Wyoming–Colorado 

Technical Assistance 

Visit Trip Report

John Rusty Dramm

E.M. (Ted) Bilek

John L. Zerbe

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Forest

Products

Laboratory

General

Technical 

Report

FPL–GTR–192
April 2010

Dramm, John Rusty; Bilek, E.M. (Ted); Zerbe, John L. 2010. Wyoming–

Colorado technical assistance visit trip report. General Technical Report 

FPL-GTR-192. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 24 p.

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the 

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, 

Madison, WI 53726–2398. This publication is also available online at 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds of libraries 

in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the 

University of Wisconsin. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) of any product or service.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 

(voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

Abstract

Woody biomass utilization is critical to resolving forest 

health issues in Wyoming and Colorado. This paper discusses technical assistance site visits conducted to help address 

the effects of insect infestation and excessively high forest 

fuel loading. It provides a thought-provoking look at the 

issues and opportunities for utilizing small-diameter wood 

and woody biomass to help reduce widespread risk of insect 

infestation such as the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) and risk of catastrophic wildfire. Many 

questions and uncertainties have yet to be addressed as to 

how to achieve sustainable forest-based communities with 

strong economic engines and simultaneously ensure healthy, 

productive, and sustainable forests. Several critical factors 

and opportunities are considered for utilizing small-diameter 

material and woody biomass. The scope of this technical 

assistance visit to Wyoming and Colorado is applicable 

throughout the Western United States.

Keywords: Woody biomass, sort yards, utilization, smalldiameter, feasibility, mountain pine beetle, hazardous fuels, 

Colorado, Wyoming, markets, forest products, biomass 

energy.

Acknowledgments

The publication was made possible by efforts of several 

U.S. Forest Service employees, partners, and cooperators 

who contributed their insights. Special recognition goes 

to Susan Ford, U.S. Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry, 

Rocky Mountain Region; Scott W. Bell, U.S. Forest Service- S&PF, R4; Dan Len, U.S. Forest Service Arapaho 

and Roosevelt National Forests; Dan Perko, Wyoming State 

Forestry Division; Randy Williams, Teton Conservation 

District; Craig Jones, Colorado State Forest Service; Gayle 

Hinschberger, Dubois–Crowheart Conservation District; 

Arla Strasser, Saratoga–Encampment–Rawlings Conservation District; Rick Metzger, Shoshone National Forest; Phil 

Cruz, Medicine Bow–Routt National Forests; and Al Christophersen, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

The authors are most grateful for contributions and technical peer reviews from the following individuals: Dan Perko, 

Wyoming State Forestry Division; Dusty Moller, Universty of 

Nevada-Reno; Steve Yaddof, U.S. Forest Service; and Mark 

Knaebe, U.S. Forest Service. 

Cover Art: Air current burner at Meeker Park, Colorado, biomass collection and sort yard

Contents

Page

Introduction...................................................................................... 1

Technical Assistance Visit Background ........................................... 1

The Situation Today......................................................................... 2

Technical Assistance Visit Summary ............................................... 3

 Dubois, Wyoming (Bridger-Teton National Forest) .................... 3

 Saratoga, Wyoming (Medicine Bow–Routt National Forest)...... 6

 Front Range in Colorado (Arapaho–Roosevelt National 

 Forest) .......................................................................................... 6

Closeout Meetings and Follow-up Conference Calls ...................... 9

Response to Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ........................... 9

 Biomass Removal ........................................................................ 9

 Fuels Treatment Effectiveness and Silvicultural 

 Considerations.............................................................................. 9

 Timber Sales................................................................................ 9

Industrial Issues and Opportunities................................................ 10

 Sawmilling Infrastructure .......................................................... 10

 Small-Log Sawmilling............................................................... 10

 Industry Revitalization and Rebuilding ..................................... 10

 Business Investment Capital...................................................... 11

 Cellulosic Ethanol and Other Biofuels from Woody 

 Biomass...................................................................................... 11

 Sort Yards................................................................................... 11

Critical Factors for Success ........................................................... 11

 The Marginal Log Problem........................................................ 12

 Lowering the Cost Curve ........................................................... 13

 Raising the Value Curve............................................................. 13

 Sawmill Technical Assistance.................................................... 14

 Gross Margin.............................................................................. 14

Marketing....................................................................................... 15

 Marketing Forest and Mill Residues.......................................... 15

 Manufacturing Directories......................................................... 15

 Market Distribution Challenges................................................. 15

 Profit-Added Opportunities ....................................................... 15

Financial Feasibility Analysis........................................................ 15

 Define Physical Input–Output Relationships and Timing ......... 16

 Estimate Unit Values for Inputs and Outputs and Calculate 

 the Gross Margin........................................................................ 16

 Develop “Cash Flow” Table ...................................................... 16

 Calculate Measures of Project Worth......................................... 16

 Analyze Risk and Uncertainty Associated with Alternative 

 being Analyzed........................................................................... 17

 Business Financial Feasibility Spreadsheet Tools ..................... 17

Summary of Recommendations..................................................... 18

For More Information .................................................................... 19

Literature Cited .............................................................................. 19

Appendix I—Technical Assistance Visit (TAV) Itinerary.............. 20

Appendix II—Technical Assistance Visit (TAV) Participants ....... 21

Appendix III—Technical Assistance Contacts .............................. 23
Wyoming–Colorado Technical Assistance 

Visit Trip Report

John Rusty Dramm, Forest Products Technologist

E.M. (Ted) Bilek, Economist

John L. Zerbe, Volunteer

Technology Marketing Unit, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

Introduction

Woody biomass utilization is critical to resolving forest 

health issues in the West—primarily, the current beetle 

infestation epidemic and high risk of catastrophic wildfire 

associated with excessive forest fuel loading. Discussion of 

several issues and opportunities for salvaging beetle-killed 

trees and utilizing small-diameter material from forest fuels reduction projects are provided in this Wyoming and 

Colorado Technical Assistance Visit (TAV) trip report. The 

primary purpose of this technical assistance visit was to 

provide follow-up to the initial TAV to Region 2 conducted 

in 1996 by the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL), Madison 

Wisconsin.

Technical Assistance Visit 

Background

Beginning in 1994, the FPL conducted a series of TAVs 

throughout the United States to Forest Service Regions. The 

goal of these TAVs was to foster closer working relationships between the FPL, the national forests, local and state 

government, local communities, and the private sector. The 

purpose of these partnerships was to sustain social and economic vitality in rural communities while conserving natural 

resources and maintaining and enhancing the health of our 

Nation’s forests. The objectives of the TAVs varied from 

region to region but generally included the following:

•	 Merge environmental and economic concerns

Link production and marketing of value-added products 

with local and regional forest sustainability, forest health 

issues, and stewardship of forestlands.

•	 Prevent loss and waste of natural resources

Reorient existing forest products technology and identify 

new technological needs to take advantage of recycling, 

wood waste, and alternative woody biomass 

opportunities.

•	 Build stronger economies in forest-dependent 

communities

Identify and support development or expansion of forest 

products commercial opportunities to assist rural communities and private enterprises that are trying to adapt to 

rapid social and economic changes. 

•	 Make the best use of available technical 

assistance

Promote partnerships and collaboration between the various government, private, and business interests, merging 

research and development capabilities with the needs of 

forest-dependent communities.

The FPL Director and staff participated with regional Forest Service staffs in several site visits for each of the TAVs. 

These site visits include touring forest products processing 

facilities, in-woods operations, and town hall meetings. 

Several issues and opportunities were uncovered and further explored. Follow-up action plans were developed and 

included a wide array of activities from providing technical 

publications and networking to onsite training and research 

studies.

Valuable insights gained during the initial TAVs help guide 

new research, technology transfer, and technical assistance. 

These efforts were coordinated by the Technology Marketing Unit (TMU) at the FPL. In addition to research, two 

other significant efforts were initiated. First, SmallWood, 

a bi-annual national conference, was initiated to provide a 

forum for the exchange of ideas to address the many challenges of small-diameter trees and biomass in the context of 

forest health and protection and enhancing forest-dependent 

communities. Second, in addition to follow-up technical assistance, the Hazardous Fuels Woody Biomass Utilization 

Grants Program was authorized to help mitigate the excessively high cost of hazardous forest fuels reduction work on 

Forest Service lands. 

By the year 2000, follow-up visits began to provide more 

focused technical assistance in high priority areas. This 

report discusses one of many such follow-up technical assistance visits. As with the original TAVs, similar issues and 

opportunities arise time and time again. Consequently, this 

report is published to provide shared learning and experiences of the follow-up technical assistance visits and in particular the visit to Wyoming and Colorado in August 2008.

The report reviews (1) the trip itself; that is, who was involved and the itinerary; (2) new issues that have emerged 

concerning utilization of small-diameter and salvageable 

trees; (3) utilization opportunities that make the most sense 

for our partners in Wyoming and Colorado; and (4) tech-
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–192

2

niques that if used to evaluate those opportunities, will help 

to ensure that they are well-planned and should increase the 

chances of success. We believe the results of this TAV will 

facilitate improved forest management and economic development that will better suit the land, forest products enterprises, and the citizens of forest-dependent communities.

The Situation Today

The Intermountain West has a history of relatively frequent 

insect attack outbreaks and wildfires. Fire suppression efforts have been in place for a number of decades. With the 

exclusion of fire from ecosystems, forest stands have become overstocked, leading to stress, especially during periods of drought. Stressed trees are more susceptible to insect 

attacks and disease infestation.

Overstocking in the West has been exacerbated by the decline in national forest harvests and removals (Fig. 1). Harvest and removals from national forests doubled in the West 

from 1952 to 1970 and remained at about the same level 

through 1986, when they declined sharply. In 2002, harvests 

and removals from national forests were less than half their 

1952 levels and less than one quarter of their levels during 

the 1970 to 1986 peak.

Although harvest levels were increasing from 1952, total 

inventory levels in the Rocky Mountains national forests 

were remaining constant to increasing slightly over the 1952 

to 1986 period (Fig. 1). When harvest and removals began 

declining, total inventory began increasing more quickly 

(Fig. 1), so that in 2002 the national forests in the Rocky 

Mountains region on average were carrying more than half 

again as much standing softwood volume compared with 

1952.

