem management that restores socially desirable old forest conditions and maintains ecosystem functions and biological diversity intact. Manufacturing or energy-production jobs in the Sierrra Nevada communities can benefit local residents and improve the quality of community life.

Benefits to ecosystems and local communities may prompt different National Forest management choices tailored to specific sites. Land managers may wish to leave felled trees and woody shrubs as well on site as residual slash to decay. In other instances, crews may burn slash in or near the site where they are removing standing woody biomass from understory trees and shrubs. In still other cases, people can remove woody biomass and foliage as source material for diverse production. The following sections describe possible advantages and drawbacks for allocating low-value or negative-value biomass to off-site production. Efforts by the Forest Service and others have sought to clarify options and necessary conditions for local firms or entrepreneurs to add value to forest biomass, often from small-diameter tress conventionally considered non-merchantable for industrial lumber production.

Government Partnerships to Expand Commercial Uses for Small-Diameter Trees

A group of public agencies and non-governmental organizations is incubating new industries in the Sierra Nevada designed to use small-diameter trees. The group consists of the Sierra Economic Development District, the USDA Rural Development Service, the USDA Forest Service, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and the University of California Forest Products Laboratory. By harvesting small-dimension timber, public land managers in the Sierra Nevada hope to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire on resources and property, to encourage faster growth of the remaining trees for old-forest conditions, and to create enduring, well-paying employment in Sierra Nevada communities. In time, large-scale reduction of forest fuel load of small-dimension timber may reduce Forest Service expenditures for fire suppression and allow introduction of near-natural fire regimes in Sierra Nevada National Forests.

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 participate in the Program including California and Nevada. The program promotes the use of biomass for energy production. Biomass consists of renewable organic materials and includes forestry and agricultural crops and residues; wood and food processing wastes; and municipal solid waste. Two projects within the SNEP area received funding from the Energy Program in 1998:

· A grant in Durham, CA, to evaluate and refurbish a sixteen year-old waste processing system on dairy farms that biochemically converts solid wastes to methane gas and other by-products.
· A grant Nevada Tahoe Conservation District Grant in South Lake Tahoe, NV, to complement matching funds in an effort for using forest biomass from the Lake Tahoe region to produce electricity at a power plant in Loyalton, CA.
The California Energy Commission is supporting for five years a biomass project in Anderson, Shasta County, payments of $0.0135 per kilowatt hour to use biomass from wood chips, agricultural residues, and residential lawn and plant clippings.

Government agencies can also lead the way in developing markets for alternative energy generation by arranging to have public buildings supplied with energy or heating developed with new or unaccustomed technologies.

The Status of Industry Technology for Utilizing Small-Diameter Trees for Energy

The following sections draw on technology and product summaries in Shelley et al. (1998). They point out the high capital investment and high technology for developing composite or remanufactured wood products and for ethanol production. Communities or individual entrepreneurs without access to considerable capital and technology, however, can use small-diameter trees for local industries to produce densified fuels, round timber, and furniture stock.

Ethanol Production

The Federal Clear Air Act requires that petroleum companies use oxygenates in gasoline during winter months to reduce 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 because of its toxicity and ability to enter groundwater. Ethanol or wood alcohol is one alternative organic compound believed to have none of the toxic properties of MTBE.

Traditionally, corn biomass from the Midwest furnished commercial quantities of ethanol through fermentation. Other sources source of ethanol have come from sugarcane waste (bagasse) as well. 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 would 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 state-wide demand. Midwestern suppliers ship ethanol produced from corn waste to California to cover statewide needs for winter gasoline.

Commercial production uses primarily three methods for generating ethanol from woody biomass:

· Organic compound concentrated sulfuric acid technologies patented by Arkenol (Mission Viejo, CA) and MASADA Resource Group (Birmingham, AL)
· Dilute sulfuric / enzymatic technology from BC International (Dedham, MA), SWAN Biomass (Illinois), and WEIS (Palo Alto, CA); and
· Dilute nitric acid technology licensed by HFTA, a California corporation, and developed at the University of California Forest Products Laboratory in Richmond, CA.
Nitric acid technology requires relatively low capital costs and is simple to implement. The most critical factor in the economic feasibility of ethanol production in rural communities is the cost of the woody biomass feedstock.