When comparing the periods 1990 to 1999 and 2000 to 

2008, the average annual acres burned by wildfires in the 

United States has more than doubled, jumping from 3.3 million acres to 7 million acres (Fig. 2). Some of this increase 

can be linked to changing drought patterns (Siebold and Veblen 2006). However, drought also means that overstocked 

stands become stressed and weakened as the trees compete 

for limited water resources. Stressed trees are more susceptible to insect attacks. Overstocked stands increase the risk 

of catastrophic wildfires by providing ladder fuels so that 

fires can more easily move into the tree crowns. Dead trees 

provide hot-burning fuels and are long-lasting even on the 

ground in drought-prone areas.

We cannot have healthy forests without healthy communities and vice versa—healthy forests and healthy communities are interdependent. Interdependency is the cornerstone 

foundation for sustainability. The recurring question asked 

by forest-dependent communities is, “How can we develop 

viable forest products enterprises that will help diversify our 

economy and use local forest resources in a manner that will 

help restore healthy, productive, sustainable forests?”

Opportunities for improved utilization and marketing of 

small-diameter and beetle-killed trees will help control 

beetle infestations and reduce the widespread risk of catastrophic wildfire while providing economic development 

opportunities. The cost of salvaging “red and dead” beetlekilled trees and removing excessive forest fuels can be 

prohibitively expensive. An economical outlet (market) for 

such biomass is needed. One viable alternative is to provide 

economical small-diameter utilization options. Reestablishing integrated forest products utilization capacity and 

retooling the existing industry for processing small-diameter 

material and salvaging beetle-killed trees are critical needs. 

New industry is also needed in many locations that have lost 

all capacity to harvest and utilize harvested trees.

The Wyoming and Colorado TAV was conducted September 

8–11, 2008, by Rusty Dramm, Ted Bilek, and John Zerbe 

Figure 1—Indexed 

softwood harvest and 

removals and inventory 

for the national forest 

timberlands in the 

Rocky Mountains, 

1952–2002. Data 

source: Haynes 

and others 2007.
Wyoming–Colorado Technical Assistance Visit Trip Report

3

from FPL and key regional Forest Service specialists—

Susan Ford and Scott Bell, State and Private Forestry, and 

Dan Len, Arapaho–Roosevelt National Forest. Key TAV 

partners included Dan Perko, State of Wyoming Forestry 

Division; Craig Jones, Colorado State Forest Service; Randy 

Williams, Teton Conservation District; Arla Strasser, Saratoga–Encampment–Rawlings Conservation District; and 

Gayle Hinschberger, Dubois–Crowheart Conservation District. The team met throughout the week with key state, local, and Forest Service partners and several community and 

forest industry representatives. 

Figure 3 shows a variety of potential opportunities for using 

small-diameter material, including most of the major forest 

products and related business sectors. These potential opportunities include a full range of low- to high-quality smalldiameter and underutilized materials. Technically, there are 

many potentially viable options for producing products from 

small-diameter material. The real questions are whether a 

market exists and if it is economically feasible to produce 

and sell. Also of interest are the material properties of smalldiameter material—are they suitable for intended use?

Technical Assistance Visit Summary

The week opened with a meeting with folks from the Dubois–Crowheart and Teton Conservation District in Dubois, 

Wyoming, and ended with a closeout meeting on Thursday 

in Gilpin County, Colorado. The remainder of the week was 

spent touring projects in Dubois and Saratoga, Wyoming, 

and several locations in the Front Range of Colorado to 

meet key partners in forest health and utilization and to discuss technology-related issues (Appendix I). The TAV Team 

provided overviews of FPL’s capabilities at several stops 

throughout the week. Stops included mill visits, forest sites, 

and meetings with the project partners (Appendix II). The 

team listened to issues and concerns, made suggestions, and 

encouraged partnerships to address issues.

Dubois, Wyoming (Bridger-Teton National 

Forest)

On September 8, 2008, the team met with Dan Perko, Deputy State Forester; Randy Williams, Teton Conservation District; Gayle Hinschberger, Dubois–Crowheart Conservation 

District; Mark Harrison, Mayor of Dubois, Rick Metzger, 

District Ranger, Wind River Ranger District, Shoshone 

National Forest; Al Christophersen, Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation; and several other partners at the Dubois–Crowheart Conservation District. After introductions and a few 

presentations, the group toured two wood-using enterprises 

and a wildland–urban interface (WUI) biomass collection 

yard. Further discussions followed with a stop at the former 

Louisiana Pacific sawmill site east of Dubois. The Conservation District was awarded a Partnership Grant from the 

U.S. Forest Service in 2008.

Wyoming Logsmiths

Tim Rogers is a log home manufacturer on the west side of 

Dubois. He described his operation, log supply, and housing market. Tim is satisfied with the size of his operation 

and says that he has only experienced some downturn in the 

housing market. He does round log and hewn/flat sawn-log 

construction. Although he sells his products throughout the 

West, he does this through word-of-mouth promotion. Tim 

might be interested in some of the innovative roundwood 

structures coordinated at the FPL. Tim Rogers was also interested in a technical trades school to train students.

Ron Eliason of Eliason Logging runs has a small yard where 

he sorts loads and saws products on a LT-70 Wood-Mizer 

sawmill (Wood-Mizer Products, Inc., Indianapolis, IN) producing about 600 board feet per hour. He does only specialty and custom sawing. Marketing is pretty much by word of 

mouth. Ron produces around 60 truck loads of logs per year 

(1,500 green tons). Ron sorts logs with his Prentice hydraulic loader-equipped log truck (Caterpillar Forest Products, 

Peoria, IL). For smaller log yard operations, this type of 

Figure 2—Annual 

acres burned by 

wildfires in the 

United States, 

1990–2008. Data 

source: National 

Interagency Fire 

Center, Wildland 

Fire Statistics
4

Figure 3. Potential utilization and marketing opportunities for small-diameter timber and woody biomass in the Western United States.

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–192
5

loader is the suggested sorting and loading system. A firewood processor is also co-located next to Ron’s operation.

Union Pass WUI Biomass Collection/Disposal Yard

Rick Metzger, U.S. Forest Service, described a mastication 

demonstration site and a WUI fuels reduction project at 

Union Pass, Wyoming. Material removed from landowners’ 

property is concentrated in a gravel pit where it is burned. 

This biomass appears to be a potential source of biomass 

energy feedstock for local use. Al Christophersen with the 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation talked about stewardship 

contracting partnerships for improving efficient resolution to 

forest fuels loading, risk of catastrophic wildfire, and control 

of the current insect infestations in the Intermountain West. 

The apparent lack of forestry contractors and woods-worker 

labor are barriers to accomplishing the land treatments. 

Dubois Closeout Meeting

Mark Harrison, Mayor of Dubois, discussed the need for 

expanding the local workforce, as many jobs were lost to the 

gas fields, and the need for affordable housing and a stable 

workforce. Several issues revolve around the school system: 

the need to provide jobs, the need for children to fill the 

schools, the need for less expensive school heating, and the 

potential application of a wood energy system for a greenhouse to grow produce for the local market.

An overview of the greenhouse feasibility study was presented. Several community benefits are anticipated from a 

greenhouse operation growing produce such as tomatoes. 

Besides fresh produce, one or two commercial greenhouse 

facilities would help enrich employment for the community 

and increase Dubois local economy and seems a logical fit.

Copies of the Upper Wind River Biomass Co-Generation 

Project Feasibility Study by Northwest Management, Inc. 

were distributed to the TAV team of Dramm, Bilek, and Zerbe by the Teton Conservation District representatives. The 

study considers several options for application of biomass 

heating in the Dubois area and concludes that school district 

heating is probably not feasible. This conclusion is counter 

to a good deal of discussion on moving forward with district 

heating at the former Louisiana Pacific (LP) sawmill site. 

The point here is to take a close look at the district heating 

project before moving ahead and to resolve any potential issues brought up in the report. On the positive side, the study 

finds that the use of biomass energy for the K–8 school or 

proposed new high school may be feasible, especially if the 

high school can be co-located with the K–8. Biomass heating for greenhouse operation is perhaps a more promising 

opportunity. 

In reviewing the feasibility study, we found a weakness in 

the assumptions assessing the available biomass resource. 

The biomass assessment in the study is based on national 

averages and assumptions applied to the local environ of the 

Dubois area. It would have been much more appropriate to 

consult with the Wyoming Division of Forestry on the recent state-wide biomass inventory assessment. 

Note that the feasibility study cites WoodBoilerFeas.xls 

spreadsheet in the analysis. WoodBoilerFeas.xls was developed by Dr. Bob Govett, University of Wisconsin–Stevens 

Point in partnership with the FPL and UW ExtensionMadison. It is a personal computer spreadsheet program for 

preliminary financial feasibility analysis of wood-fueled 

steam boiler systems. This analysis should only be used as 

a preliminary feasibility to see if a biomass heating system 

is worth exploring further, and we suggest a more detailed 

analysis. Be sure also to look closely at the biomass fuel 

specification for any proposed biomass energy project, 

because too often lack of attention to detail on fuel specification results in difficulties down the road. Experience 

has shown this to be true for industrial wood-fired heat and 

power applications as well as governmental and institutional 

biomass energy projects. 

Louisiana Pacific Sawmill Site

After the closeout meeting, Dan Perko and Randy Williams 

brought the TAV team to the former LP sawmill site east of 

Dubois. The site seems to be an ideal place for co-locating 

several wood-using enterprises and biomass energy operations, greenhouse, and other district energy users. Currently, 

the site has a medical facility and a therapeutic center, with 

plans developing for an assisted living center nearby. 

Local entrepreneurs are considering the development of a 

wood processing cluster at the old LP sawmill site to help 

revitalize the community by rebuilding wood products manufacturing infrastructure. The three businesses we toured 

(log home, sawmill/sort yard, and firewood processing) 

along with a greenhouse and biomass boiler to supply district heating might make up the core of the “Wood Cluster.” 

In addition, biomass heat may also be able to supply the 

medical and senior citizen facilities as was discussed during 

our meeting in Dubois.

Forest residues such as at Union Pass site could supplement 

any mill residues used in firing the biomass boiler. Although 

it appears that with the Forest Service mastication and WUI 

work already in progress (more is NEPA ready), there might 

be enough biomass to make this all work, formal examination and quantification of the resource supply should be 

done before acting on any of these proposals.

A complete engineering and financial feasibility analysis 

should be done to see if this really does make sense before 

spending money moving forward. While the National Forest 

System cannot guarantee supply, biomass is available. As 

the lack of supply might be a limitation on securing financing from lenders for biomass utilization, this might be a 

good project to submit for the Woody Biomass Utilization 

Grants program.

Wyoming–Colorado Technical Assistance Visit Trip Report
6

Saratoga, Wyoming (Medicine Bow–Routt 

National Forest)

On September 9, 2008, the team met with Dan Perko, Deputy State Forester; Arla Strasser, Saratoga–Encampment–

Rawlings Conservation District; local National Forest System staff, biomass energy concerns, the power company, and 

other interested parties from South Central Wyoming. Arla 

Strasser welcomed everybody and introduced the meeting 

agenda for the day. After introductions, FPL representatives 

discussed several key points for success, economic feasibility analysis, critical factors for success, and biomass energy 

options that may fit into South Central Wyoming. 

Much of the discussion focused on potential opportunities 

described in the Forest Service “Partnership” grant application. In addition to Intermountain Forest Products efforts 

to reopen the former LP sawmill in Saratoga, opportunities 

being considered include the following:

•	 Reopening the Encampment Sawmill (R.L. Hammer Timber and Lumber Company)

•	 Attracting enterprise(s) that would utilize sawmill residues for wood energy or other products

•	 Assessing the feasibility of a 600 ton per day fast pyrolysis bio-oil facility

•	 Analyzing bio-mulching for land reclamation associated 

with oil/gas development

Matching up the existing and planned forest products operations in South Central Wyoming with the available timber 

and biomass supply is critical. Too many opportunities appear to be under consideration for the available log resource. 

The consumption capacity of the old LP mill in Saratoga 

was about 40 million board feet annually in 1996. Recently, 

the Forest Service has been able to put up 20 million board 

feet annually of timber sales. The group needs to focus its 

ideas to match appropriately scaled industrial capacity with 

the available resource. This will take a collaborative effort 

with several competing opportunities for the same log/biomass resource. 

Because of high mortality from mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), both short- and long-term supply 

need close evaluation to properly size a sustainable industry. 

The lack of a consistent long-term supply remains a deterrent to industry. Given the uncertainties of resource supply, 

forest products market volatility, and financial viability of 

forest products operations, it is essential to use an objectively planned programming approach. Planned programming 

leads to strategic, marketing, business, and operational plans 

to help guide the development and operation of the enterprise (Howe 2005).

Previous technical assistance visit to Saratoga and Encampment was conducted by Dr. Tom Hamilton, Director of 

FPL, and his staff in 1996. At the time, industry expressed 

concerns about the lack of available timber supply. Timber 

supply was the number one problem facing the industry in 

1996. The timber resource was reportedly plentiful at that 

time but not available, and the mills were having a difficult 

time competing with Canadian lumber. Many mills had already gone out of business by the mid 1990s. 

During the previous visit, the FPL Team toured Louisiana 

Pacific’s sawmill operation in Saratoga, Wyoming; the mill 

was producing 2- by 4-in. studs using mainly lodgepole 

pine with some spruce fir. Pulp chips were shipped by rail to 

Longview, Washington, at the time. Unfortunately, the rail 

spur was subsequently removed sometime after the original 

FPL TAV. Opportunities to increase lumber recovery and 

improve mill efficiency through lumber size quality control 

were noted at the time. Retooling the mill with log/lumber 

scanning and computer optimizing technology was suggested. However, it was unlikely that Louisiana Pacific would 

have invested in such optimization technology because of 

the large capital investment required. A greater and more 

secure supply of timber would have been needed before 

such an investment in optimization technology would have 

taken place.

R.L. Hammer Timber and Lumber Company 

The TAV toured this company in Encampment, Wyoming, 

in 1996. This sawmill operation produced softwood boards 

(1 in. thick). The operation consisted of two smaller mills. 

The large-log side was a conventional circular sawmill employing a sash gang resaw and was geared for lumber grade 

recovery. The small side was a new scragg/thin kerf resaw 

system capable of handling logs down to 4-in. small-end 

diameter. Discussion with Mike Hammer and his sons concluded that there was insufficient small timber to keep the 

new small log mill operational continuously. Again, lack of 

supply—or rather insufficient consideration of the available 

timber supply—resulted in poor use of small-log sawmill 

capacity. Sufficient volume of small-diameter 

material existed but were not yet available at the time.

Front Range in Colorado (Arapaho–Roosevelt 

National Forest)

During September 10 and 11, 2008, the team met at the 

Boulder County fairgrounds. After introductions, Craig 

Jones, Biomass Specialist, Colorado State Forest Service, 

provided an overview of the Partnership grant and long-term 

goals and objectives, implementation, and project challenges. The Front Range has a history of insect outbreaks. Entomological factors include mountain pine beetle, ips beetle 

(Ips spp.), spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis

Freeman), Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsuqae 

Hopk.), and Douglas-fir tussock moth (Orgyia pseudotsugata McDunnough). With the exclusion of fire, thinning, 

and harvesting activities, forest stands have become stressed 

from overstocking, leading to insect attack, often followed 

by catastrophic fire. Fuel build-up will be a problem for 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–192
7

years to come. Rusty Dramm provided an overview of the 

FPL and small-diameter utilization options with discussion 

by Ted Bilek and John Zerbe of FPL.

United Wood Products, Inc.

Raul Bustamante provided the group with an overview and 

tour of his operation in Longmont. Several processing operations are integrated on site including a circular sawmill, 

post and pole peeling, log bucking/merchandising line, and 

firewood processing. Raul’s focus is on producing specialty 

products:

•	Several types of fencing

•	Posts, rails, barn poles

•	Machine or hand peeled logs

•	Unpeeled logs

•	Vigas and latias

•	Log rail systems

•	Mantels

•	Pergolas

•	Play structures

•	Tongue and groove aspen–pine paneling

•	Timbers

•	Rough sawn lumber

•	Bedding/Mulch/Chips

•	Firewood

•	Custom sawing

United Wood Products and the other enterprises who have 

agreed to participate in the Front Range of Colorado logsort yard project indicate a small, but fairly diverse forest 

products industry. Raul’s key to success is to base his operation on specialty products, thus avoiding heavy competition 

found in the commodities lumber market. Specialty products 

are characterized by low volume but generally higher value 

than commodities products (2 by 4 studs, common boards). 

Some attention to housekeeping would help improve plant 

safety.

Renewable Fiber, Inc., Fort Lupton, Colorado

This is a commercial operation producing mulch and other 

soil amendment products from mill and forest residues. Carl 

Spaulding explained the products made at this facility and 

the technology of composting. This is certainly one of the 

viable utilization alternatives for dealing with the mill and 

forest residues.

The Forest Products Laboratory funded a shavings mill at 

Renewable Fiber, Inc. through the Woody Biomass Utilization Grants program in 2008. A bagger for shavings is needed for moving into new markets to overcome a recent loss 

of Renewable Fiber’s bulk shavings market. Carl Spaulding 

will be working with Susan LeVan, Technology Marketing 

Unit, on modifications for the Woody Biomass Utilization 

Grant agreement for this shift in manufacturing. 

We noted that some of the feedstock for Renewable Fiber 

comes from as far away as California. There may also be 

opportunities to rail products long distance by dedicated unit 

train (40+ cars of chips) could be loaded within 48 hours. 

One opportunity is to look at the export pulp chip market to 

Asia via the new export chip port in northern California. 

Jefferson County, Colorado

The TAV Team met with Wade Yates, Special Projects Coordinator for Jefferson County, to review the long-term project 

of the Rooney log sort yard and wood pellets. Several issues 

came to light. First, the idea of a log sort yard to provide 

a drop off point for woody biomass from “ salvage work 

of beetle-killed trees (red and dead) is being fairly well received by the general public. However, NIMBY (not in my 

back yard) appears to be a significant obstacle. 

Second, the approach of using the log-sort yard concept for 

collecting biomass is new and innovative but an unproven 

concept. The yards in general are having a hard time getting 

the public to bring in their biomass to the yards. Up to 

$10 per cord is being offered for sawlog/pole lengths of 

8 ft plus sawmill trim. Others operators in the area are paying $30 per cord at a landowner’s or homeowner’s site. The 

public appears to lack awareness about 1) the existence of 

these biomass collection/sort yards, 2) their hours of operation and 3) seasonality or temporary yard operation.

We suggest that the focus here should be on charging perhaps $30 per cord as a dumping fee for biomass rather than 

paying landowners $10 per cord for logs. Ten dollars per 

cord is not much money for all the effort that goes into making a cord of sawlogs. For the landowner, these yards really 

provide a service of taking the biomass off of their hands. 

What services are you providing your customers? Rethink 

the purpose of the sort yards as it applies to each of your 

potential customers (landowner, homeowner, tree service 

firms, sawmill, firewood processors, post and pole enterprise, mulch operation).

Third, a wood pellet operation adjacent the Rooney sort yard 

site would likely consume all of the available woody biomass anyway, so why bother trying to sort potential sawlogs 

of post and pole material from the biomass when you have 

a ready use for all the material? It is doubtful that enough 

value could be recovered to justify sorting and transporting 

costs of higher valued logs. The best bet is to move all of the 

woody material to pellet manufacture and yard debris (bark) 

to an operation like Renewable Fiber, Inc. 

We recommend that a pellet mill feasibility study be conducted to evaluate the availability of woody biomass, plant 

requirements, financial analysis, and so forth. Per our conversations, we included contact information for Timber 

Ridge Energy Enterprises, Inc. (TREE, Crystal Falls, MI). 

TREE provides services for evaluating and planning cost 

effective processing systems (wood pellet mills) for biomass 

utilization. 

Wyoming–Colorado Technical Assistance Visit Trip Report
8

Estes Park, Colorado 

This community has a biomass collection yard that is the 

drop off point for woody biomass, primarily “red and dead” 

lodgepole pine and other victims of insect outbreak on the 

Front Range. Estes Park has legislated that beetle-killed 

trees must be removed from the land and brought to the yard 

for processing and disposal. The yard employs an air curtain 

burner. There is a potential to recover products from the 

biomass delivered to the Estes Park collection yard; however, long distances to potential markets (such as Renewable 

Fiber) may be prohibitive. We also discussed the issue of 

how landowners get salvaged material/biomass road side 

and how it is collected. One thought was to provide smallscale logging equipment (ATV with log arch) as a means of 

assisting landowners in removal to roadside. This might be 

provided by a local implement dealer or the County itself, 

which would then rent/lease out this equipment to landowners or tree service companies.