One bone dry ton (bt ton) of woody biomass yields between 50 and 75 gallons of ethanol. A steady supply of biomass from forest operations would be necessary to keep production economically profitable. Cost of producing a bt ton of biomass varies from thirty to forty dollars for shearing, skidding, and chipping in the woods. Other factors affecting cost are site topography, stand density, and size of work area (Quincy Library Group et al. Transport costs depend on accessibility and distance from an ethanol facility and 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 (Butte County) using principally rice stubble and in 2003 at Chester (Plumas County) using wood biomass. Establishing a biomass facility costs from $5 to $150 million to finance. A circumspect approach to implementing a biomass program is justified. Ample lead time is necessary to assess feasibility, organize capital, and arrange for steady feedstock supplies from public and private forestland.

Other by-products comes from the ethanol manufacturing process including commercial-grade carbon dioxide as a refridgerant and soda additive. In the northern Sierra Nevada Region, where most ethanol production is likely to concentrate, commercial carbon dioxide production already exceeds demand. One particular drawback for establishing ethanol plants is the high start-up costs at a minimum of five million dollars.

The United States produces annually one and a half 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 require 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 and mostly in the Midwest. Shehan (1997) estimated that an ethanol facility attached to an existing cogeneration mill would produce fifteen million gallons of ethanols 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

Price supports from the State of California enable cogeneration to proceed as part of a state strategy to diversify sources of energy generation in the event of price shocks from suddenly rising fuel prices. Wood workers may chip small-diameter trees and transport "in-woods" chips to a biomass plant for 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 feedstock biomass was $0.13 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) in contrast with 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, and other wood waste.

In Scandanavian and Canada, woody biomass from small-diameter trees or shrubs is used directly to supply 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 relations and cooperation for securing sustainable supplies of wood biomass.

Gasification

Gasification, or thermochemical processing, of wood produces only half the energy content that natural gas does. In addition, gasification may generate toxic or carcinogenic compounds produced. 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.

The Status of Industry Technology for Utilizing Small-Diameter Trees as Non-Lumber Wood Products

Diverse wood products from small-diameter trees also have a range of economic uses that people are just beginning to explore. The Watershed Research and Training Center in Hayfork (Trinity County) has been conducting demonstration sales using small-scale, low-impact yarder and tractors across different terrains to produce log material for pallet stock, lamp bases, paneling, flooring, furniture stock, posts and poles, and small dimension lumber (The Watershed Research and Training Center 1999). The USDA Forest Products Research Laboratory in Madison, WI, and the University of California Forest Products Laboratory are currently testing samples of wood harvested near Hayfork for physical properties. Many of the thinning projects undertaken by the Center, such as the Indian Valley thinning project, occur in vegetation types similar to those in the Sierra Nevada (Watershed Research and Training Center 1999, p. 36).

The Watershed Center is also undertaking marketing lumber, posts, and poles from Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine trees from densely stock stands with large numbers of suppressed small-diameter trees having high ring counts per inch. Remanufacturing processes can use eight feet boards. One constraint is that posts and poles must come from small diameter trees that do not lean. Karuk Tribal Designs in Happy Camp (Siskiyou County) currently uses high-quality small-dimension Douglas-fir and tanoak for high-end lamp manufacturing.

Wood Composite Materials

Shelly and Lubin (1995) suggest that the best product options for novel uses of small-dimension wood are round landscape timbers and small-scale composite wood pieces for local markets. Wood pieces are used in wood fiber / polymer and wood fiber / cement composites. These structural composites need to have less than 25 percent juvenile wood. Possible uses include storage bins, furniture components, auto components, floors, walls, roofing, containers, cartons, pallets, and other molded wood products. Inorganic bonded wood composites serve as wood-cement roofing, fiber cement boards, and pulp gypsum board. These products are durable, fire-resistant, lightweight and machinable.

Wood chips without bark are used for particle board. Chips must have uniform size, moisture content, and density and must come from a single species. Lodgepole pine and white fir with stem diameters as small as three inches as well as branches down to one-half inch may be utilized. Manufacturing particle board requires large capital investment and relies on a continuous supply of quality material.

Pulp for Paper Products

In the Sierra Nevada Region counties, there is currently one pulp mill in Anderson, Shasta County. Chips purchased by the mill comes from lumber mills as a by-product. Only these "clean chips" are used and not chips produced "in woods" with bark still attached to the wood. Prices for chips changes quickly depending on market demand. Chip producers in the recent past have exported the highest-quality chips to East Asian countries for the best prices. With the present economic slow-down in East Asia, the export chip market is weak and prices are low. New export-oriented chip mills in California are not likely.

Pulp chips from compression, tension, and juvenile wood produce poor quality. Black oak or incense cedar, in particular, are also poor candidate species for pulping.