Salvation Army Camp’s Tarm Wood Heating System

The group made an impromptu stop at the Salvation Army 

camp to tour the Tarm wood heating system. While some 

outdoor wood burners are of concern with regard to air 

pollution (particulate and smoldering), the Tarm system 

employees a heat sink (water tank). The system appears to 

be very efficient. There are other equivalent systems such 

as the Garn wood-fired systems. Tarm America has been 

distributing the Tarm units made in Denmark for 15 years. 

Before that, they were agents for other European manufacturers.

The Tarm type of combustors are clean and efficient. They 

burn wood, pellets, or corn in one chamber that produces a 

gas that is burned with a high heat in a secondary combustion chamber. The vapors that are periodically emitted from 

combustion are white instead of brown or black, typical of 

some polluting outdoor wood burners.

Tarm also makes multi-fuel boilers that have a firewood 

boiler on one side and a fossil fuel burner on the other side. 

When the unit runs out of wood, it automatically switches 

to burning oil or gas (natural gas or propane). More recently 

Tarm America has again become the agent for other European manufacturers of high quality equipment (Fröling 

(Fröling Heizkessel- und Behälterbau GmbH, Grieskirchen, 

Austria) and Scandtec (Scandtec ApS, Skjern, Denmark)). 

With the expansion of manufacturer representation, Tarm 

America changed its name to BioHeatUSA (Lyme, NH).

Tarm units supply lower energy demand needs, typically 

residential from 15,000 to 148,000 Btu/hr. Scandtec units 

are also designed from 100,000 to about 200,000 Btu/h. 

However, available Fröling units have wider ranges from 

28 kWT to 500 kWT that encompass about 95,500 to 

1,700,000 Btu/h. Different models burn firewood, chips, 

flakes, or pellets. 

For a long time, Dectra Corporation of St. Anthony, Minnesota, has manufactured the Garn high-quality wood burner 

in the United States. It is used in higher capacity installations than the Tarm burner. The Garn combustor has capacities from 350,000 to 950,000 Btu/h.

Gordan Gulch Stewardship

Dan Len provided an overview of stewardship contracting 

on the Arapaho–Roosevelt National Forest. U.S. Forest Service Research has done extensive exploration of fuels reduction treatments. The wildland fire research shows that the 

commonly used “Thinning from Below” prescription is generally not effective (Langowski 2005). Research indicates 

that it is not enough to just remove ladder fuels and that a 

certain percentage of crown closure must also be removed 

to reduce the risk of crown fire. Fuel-reduction prescriptions 

may also substantially change the economics of fuels 

treatment costs. We recommended that you contact 

Paul Langowski, Branch Chief, Fuels and Fire Ecology, 

U.S. Forest Service in Golden, Colorado, for more information. Paul and Bob Rummer put on an Inter-Regional 

Mechanical Fuels Treatment Training for Forest Service employees and partners annually. 

Meeker Park

The group toured the Meeker Park (Boulder County, Colorado) sort yard. A skid steer loader used to sort and move biomass in the yard feeds an air curtain burner (see title page 

photo) for slash disposal. A good discussion on sort yard 

economic feasibility ensued. The yard’s goal is to recover 

the highest valued products from the biomass received. The 

log-sort principals assumed that the highest value would 

be sawlogs worth about $20 per cord. However, firewood 

processed to 16-in. lengths are worth about $80 per cord or 

$100 per cord if split. Firewood would then seem to be a 

much more attractive product option than sawlogs. 

To know the best product mix requires a fairly simple product feasibility analysis that evaluates product margins by 

subtracting the cost of each product compared with revenue 

for each product. The products with the greatest gross margins will be the most attractive options. We also had a good 

discussion on training and workshops for local landowners. 

Group members suggested a sort yard open house with coffee and donuts, demonstrations, products, and landowner 

training to improve marketing of the yard. The temporary, 

seasonal nature of the yards makes establishing the enterprises somewhat difficult.

Gilpin County, Colorado

Scott Golden talked about the biomass collection yard and 

plans for expanding the yard. The issue of how to move 

biomass from roadside to yard is of critical importance. We 

discussed the possibility of a log truck equipped with a hydraulic clam loader (Prentice 150 loader or equivalent) with 

a pup trailer or using roll-off containers.

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–192
9

We then toured the Gilpin County shops. Earl Robison

described Gilpin County’s heating facility where Gilpin 

County owns a “culvert trailer” with a small hydraulic clam 

loader that is used for gathering and transporting woody 

biomass. Fuel is processed by a MorBark 30/36 chipper and 

stored in a covered storage bin. The heating plant is a Messersmith wood-fired boiler used for heating the county shops. 

Messersmith burners made in Bark River, Michigan, are 

high-capacity, from 1,000,000 to 20,000,000 Btu/h. They 

are efficient and can be highly automated, and be adapted to 

fire existing boilers. They fire with sawdust, wood chips, or 

other particle biomass materials.

Closeout Meetings and Follow-up 

Conference Calls

The closeout meeting was held at Gilpin County. Discussion centered on what we learned during the week and how 

available technology might be used to address concerns and 

issues. We also identified potential cooperative projects for 

enhanced collaboration and scheduled follow-up conference 

calls and net meetings. 

Response to Issues, Concerns, and 

Opportunities

Biomass Removal

Dense, overstocked, small-diameter stands with heavy fuel 

loading require mechanical treatment (biomass removal). 

Improving overstocked stands by thinning is needed 

throughout the Intermountain West to reduce the urban wildfire interface risk. Private land is interspersed among Federal and state lands with many homes and structures, especially on the Front Range in Colorado, which is particularly 

at high risk. Slopes are moderate to steep with overstocked 

stands of small-diameter pine, creating a heavy fuel load. 

Beetle infestation is exacerbating the situation. These conditions are increasing the risk of insect outbreaks and wildfires 

within the wildland–urban interface. The key to managing 

the WUI effectively is to remove the fuel loading through 

thinning. Community and homeowner involvement in managing these risks is crucial.

Cost-effective small-scale harvesting and biomass removal 

equipment and techniques that are readily adaptable to small 

acreages are needed. Finding value-added uses for smalldiameter material and forest residues could help reduce the 

cost of removal. Such removals might include full utilization of tops and limbs for ground cover.

Fuels Treatment Effectiveness and Silvicultural Considerations

The Inter-Regional Mechanical Fuels Treatment Training in 

Reno, Nevada (Langowski 2005) presented information on 

forest fuels reduction strategies. We highly encourage 

everyone managing fuels reduction projects to attend this 

Forest Service training. The following presents some highlights of the training applicable to Wyoming and Colorado.

The U.S. Forest Service fuels management strategy is not to 

treat all the acres—it would cost too much. Use strategically 

placed fuels-reduction treatments within a management unit 

to reduce the risk of large catastrophic fires. This is done by 

laying out treatments in strips or blocks based on historical 

fire behavior. Clearly fire, forest management, timber sale 

administration, research, and utilization specialists need better coordination between them.

Russell Graham, Research Silviculturist, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station states that foresters generally don’t thin 

heavily enough (Langowski 2005). This limits the effectiveness of fuels reduction projects in reducing crown fire 

behavior. Not thinning heavily enough is less effective in 

changing fire behavior. It also produces lower volumes and 

poorer quality of forest products removed during thinning 

from below prescriptions. This in turn results in less than 

effective fuels treatment at higher net treatment cost.

Paul Langowski, Forest Service Branch Chief, Fuels and 

Fires Ecology, goes on to state that prescribed burning removes ground fuels (Langowski 2005). However, reducing 

crown fuels outweighs the importance of reducing surface 

fuels. The major effects (large catastrophic fires) are from 

crown fires. Hence, the need is to mechanically treat (thinning or tree mastication) to reduce crown fuels. 

Thinning from below usually involves removing smaller 

diameter trees from the sub-canopy to favor growth of the 

dominant trees. Forest Service Wildland Fire Research 

(Langowski 2005), has found that thinning from below is 

generally not effective in reducing crown fires or reducing 

mortality from scorching. Researchers advocate that thinnings include bigger trees in the dominant and co-dominant 

crown closure. This not only reduces crown fuels but also 

provides more economic incentive by harvesting some larger diameter and more valuable trees. Forest Service research 

has developed computer modeling tools for improving fuelreduction prescriptions. 

Timber Sales

A consistent supply of timber is the overall long-term major 

overriding issue for establishing and maintaining a sustainable forest products industry. The U.S. Forest Service 

has been able to put up increasing volumes in timber sales 

(about 20 million board feet per year) over the last several 

years on the Medicine Bow–Routt National Forests. Some 

timber sales have sold whereas others have not. These “no 

bid” sales are a problem because not only has the Forest 

Service invested resources into preparing sales that did not 

happen, but also timber that the Forest Service has planned 

on being removed will not be cut because it has not 

sold. This can have adverse effects on forest health and 

management.

Wyoming–Colorado Technical Assistance Visit Trip Report
10

Throughout the Intermountain West, most of the former forest products manufacturing infrastructure that could have 

utilized small-diameter material is gone. For the most part, 

the current forest products manufacturing infrastructure is 

not set up to handle small-diameter material economically. 

No bid sales might be the result of (1) current poor lumber 

markets, (2) lack of sawmill infrastructure, (3) lack of capital to retool or re-establish sawmill capacity, (4) lack of mill 

residue markets, or (5) the available log supply is not being 

matched to the local existing forest product manufacturing 

infrastructure. 

Unfortunately, sawmill industry representatives were not 

available at the Saratoga meeting to discuss timber supply 

issues. Specific issues and courses of corrective actions are 

needed. Several key questions still need to be answered, 

such as the following:

•	 Why do some of the Forest Service timber sales end up 

as no bid sales? Are poor lumber markets to blame? Is 

the inability to secure capital from your lender at fault?

•	 Are mixed species timber sales a problem? Generally, 

mills are designed for a specific log diet and cannot use 

everything and all species provided.

•	 Is available timber supply matched to the existing and 

planned utilization (sawmill) capacity? We must consider 

volume, quality, price, species, location, and logging 

chance.

•	 What kind of coordination is taking place regionally 

(Saratoga, Wyoming; Encampment, Wyoming; Laramie, 

Wyoming; Walden, Colorado) to balance supply with 

processing capacity? It is apparent that there is more 

existing/planned utilization capacity than the currently 

available timber and biomass supply.

•	 Can small-diameter materials from fuels reduction 

projects be processed economically by the existing and 

planned manufacturing capacity (sawmills)?

•	 Is the timber supply consistently available from year to 

year? This is critical for reestablishing industrial capacity.

•	 What assurances of continuing supply do the mills need? 

Uncertainty of timber supply creates difficulties in obtaining financial backing for new investments. 

Industrial Issues and Opportunities

Sawmilling Infrastructure 

A healthy timber industry with the ability to utilize and market a variety of species and size classes is a key component 

to economical forestry operations (fuels reduction, landscape restoration, red and dead timber salvage). Industrial 

capacity is necessary to help resolve some of the economics 

associated with forest health. The lack of forest products 

manufacturing capacity is a difficult challenge to overcome. 

Appropriately scaled industrial capacity can provide an outlet for small-diameter material from forest fuels reduction 

projects and beetle-killed salvage. Utilization capacity can 

also provide primary manufacturing jobs, an important economic engine.

Small-Log Sawmilling

The trend toward smaller log diameters requires existing 

industries to retool their operations to handle small-diameter 

material. Reestablishing lost industrial capacity and retooling existing industries to process small-diameter material 

economically are critical needs.

Sawing for higher valued products is also essential for sawmills to become competitive. It is difficult today to survive 

by producing commodity market lumber (studs, dimension 

lumber, and boards) in the Intermountain West. Given the 

high cost of delivered logs substantial distances away from 

primary markets and the lack of an adequate transportation 

infrastructure, cost can easily outweigh revenues. With limited capital to invest in sawmill optimization equipment, it 

is especially difficult for small- to medium-sized sawmills to 

compete. 

If larger, higher quality sawlogs become available, a sawmill’s product mix should include higher valued lumber 

such as kiln-dried boards, Clears, Shop, and Moulding 

lumber grades, cutstock/millwork, and other specialty sawn 

products (architectural timbers). Even in these trying economic times, some sawmills in the United States are already 

doing this successfully and surviving. Opportunities to improve log conversion efficiency through improved lumber 

recovery and lumber size control will also help.

Wyoming has a small industrial capacity base for processing 

small-diameter material (lodgepole pine). This includes the 

idle sawmills in Encampment and Saratoga as well as Big 

Horn Lumber (Laramie, Wyoming) and Rocky Mountain 

Pellet Company (Walden ,Colorado). The Encampment sawmill has small-log sawing technology to utilize material as 

small as 4-1/2 in. This mill offers small log capacity to help 

get forest health management accomplished. 

Industry Revitalization and Rebuilding 

A key point to revitalization is that regional and local collaborative efforts are often required to develop integrated, 

viable, and sustainable industrial capacity. The industrial 

capacity must be matched to the available resource. The immediate goal here should be to focus on improving the existing industrial infrastructure so that it remains viable. This 

helps avoid duplication of processing capacity.

We encourage all the partners to work together with forest 

enterprises toward a balanced and sustainable forest products industry. Engage organizations that facilitate business 

development, such as Small Business Development Centers 

and other economic development groups. This means to 

take a planned programming approach to business planning 

(Howe and Bratkovich 2005), which will greatly improve 

your chances of success.

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–192
11

Business Investment Capital 

In general, heavy capital investment is needed to establish a new forest products enterprise (sawmill) in today’s 

competitive forest products industry. In terms of economic 

development, it is far less expense to retain existing industrial infrastructure (sawmills) than to develop new forest 

products enterprises. For existing sawmills, capital investment and improved log conversion efficiency will be needed 

to be competitive. This is especially true if such mills are to 

compete in the commodities lumber market. Their competition is low-cost big mills that take advantage of economies 

of scale and less expensive timber supply (Canadian lumber 

producers).

It is unlikely that the sawmill industry will be able to make 

additional heavy capital investment at this time until the 

current housing, credit, and Wall Street worries have settled 

down and the National economy gets rolling again. Available capital is lacking, so this will be a severe limitation on 

expanding industrial capacity. Even if a guaranteed timber 

supply could be secured, it is doubtful that forest products 

enterprises will be able to borrow money from their lender 

(banker) given the economic issues currently facing the U.S. 

economy. Venture capital and the owner’s personal savings, 

friends, and relatives are about the extent of what capital 

might be tapped into at this time.

Cellulosic Ethanol and Other Biofuels from 

Woody Biomass

Ethanol and other biofuels from wood are other potential 

opportunities to use small-diameter and underutilized material. Biofuel enterprises could also potentially use standing 

dead material for which there is no alternative use other than 

fuelwood. 

With downed or standing dead material, moisture content is 

low and much of the pitch and other wood extractives are 

gone. This type of material could be subjected to acid or 

enzyme hydrolysis processes to produce sugars that could 

then be fermented to ethanol or subjected to thermo-chemical gasification and synthesis processes to produce ethanol, 

diesel, gasoline, or jet fuel. Chipped green small-diameter 

material and thinnings could also be processed to produce 

sugars for fermentation to ethanol or to produce gas for synthesis to other transportation fuels. 

If production of ethanol or other biofuels from woody biomass is pursued, economics can be improved at today’s 

prices for petroleum if at least 70 gallons or more of ethanol 

or other biofuels are produced from each dry ton of material. 

To achieve this, both five and six carbon sugars need to be 

efficiently and effectively fermented to ethanol and an optimal portion of the cellulose in wood needs to be converted 

to glucose during processing. 

Areas where FPL research capabilities would be of assistance are in the development of new and improved strains of 

yeast that efficiently ferment mixtures of five and six carbon 

sugars to ethanol and developing technologies to more effectively convert cellulose to glucose as well as developing 

technologies for gasification and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis 

of lignocellulose and bark to biofuels. Work in this area 

would be best accomplished in partnership with the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), biorefineries at pulp and paper mills, and 

facilities at other forest products manufacturing plants.

Sort Yards 

During our visit to the Front Range in Colorado, we really 

did not see sawlog-quality material in the sort yards. Material in the sort yards was predominantly forest biomass of 

little value as sawlogs or roundwood products. Firewood, 

biomass chips, and feedstock for wood pellets and other 

wood energy uses appear to be the most logical and the predominant use for this material. To be economically feasible, 

a log sort yard needs a certain proportion of higher-valued 

log products to justify sorting. This raises the question, 

“Why bother sorting this material?” given what we saw—or 

did not see—at the sort yards. Whereas some salvaged dead 

material can be sold as sawlogs, most sawmills require fresh 

cut green sawlogs.

Critical Factors for Success

Objective business planning will be necessary to capitalize 

on opportunities and ameliorate some of the problems in the 

western forests. The importance of objective business planning cannot be overemphasized because the probability of 

success is low. Timmons (1990) estimated the failure rate 

for new ventures at 40% in the first year and 90% over 10 

years. The business planning process can reduce some of the 

risks by pointing out weaknesses and deficiencies through 

market and financial feasibility analyses. 

Consequently, a properly developed business plan improves 

the chances for success. Howe and Bratkovitch (2005) 

provide an excellent step-by-step guide for planning wood 

products enterprises. Given the current poor markets, lack 

of credit, and restricted timber supply, it is imperative that 

an objective planned approach to assessing the feasibility of 

re-establishing sawmill and other wood products processing 

capacity be taken.

Business planning accomplishes four basic things (Howe 

and Bratkovich 2005, Govett 2005):

1. It forces the project planning team to think strategically 

and take a critical objective look at starting or expanding 

the business.

2. A formalized operating plan provides a business owners’ 

manual for developing and operating their business. It is 

a working roadmap to success.

3. A business plan enables the firm to obtain financing. 

It provides the lender with a basis to evaluate venture 

Wyoming–Colorado Technical Assistance Visit Trip Report
12

startup or expansion plans. It communicates to others 

the value of the new enterprise. Two key elements of 

the business plan are the marketing and financial plans. 

These latter two elements are number 3 and number 6 in 

the “Seven Critical Factors for Success” and are further 

discussed later in this document.

4. The process of business planning improves the likelihood of success by identifying difficulties, risks, problems, and strategies to overcome barriers or to abandon 

enterprises where problems cannot be overcome, thereby 

saving time, energy, and money.

Developing a business plan is a rigorous process involving 

considerable work in identifying likely difficulties, hurdles 

to overcome, and risks. This process requires that those who 

proceed with the plan—bring the business to fruition and 

then execute it—have thoroughly and frankly considered 

the overall environment. Frequently, while developing the 

business plan, problems or hurdles that cannot be overcome 

are identified and the enterprise can be abandoned before 

financial losses have accrued. In contrast, starting a business with less research (due diligence) and being unaware of 

problems can lead to failure, often at great cost. The use of 

the business plan reduces the risk of failure where an incorrect decision to proceed is rejected in the planning process. 

In cases where the decision is made to proceed, the business 

plan can help to identify factors that will need to be closely 

monitored in order to ensure success. A good business plan 

reduces uncertainty and minimizes risk.

A well-prepared business plan addresses the “Seven Critical 

Factors for Success” described by Mater (1988) and Davis 

(1995), in the following order, beginning with the most limiting factor—raw material resource supply:

1.Raw material resource characterization and assessment: 

ownership and availability, price, location, quality (taper, 

defect, tree form), quantity, and physical characteristics 

(diameter distribution, length, volume)

2. Potential product options from available resource: types 

of products, grade mix, volume recovery, and technical 

feasibility

3. Market feasibility of potential product options and transportation infrastructure: competition, commodity and 

specialty markets, transportation, and integrated industrial 

infrastructure required

4. Processing technology and design requirements for handling and processing raw material into products: technical feasibility, equipment selection, and manufacturing 

methods

5. Management team and other business management considerations: business structure, management team, business controls, management team know-how and experience, and skilled/unskilled workforce availability

6. Financial feasibility and pro forma projections (projections of the balance sheet, income statement and cash 

flow analysis) of the proposed operation are of greatest 

importance, as they provide the core of the financial analysis of the business plan.

7. Safety, health, and environmental considerations, and 

other non-financial factors such as regulations and licensing that could limit project success

Each of these factors can have profound influence on the 

success of a forest products enterprise, especially in light of 

current timber resource availability, volatile forest product 

markets and weakened National economy. Weakness in or 

the lack of one or more of these factors could lead to project 

or enterprise failure. In particular, it is clearly apparent in 

some areas that there is not nearly enough available wood 

supply such as the projects planned in the Saratoga–Encampment, Wyoming, area. Follow the “Seven Critical 

Factors for Success” presented here, starting with the raw 

material resource assessment. How much do you have to 

play with? Match the available raw material supply to an 

appropriate scale of forest products processing capacity. Can 

you sell and make a reasonable profit?