Horticultural and Home Uses

Wood biomass, mostly sawdust and shavings, is sold as animal bedding. Later the biomass can be composted. Product price ranges between $23.83-30.00 in Denver CO (Front Range Partnership). Landscapers also wood chips on trails or paths and can be used to create lawns when mixed with grass seed and fertilizer. Commercial producers of edible and medicinal mushrooms also use woody biomass as a substrates. Wills (1999) in British Columbia has researched markets and uses for an expanded range of cultivatable mushrooms as part of rural development.

Firewood

In many counties in California, the majority of private homes are heated with fire wood. See Table xx in the section on hardwood management and economic uses for production figures of hardwood firewood from Sierra Nevada National Forests and from Sierra Nevada Region counties.

Non-Timber Forest Products

Essential Oils from Wood and Foliage

Green wood and bark can be distilled to oils for diesel engines or burned in a boiler. Conifer species have practical applications in the perfume industry. Currently, conifer species from western North America, in particular Douglas-fir and grand fir are grown in France both for their timber and essential oils. Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest are exploring essential use to improve grazing range and reduce fuel loads in commercial stands (Alisa Larson, Oregon State University, personal communication, 1999).

Conifer Boughs

Incense cedar foliage does not lose its attractive quality when it grows in understory conditions. Prices for incense cedar boughs averaged $775 per ton in the autumn of 1989 (Schlosser and Blatner 1993).

Economic Considerations

Morris (1998) suggest that timber operations to remove small-diameter timber, although entailing netcosts, is a cheaper alternative than costs of fire suppression and accompanying losses to resources and property. No management or fire suppression management also entail risks and eventual costs. Cumulative effects of decision at different political scales result in different risk burdens and costs to different groups of people. Management to compensate for past miscomprehension of fire ecology in the Sierra Nevada may produce under any scenario a net cost to society. Determining the least cost to society to correct forest ecosystem management is critical to socially acceptable forest ecosystem management. In some cases, emerging markets and skillful marketing can accomplish multiple goals for community development and reduce costs to society through thoughtful and efficient harvests of small-diameter trees for supplying products.

Current price paid for chips at a cogeneration mill in the northern Sierra Nevada is $15 per bone dry ton. A truck can transport 25 green tons (having a moisture content of fifty percent and equivalent therefore to 12.5 bone dry tons). Truck hauling cost is $55 per hour (Carrie Christman, Lassen NF, personal communication). Treatments to remove small-diameter biomass cost on average $320.00 per acre in northwestern California and southwest Oregon (The Watershed Research and Training Center 1999).

It is critical to understand and not undervalue the special properties of small-diameter trees growing densely or suppressed in the forest understory. Small-diameter Douglas-fir trees with a history of 70 to 150 years of suppressed growth have wood stronger than prefabricated trusses used in building construction (Hayfork Watershed Center 1998). Tight grain and high density of the wood provide quality not normally found in industrial tree plantations of Douglas-fir of the same diameter size.

Features of Small-Diameter Timber from the Sierra Nevada

Species considered poor prospects for small-diameter timber are Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, and subalpine fir. Little or no information exists about California black oak or western white pine.

Table K-2. Sierra Nevada tree species with good potential for lumber and round timber from small-diameter trees.
Species
Average DBH
Rings per Inch
Reaction Wood %
JuvenileWood %
Lumber/Roundwood %
Douglas-fir
10.3
13.4
35
30
21
Incense cedar
9.8
13.4
38
31
21
Lodgepole pine
9.9
11.7
8
34
23
Ponderosa pine
9.9
10.0
21
44
22
California red fir
9.7
19.1
55
24
19
White fir
9.9
13.0
34
30
25
Source: University of California Forest Products Laboratory (199?) - check citation and website

Management Costs for Harvest Small-Diameter Biomass

Thinning costs differ depending on terrain, distance from roads, equipment used, labor force required. Purvis (1996) found that thinning costs for small-diameter trees exceeded $300 per acre. The Front Range Forest Health Partnership (1998) reports:

· Selective thinning without salvage at $100 - $400 per acre
· Forest ecosystem restoration project $390 / acre
· Prescribed burning $25 - $100 / acre
The Watershed Research and Training Center (1998, 1999) has kept careful records of labor, equipment, and travel costs for its demonstration projects with small-diameter tree harvests. Table K-4 summarizes costs.

Table K-3. Itemized costs for small-dimension timber sales in National Forest and Indian Reservation lands in northwestern California and southwest Oregon. (Cost in 1995 dollars per thousand board feet / gross timber volume unless otherwise noted)
Projects
Hoopa Demo  Farmer I Farmer II Chopsticks I Chopsticks II
Stand Activities
Project planning, layout, marking
$62
$7
$10
$197
$141
Felling, bucking, limbing, 
138
93
61
98
65
Yarding
166
181
102
na
na
Site cleanup
37
13
16
30
62
Sorting/Milling Activities
Log sorting
65
140
105
146
127
Milling
144*
40
43
66
66
Sort yard maintenance
15
15
15
na
na
Sources: Watershed Research and Training Center (1998, 1999)
*Cost based on total lumber, not timber, volume per thousand board feet.