The Marginal Log Problem 

Small-diameter material is a factor in log supplies in the 

western United States. Small-diameter material offers moderate to low quality and lower valued products with less 

volume per piece than traditional large-diameter logs. Furthermore, small-diameter material is proportionately much 

more expensive to process than large-diameter logs. These 

present several challenges for the small wood operator. 

Economic viability depends on efficient log conversion at 

minimum per unit cost per thousand board feet ($/thousand 

board feet) while recovering a high value from the available 

log resource so that the difference between cost and recovery value is maximized.

The economic problem of small wood operations centers on 

dealing with the Concept of Marginal Logs. Marginal logs 

are characterized by low-value (small-diameter, underutilized, moderate to low quality) material (Hallock 1964). In 

relation to log diameter, log cost decreases with increasing 

log size to a point, and then costs begin to increase, whereas 

value increases with log size. Product (lumber) value increases as log diameter increases (Fig. 4). 

Why do costs decrease and value increase with increase in 

log size? An 8-in. diameter log only has about one fourth 

the cubic foot volume of a 16-in. log of the same length. A 

sawmill, for example, would have to process four or five 

times as many 8-in. logs to recover the same lumber volume 

production of 16-in. logs of similar length. For a given small 

wood operation, processing smaller logs can be substantially 

more expensive on a per unit basis ($/thousand board feet) 

than for larger-diameter logs (Barbour 1999).

The intersection of the cost curve with the log value curve 

defines the line of log marginality (Fig. 4). This is the point 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–192
13

where product (lumber and mill residues) value equals the 

delivered log cost plus direct processing costs. One might 

conclude that submarginal logs should never be processed, 

as cost is greater than product value. In reality, all small 

wood processing operations to some extent process a mixture of logs from both sides of the line of marginality. What 

is important is that an operator processes logs better—that is 

larger—than the average marginal log.

The continuing overall trend toward smaller and poorer 

quality logs means managing marginal logs. One option is 

to find ways to move the line of marginality to the left to be 

able to use smaller log size and lower log quality/value. This 

is accomplished by lowering the cost curve (Fig. 5), raising 

the value curve (Fig. 6), or a combination of both.

Lowering the Cost Curve

This factor focuses on reducing per unit ($/thousand board 

feet) cost of logs delivered to the mill, sawing or processing 

costs, and overhead (fixed costs):

•	 Use “Economies of Scale” to spread capitalization costs 

over larger production volumes.

•	 Improve log mix—saw logs of the size and quality represented by the bottom of the cost curve.

•	 Incorporate linear single-pass log processing and other 

improvements in mill equipment.

•	 Concentrate on efficient plant layout and design.

•	 Minimize effort in processing low-value logs.

•	 Handle and process logs efficiently and minimize log and 

product (lumber) handling.

•	 Processing logs in like batches improves production rate 

and the quality of breakdown.

Raising the Value Curve

Likewise, several things can be done to raise the value 

curve:

•	 Improve marketing: Find better markets and prices for 

products, get the best price possible, and don’t give your 

products away after you expended all the time, effort, and 

dollars to produce them. 

•	 Improve log mix with saw logs of the size and quality 

represented on the value curve to the right of the line of 

marginality. 

•	 Match equipment and plant design to log resource characteristics and available markets.

•	 Incorporate quality control to assure product conformance to specifications and improve product (more product from same volume of logs).

•	 Merchandise logs for highest net value (bucking long 

logs into various short log products such as veneer peeler 

blocks, sawlogs, saw bolts, and pulpwood to optimize log 

value).

•	 Marketing mill residues is a must.

Figure 4—Concept of marginal logs. Marginal log size 

(small end log diameter) is at the intersection of the cost 

curve with the product value curve. Here, product value 

equals log costs. On average, logs smaller in diameter than 

the average diameter of the line of marginality cost more 

to procure and process than the value of the potential 

products.

Figure 5—Lower the cost curve. Lowering the cost curve 

decreases the marginal log size allowing for better 

utilization of smaller diameter sawlogs.

Figure 6—Raise the value curve. Raising the value curve 

also decreases the marginal sawlog size. A combination of 

lowering costs and increasing products value produce even 

greater benefits.

Wyoming–Colorado Technical Assistance Visit Trip Report
14

Sawmill Technical Assistance 

Assistance is available from the Technology Marketing Unit 

(TMU) of the FPL. Although assistance is generally limited 

to responding to technical lumber manufacturing inquiries, 

onsite assistance is considered at the request of your State 

Forestry staff. Sawmill layout, design, construction, and 

other in-depth studies are referred to consultants.

Today’s state-of-the-art small-log processing incorporates 

log and lumber scanning technologies and computer sawing decisions, single-pass processing systems, curve-sawing 

technology, and other precision manufacturing technologies. 

Turnkey cost for today’s small-log sawmill can be a substantial investment. Increasing production rates, maximizing 

lumber recovery through optimization and quality control, 

and minimizing production costs are keys to profitability. 

On a smaller scale, single-pass small-log scragg mills and 

resaws are available. The TMU can offer recommendations 

on appropriately scaled small-log softwood processing technologies and manufacturing methods.

Lumber size control is a quality control technique developed to help identify and locate problems in primary and 

secondary log breakdown systems in sawmill operations. 

This is useful in troubleshooting, setting maintenance priorities, and determining when adjustments to a breakdown 

system are necessary or when to leave the process alone. 

Benefits of size control include improved process performance and lumber quality, resulting in reduced unit costs 

($/thousand board feet) and increased productivity. The 

TMU can provide assistance, in coordination with your 

State Forestry staff specialists, for studying lumber size 

variation and target sizing.

At the request of your State Forestry staff specialists, TMU 

participates in conducting lumber recovery and grade yield

mill studies. These study results provide measures of log 

breakdown conversion efficiency and help identify opportunities for mill improvement. Manufacturing costs and market prices can be used with mill study recovery data to analyze potential sawmill improvement project feasibility. Mill 

study data, mill identification, and other sensitive business 

information are kept strictly confidential. However, general 

conclusions, recommendations, and insights are subject for 

use by the U.S. Forest Service in advancing improved log 

utilization and sawmill efficiency.

Lumber recovery in softwood dimension mills can be simulated using computer software. Computer sawing simulations help sawmill operators estimate potential lumber product recovery and value. Simulation results can be compared 

with actual results from lumber recovery studies to identify 

potential areas of improvement. The TMU can provide assistance with computer sawing simulations for sawmill and 

resource assessment studies.

Gross Margin

Early development of financial feasibility can avoid wasting 

time and energy. This will help you focus on the big picture, 

identify critical business data needs and assumptions, and 

narrow down potentially viable opportunities to match the 

available resource. Preliminary financial analysis helps depersonalize feasibility analysis so that decisions as to “Go” 

or “No-Go” are made on an objective rather than subjective 

basis. This approach helps prevent emotional attachment to 

bad ideas. Preliminary financial analysis also helps convert 

passive discussion into action as it illuminates opportunities 

and problems. 

What forest products business planners and managers really need is an effective and simple way to simultaneously 

consider both manufactuing revenue and costs. Enterprise 

viability depends in part on the dynamics of the available 

timber supply (log cost delivered to the mill yard), cost of 

converting logs into primary and residue products (manufacturing cost), and forest products markets (revenue from the 

sale of products and mill residues). Evaluation of product 

value to delivered log cost and processing cost provides a 

good starting point for preliminary feasibility analysis of the 

proposed enterprise.

In the final calculation, gross margin will be of greatest 

interest and importance to the forest products enterprise 

planning team. Gross margin equals product revenue minus 

delivered log cost and variable manufacturing cost. Specifically, the gross margin is used to identify both those species, 

log grades, and product mix that offer the greatest potential 

for economic return, as well as those that pose the greatest 

problems, risk of losses, or unacceptably low margins.

A gross margin calculation done using “best-case” scenario 

assumptions can help present the financial picture early on 

in the planning process. It should be developed using a reasonable pair of “rose-colored” glasses. This quick and easy 

analysis will identify projects that are unattractive even under the best-case assumptions. When this is found and demonstrated, obviously attention should be focused elsewhere. 

This saves you time and energy from chasing after a poor 

investment scenario.

Under a best-case scenario, a positive gross margin indicates 

a scenario worth further investigation and a more intensive 

financial analysis. A negative gross margin indicates a nonviable scenario that is not worth further investigation. Pursuit of the nonviable option can be dropped before extensive 

time and energy have been expended. In some cases, the 

preliminary financial analysis may indicate that the original 

concept is flawed or otherwise unworkable. However, a 

more appropriate dimension of undertaking may be identified as a result of interactive discussion in doing the analysis 

and more broadly considering problems and opportunities. 

When options have been narrowed to perhaps three to five, a 

more detailed analysis of raw material supply, products and 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–192
15

markets, processing, and financial aspects of the project can 

be pursued.

Marketing

As factor three of the seven critical factors for success, market feasibility and development is the most important factor 

next to raw material resource assessment. Of great concern 

is the current pathetically poor commodity lumber markets. 

A key to success is ability to use and market all products 

including residues. Sale of mill residues often provides the 

difference between profitable forest products enterprises and 

those that struggle. 

The Western Wood Products Association (WWPA) reports, 

“The record-setting downturn in lumber demand is expected 

to extend through 2009 as the U.S. financial system gets 

back on its feet and housing finds a bottom, according to 

a new supply and demand forecast...the forecast calls for 

housing markets and lumber demand to grow in 2010, but 

(WWPA) cautions that any recovery will be slow” (Random 

Lengths Publications 2008). Refer to Howe and Bratkovitch 

(2005) for information on marketing plans.

Marketing Forest and Mill Residues 

Both forest and mill residues will be problematic until better 

residue markets can be established. There is a critical need 

to identify and tap into alternative markets. For example, 

Renewable Fiber, Inc.’s operation provides a viable alternative for mill residues to the traditional clean pulp chip. Residues can also be used as feedstocks for fiber-based products 

(particleboard, waferboard) or for wood energy. Although 

many options are available for utilizing mill residues, the 

problem is one of marketing and getting sufficient economic 

return.

Manufacturing Directories

Forest Products Industry Directories are essential marketing tools, and we recommend that every state provide up to 

date forest products directories of their primary and secondary wood products manufacturing firms, wholesalers, etc. 

The Colorado Wood Utilization and Marketing Assistance 

Center published the Colorado Forest Industries Directory 

in 2004. We are not aware of a forest industry directory for 

Wyoming.

Market Distribution Challenges 

Marketing also involves the distribution of products to 

the marketplace. Transportation (high cost and lack of infrastructure) is a critical issue facing both Wyoming and 

Colorado. Poor transportation infrastructure limits options 

to move products to market. Distance to markets and lack 

of transportation infrastructure will continue to be barriers, 

especially in the Dubois, Wyoming, area. Proper industrial 

siting is vital to successfully establishing and maintaining a 

forest products industry, for which transportation infrastructure is a crucial consideration. The high cost of diesel fuel is 

also of great concern.

Profit-Added Opportunities 

Considerable interest exists in new markets for raw materials from logs, dead timber, and other material. Remanufacturing that could help integrate operations for value-added is 

very important if these other markets are to develop. There 

is a strong need for value-added opportunities for smalldiameter trees.

Note that it is not enough to simply manufacture “valueadded” products. Any increase in revenues from the sale of 

value-added products must cover the additional costs associated in producing and marketing these products. It makes no 

sense to do value-added if it does improve an enterprise’s 

bottom line. Value-added opportunities that more than cover 

the additional costs might be better called “profit-added” 

opportunities.

Marketing is the key to success with profit-added opportunities. Profit-added opportunities include specialty and niche 

market products such as house logs, tongue and groove 

(T&G) paneling, vigas and latias, architectural timbers, 

Douglas-fir flooring, and other high-end but limited quantity 

products. Profit-added includes manufacture of small-diameter material such as cabinet and furniture making as well 

as artisan and crafts items—and yes, even firewood if you 

market it right.

Financial Feasibility Analysis

In the re-invigoration of a forest products industry to support woody biomass utilization, financial feasibility analysis 

for each project will be critical to the success of the program. This is factor six of the seven critical steps. The steps 

in a full project financial feasibility analysis are shown in 

Figure 7. 

Financial feasibility analysis is a component of project feasibility analysis. Financial feasibility analysis refers to the 

final four steps in a project feasibility analysis: estimating 

unit values and calculating the gross margin, developing the 

cash flow table, calculating measures of project worth, and 

analyzing risk and uncertainty. A description of each step in 

a full project feasibility analysis follows: 

•	 Identify objectives What is the problem? What is the 

purpose? Why is a project being proposed? What is going to be achieved? Objectives should be quantifiable and 

measurable; otherwise it is impossible to evaluate how 

well different project alternatives might achieve the proposed objectives. 

•	 Identify alternatives What are the different ways to 

achieve the objectives? This is a good place for a brainstorming phase in the project analysis. The alternatives 

considered will probably not be an exhaustive list. However, the alternatives should represent a realistic range of 

options. When considering options, “do nothing” is always an alternative with its own set of costs and benefits. 

When considering options, beware of a TINA (“there is 

no alternative”) mindset. Alternatives usually do exist. 

Wyoming–Colorado Technical Assistance Visit Trip Report
16

For each alternative...define physical input-output relationships and timing; estimate unit values for inputs and outputs 

and calculate the gross margin; develop “cash flow” table; 

calculate measures of project worth; and analyze risk and 

uncertainty associated with alternative being analyzed.

Define Physical Input–Output Relationships 

and Timing

Physical input–output relationships and timing are usually 

defined by the engineers and technical people involved with 

the project. In this step the raw materials, labor, and capital 

equipment as well as the likely production or other outputs 

are analyzed.

It is in this technical input–output phase that the resource 

supply must be considered. In projects that rely on forest 

resources, the resource supply portion of the physical inputs 

may be the same for all alternatives. This corresponds to #1 

of the Seven Critical Factors for Success. What is the resource supply? What are the significant factors that describe 

it? These could include species, age class distributions, 

diameter distribution, silvicultural treatments, ownership, 

site conditions (slope), accessibility (existing roads), site 

indexes, and fire regime class.

The potential outputs correspond to both #2 (potential product options) and #4 (technical feasibility, equipment selection, manufacturing methods) of the Seven Critical Factors 

for Success. An important component in a full project 

analysis is to determine the timing of the inputs and outputs. 

When will the inputs be available and processed? 

Note that any project analysis involves a number of forward-looking statements. These are assumptions about the 

future—raw materials supplies, production rates, conversion rates, costs, and revenues. It is important to state these 

assumptions explicitly and to provide sources for these assumptions, wherever possible. This will provide more credibility for the project analysis and will enable decision-makers to see the reasonableness of the various assumptions. 

The next four steps in the project analysis comprise the financial feasibility analysis, #5 of the Seven Critical Factors 

for Success.

Estimate Unit Values for Inputs and Outputs 

and Calculate the Gross Margin 

How much will the input cost and how much will the output be worth? Without #3 of the Seven Critical Factors for 

Success, which involves a market feasibility analysis, the 

outputs may be worthless. A market feasibility analysis may 

be necessary to estimate input and output values with a sufficient degree of confidence to undertake the project.

Before proceeding further, this is an appropriate time to 

double-check to see if a single-year gross margin is sufficient to make it worthwhile to continue with a more detailed 

analysis. The gross margin should be estimated for a year 

when the project is fully operational.

The gross margin is what is left over to pay for manufacturing costs, capital costs, administration and other fixed costs, 

financing costs, and taxes. If the gross margin does not 

appear to be sufficient to cover these additional costs, it is 

worthwhile investigating other alternatives rather than pursuing something that will probably be a “No-Go” decision.

Develop “Cash Flow” Table

If the gross margin is positive, the cash flow table shows 

the physical inputs and outputs and the financial inputs and 

outputs, as well as their timing. The cash flows in the table 

may be expressed in “real” terms not including inflation, or 

in “nominal” terms including inflation. The cash flow table 

should be extended over the project’s life. Cash flows may 

be calculated simply on a before-tax-and-finance basis. Alternatively, cash flows may also be calculated after-finance 

but before-tax, and after-tax.

The cash flow table is important because it shows the times 

when the project will require financing and when it is projected to return a surplus. It is critical for project budgeting 

and can be used as a mark against which the project success 

(or failure) is measured. A cash flow table also forms the basis for the pro forma income statements and balance sheets 

that should be included in a full business plan.

Calculate Measures of Project Worth 

Common measures of project worth include the following:

•	 Net present value (NPV), which is also sometimes called 

present net value, net present worth, or present net worth. 

All terms refer to the same formula, which discounts and 

sums a project’s costs and benefits over its life.

•	 The internal rate of return (IRR), modified internal rate of 

return (MIRR), and the benefit/cost, or cost/benefit ratio. 

The closing balance or net future value is also sometimes 

calculated. Pro forma income statements and balance 

sheets are projected statements, given the revenues and 

costs in the cash flow table.

In addition to the benefits and costs that were calculated 

in the cash flow table, most measures of project worth 

also require a discount rate. The discount rate may also be 

known as the hurdle rate, the alternative rate of return, the 

cost of capital, or the weighted average cost of capital. The 

terms all refer to an interest rate that represents the cost of 

financing, which itself represents the expected return on 

investment if funds were not put into this project. This is 

an interest rate that is used to compare the net benefits and 

costs in different years. Like the cash flows in the cash flow 

table, the discount rate may be in real terms not including 

inflation, or in “nominal” terms including inflation. It is imUnless a project is technically viable, it 

cannot be financially viable.

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–192
17

portant not to mix real cash flows with a nominal discount 

rate (a common error), or nominal cash flows with a real 

discount rate. Both can lead to erroneous measures of project worth and mistakes in “go or no go” recommendations.

Analyze Risk and Uncertainty Associated 

with Alternative being Analyzed 

Estimates of the input and output quantities and relationships as well as their costs and values are forecasts. In a 

basic project analysis, they are point estimates or “best 

guesses.” Some of those estimates will be more critical with 

regard to their effect on the project’s technical and financial 

viability. Those estimates need to be examined more closely. 

Some of those critical estimates will have known variable 

distributions (How many cords of firewood can be produced 

from a ton of roundwood?). These are risky estimates with 

distributions that can be analyzed either stochastically or 

with a sensitivity analysis. Some of the critical estimates 

may not have known distributions (What will wood pellet 

prices be in 10 years?). These are uncertain estimates and 

can only be analyzed using sensitivity analysis.

The feedback loops in the diagram (Fig. 7) show that variables both in the technical analysis and in the financial 

analysis are changed using both stochastic and sensitivity 

analysis to determine the impacts on the cash flows and 

measures of project worth. Once the risks and uncertainties 

have been analyzed, the project analysis should have sufficient information for a decision to be made regarding the 

project’s likelihood of success or failure. In addition, and 

perhaps just as importantly, the risk and uncertainty analysis 

helps to show which of the input variables are most critical 

in affecting the project’s overall viability.

A number of tools are available to aid in the construction of 

a preliminary financial feasibility analysis.

Business Financial Feasibility Spreadsheet 

Tools 

Downloadable financial feasibility and product recovery 

spreadsheets for sawmills and related forest products operations are available:

GRADEYIELD - Lumber Grade and Yield Studies for 

Analysis of Sawmill Profit-Potential

The easy to use spreadsheet program includes a step-by-step 

explanation of data entry to use the program itself, the manual primarily focuses on how to go about conducting lumber grade/yield recovery studies and on how to use of the 

GRADEYIELD spreadsheet program to perform analysis of 

data collected in a lumber grade/yield study and interpreting 

the results. Available from

http://www.fwe.wisc.edu/extension/index.html

SAWFEAS - Sawmill Financial Feasibility

The SAWFEAS spreadsheet model allows the user to 

conduct preliminary financial feasibility analysis in the 

developmental planning of new sawmill operations and for 

preliminary financial analyses related to the acquisition of 

existing sawmill operations. Available from

http://www.fwe.wisc.edu/extension/index.html

PROYIELD - Sawmill Yield Analysis

The PROYIELD model allows the user to project yields of 

lumber products and residuals generated in sawing individual logs and for user-defined log sample distributions, with 

user defined log, process and product assumptions. These 

data may be used in various types of analyses and projections including for data entry into the SAWFEAS Sawmill 

Financial Feasibility Analysis model. Available from

http://www.fwe.wisc.edu/extension/index.html

Wood Fueled Boiler Financial Feasibility 

The Wood Fueled Boiler Financial Feasibility program provides a starting point for interested parties to perform financial feasibility analysis of a steam boiler system for space 

heating or process heat. Available from http://forest.wisc.

edu/entention/boilermanual.htm.