In the timber harvest projects listed above, Douglas-fir trees had diameters at breast height of 3.5 to 10 inches. Hauling costs are variable depending on mill location. One strategy to reduce hauling costs is to mill small-diameter trees in the woods or at a log landing. The timber harvests listed above used an EconomizerTM to mill wood at the site. Two or three people can operate the mill. Milling tests with Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine, white fir, incense cedar, Oregon white oak, California black oak, and madrone were satisfactory.

Cleanup costs in stands can have a broad range. Lopping and scatterring brush costs about - $4 per thousand board feet (mbf). Combining lop-and-scatter, hand-piling, and partial removal is $36 mbf. Handpiling only is $64 per mbf. Multiplying the costs by four gives an approximate value per acre.

Table K-4. Existing locations and capacity of cogeneration plants for woody biomass in the Sierra Nevada Region counties, 1998.
Region/County Community Current Production Capacity 
in Megawatts
Sierra-Cascade Axis
Butte
Oroville 18.0
Lassen
Bieber 5.0
Susanville 15.0
Wendel 30.0
Westwood 10.5
Plumas
Chester 12.0
Quincy 20.0
Sierra
Loyalton 18.0
Shasta
Anderson (2) 6.9 + 54.9
Burney (3) 20.0 + 31.0 + 9.8
Gold Country
Placer
Lincoln 10.5
Mother Lode
Amador
Martell (2) 9.0 + 18.0
Toulumne
Jamestown 22.0
Loyalton 20.0
Sonora 3.0
Southern Sierra
Fresno
Mendota 25.0
New Auberry 7.5
Kern
Delano 49.9
Source: California Energy Commission (1998)

Biomass facilities are frequently adjacent to operating or vacant timber mills. At present there are no biomass facilities in the eastern Lake Tahoe and Eastside Sierra subregions.

Bibliography

Front Range Forest Health Partnership. 1998. Phase 1 feasibility study . NREL/SR-580-23805. Golden, CO: US Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 67 p.

McCallum, B. 1997. Small-scale automated biomass energy heating systems: A viable option for remote Canadian communities. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Great Lake Forestry Centre.

Morris, Gregory. 1998. White paper: The economic implications of energy production from forest residuals. [available from the author at the Green Power Institute, 2039 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 402, Berkeley, CA 94704]

Sheehan, John. 1997. Northeastern California ethanol feasibility study: Socioeconomic report. Quincy, CA: Plumas Corporation. 14 p.

Riley, Betty, Pauline Moreno, and Michael Theroux. 1996. Tahoe Basin biomass utilization feasibility. Auburn, CA: Sierra Economic Development District. 82 p. plus five appendices.

Shelley, John R. and Dorothy Mockus Lubin. 1995. Analysis of wood samples from the Sierra Economic Development biomass utilization of feasibility study: Characterization and assessment of the resource. Technical Report 35.01.450. Richmond, CA: University of California Forest Products Laboratory. 16 p. plus two appendices.

Purvis, Lynn G. 1996. Northern Sierra Nevada biomass study. Auburn, CA: Sierra Economic Development District. 27 pp. plus appendices.

Quincy Library Group, California Energy Commission, California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, et al. 1997. Northeastern California ethanol manufacturing feasibility study. NREL/TP-580-24676. Golden, CO: US Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Sheehan, John. 1997. Northeastern California ethanol manufacturing feasibility study: socioeconomic report. Quincy, CA: Plumas Corporation. 14 p.

Shelly, John R., Pam Weiant, Frank C. Beall, et al. 1998. Assessment of urban/wildland biomass utilization and disposal options. FPL Internal Technical Report No. 36.01.136. Richmond, CA: University of California Forest Products Laboratory.

TSS Consultants. 1997. Quincy Library Group northeastern California ethanol manufacturing feasibility study, feedstock supply, and delivery systems: Final report. 35 pp. plus appendices

Watershed Research and Training Center. 1998. Chopsticks small diameter demonstration project. USDA Forest Service Grant #R5-14-97-30. Hayfork, CA.

Watershed Research and Training Center. 1999. A multi-year, multi-site demonstration project for the utilization of small diameter forest thinnings: Annual report, year 1 submitted to the James Irvine Foundation. Hayfork, CA: The Watershed Research and Training. 135 pp.

Back to Table of Contents