Figure 7—Steps in project feasibility analysis. 

Feedback loop shows uncertainty and 

sensitivity analysis.

Wyoming–Colorado Technical Assistance Visit Trip Report
18

ChargeOut! 

Cash flow analysis for logging equipment

Chargeout.xls analyzes the costs and returns for a single 

logging machine and may be modified to analyze any capital equipment purchase and is adaptable to other capital 

projects. Available from http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/

fplgtr/fpl_gtr171/fpl_gtr171--chargeout.xls

LSY: Log Sort Yard Analysis

LSY (Bilek 2009) is specialized for the financial analysis 

of log sort yards. This template should only be used after it 

has been determined that there is a sufficient gross margin 

to make it worthwhile for a more detailed analysis of a sort 

yard’s feasibility. A spreadsheet-based model, LSY (Logsort Yard Cash Flow Analysis), has been constructed to aid 

in the pre-feasibility and financial feasibility analysis of 

log-sort yards. It is meant to be referred to concurrently with 

this documentation. Both are available for downloading at 

no cost from the Forest Products Laboratory’s website.

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fpl_gtr184/

LSY3.01.xls.

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fpl_gtr184/fpl_

gtr184.pdf

Another good related reference for LSY is the general technical report “Log Sort Yard Economics, Planning and Feasibility” by Dramm and others (2004) available at

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fpl_gtr146.pdf

Although financial feasibility analysis is one of the Seven 

Critical Factors for Success, just because a project is financially feasible does not necessarily mean that it will be undertaken. There are two reasons for this. First, non-financial 

factors may come into the decision that cause a financially 

feasible project to be rejected. The second reason relates to 

capital budgeting, as sufficient funds may not be available to 

undertake all good projects.

Even if a project appears to be financially feasible, looks 

good in a full project analysis, and is undertaken, that does 

not guarantee that it will be a success. You still must achieve 

the rest of the Seven Critical Factors for Success (#5, a good 

management team and #7, safety, health, and environmental 

considerations). Despite the best plans, the project may not 

perform according to expectations or something may happen 

externally that will have an adverse effect on the project’s 

cash flows. Good project planning can go far in reducing uncertainty and focusing management on the Critical Factors 

for Success. Armed with this kind preliminary feasibility results, project planners are in a position to begin an in-depth 

study of forest products enterprise feasibility, problems, and 

possible solutions in terms of several other critical factors. 

Summary of Recommendations

The following is a brief summary of some suggested recommendations:

1. Hold state/regional workshops and provide technical 

information to enable entrepreneurs and small manufacturers to develop specialty products and markets.

2. Announce workshops such as the Southwest Sustainable Forest Partnership “Smallwood Entrepreneurial 

Conference,” that was held November 12–14, 2008, 

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

3. Explore Stewardship contract partnerships such as with 

the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

4. Provide technical assistance as needed:

•	Log sort yard and materials handling

•	Sawmill design and simulation, mill efficiency, sawmill technology

•	Biomass energy

•	Financial feasibility analysis

•	ChargeOut! model for equipment analysis

•	University of Wisconsin Forestry Extension business 

spreadsheet tools

6. Develop a regional biomass strategy and briefing paper.

7. Provide contact information for

•	Biomass Extraction studies

•	Pellet mill feasibility studies

•	Lake States Loggers for doing mechanized fuels reduction work

8. Provide contact information for Forestry Operations 

Research:

•	Forestry operations (fuels reduction, thinning, harvesting, roll off containers, etc.)

•	Small scale logging systems and equipment

•	Log and biomass transportation

•	Forestry/Logging Safety

9. Amend Renewable Fiber, Inc.‘s original grant agreement to include a shavings bagger.

10. Focus on the “Green Tree Issue” and stay ahead of the 

bug infestation. How can you make the biggest impact 

on controlling the bugs? Leave the red and dead and 

treat the green stands before the bugs attack.

11. Provide landowner education, hold log sort yard open 

houses, and be aware of temporary yard location issues.

12. Make available a log loader and other forestry equipment to contractors.

13. Follow-up visits to Forest Products Laboratory.

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–192
19

For More Information

For more information, contact the Technology Marketing 

Unit (TMU) at the Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, 

Wisconsin. Send requests to TMU, Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, WI 53597-2398 

or call (608) 231-9504. Refer to Appendix III—Technical 

Assistance Contacts. The TMU homepage address is 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us/partners/tmu/index.shtml. 

The FPL also has a website with more than 5,000 publications available electronically online at http://www.fpl.fs.fed.

us/. FPL publications can also be found by Internet search 

engines. Use keywords (log sort yard, small diameter utilization, forest fuels reduction, small logging equipment) in 

your search.

Literature Cited

Barbour, J.R. 1999. Relationship between diameter and 

gross product value for small trees. 1999. In: Proceedings 

from Wood Technology Clinic and Show Conference, Portland, OR. San Francisco, CA: Miller Freeman Publications. 

27: 40–46. 

Bilek, T. 2009. LSY: documentation for a spreadsheet 

tool to evaluate log-sort yard economics. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

FPL–GTR–184, Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 

Davis, E. 1995. Alternative wood based industries for Sitka: 

feasibility study. Presentation at the “Forest enterprise opportunities in wood secondary manufacturing” workshop. 

Wrangell, AK. 

Dramm, J.R.; Govett, R.; Bilek, T.; Jackson, G. 2004. Log 

sort yard economics, planning, and feasibility. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. FPL–GTR–146, Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.

Govett, R. 2005. Forest products business spreadsheets. 

Workshop materials. Stevens Point, WI: University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

Hallock, H. 1964. Some thoughts on marginal sawlogs. Forest Products Journal. 14(11): 535–539.

Haynes, R. 2007. The 2005 RPA timber assessment update. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Portland, OR. PNW-GTR-699. 178 pp. 

Howe, J.; Bratkovich, S. 2005. A planning guide for small 

and medium size wood products companies: the keys to 

success. NA-TP-09-95. St. Paul MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and 

Private Forestry.

Langowski, Paul. 2005. Inter-Regional Mechanical Fuels 

Treatment Training, Sparks Nevada. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region. Lakewood, CO. (Workshop Materials) 

Mater, J. 1988. Forest products marketing and industrial 

strategy operating guide. Corvallis, OR: Material Engineering, Ltd. 254 pp.

National Interagency Fire Center. 2009. Wildland fire statistics website: http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.

html.

Random Lengths Publications. 2008. Eugene, Oregon: Random Lengths Publications, Inc. 

Siebold, J.S. and T.T. Veblen. 2006. Relationships of subalpine forest fires in the Colorado Front Range with interannual and multidecadal-scale variation. Journal of Biogeography. 33(5):833–842.

Timmons, J.S. 1990. New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship in the 1990s. Irwin: Homewood, IL.

Wyoming–Colorado Technical Assistance Visit Trip Report
20

Appendix I—Technical Assistance 

Visit (TAV) Itinerary

Dubois, Wyoming

Monday, September 8, 2008

Meeting with Dubois–Crowheart/Teton project partners 

•	 Introductions

•	 FPL presentation: “Log Sort Yards”

Field visits to Dubois–Crowheart/Teton project with project 

overview

•	 Wyoming Logsmiths (Tim Rogers) – log home manufacturer

•	 Eliason Logging (Ron Eliason) – log sort yard, Woodmiser sawmill, and firewood processor (co-located next 

to Ron’s operation)

•	 Union Pass WUI biomass project and biomass collection/disposal yard (Rick Metzger, USFS) with discussion of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s role in 

stewardship agreements (Al Christophersen)

Afternoon meeting for group discussion, Q&A, and closeout 

•	 Small-diameter opportunities

•	 Forest Products Laboratory resources and sources of 

technical assistance

•	 Mark Harrison, Mayor of Dubois, discussed effect of 

work force needs on the community, specifically on the 

school system

•	 Upper Wind River Biomass Co-Generation Project Feasibility Study

•	 Greenhouse feasibility study

•	 Louisiana Pacific (LP) sawmill site east of town and potential for district heating, and LP sawmill site visit east 

of Dubois 

Saratoga, Wyoming

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Meet the Saratoga–Encampment–Rawlins Conservation 

District partners (Arla Strasser)

Project discussion

•	 Medicine Bow–Routt NF discussion of available log 

and biomass supply (Phil Cruz, Steve Best, and timber 

and inventory staffs)

•	 Saratoga sawmill project and startup overview (Arla 

Strasser and Dan Perko)

•	 Encampment partnership project and proposal for “FPL 

Partnership” grant (Arla)

FPL presentations on marginal sawlog problem, wood 

energy, and project feasibility

•	 Seven Critical Factors for Success (Rusty Dramm)

•	 The “Marginal Sawlog Problem” (Rusty Dramm)

•	 Biomass/Wood Energy (John Zerbe)

•	 Project feasibility analysis (Ted Bilek)

Technical assistance needs (group discussion)

Other notes and discussion by 

•	 U.S. Senator John Barrasso’s office (Sandy DaRif)

•	 GeoSynFuels (Tim Spilchen), Green Bay, WI

•	 Carbon Power (Russell Waldner)

Front Range in Colorado

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 

Meeting with Front Range biomass collection yard projects 

at Boulder County Fairgrounds

•	 Introductions (Craig Jones, Colorado State Forest Service)

•	 Review “Partnership” grant and long-term goals/objectives, implementation, project challenges

•	 FPL presentations

Field visits to Front Range utilization and marketing partners

•	 Tour of Boulder County’s district heating facility (cancelled – not enough time)

•	 United Wood Products mill tour and discussion

•	 Renewable Fiber facility – tour and discussion on 

Woody Biomass Utilization Grant modifications

Review long-term project of the Rooney site in Jefferson 

County

Front Range in Colorado

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Field visits to Estes Park, Meeker Park, and/or Gilpin County sites

•	 Visit Estes Park biomass collection yard and discussion

•	 Meeker Park site visit

•	 Tour Salvation Army camp’s Tarm wood heating system

•	 Tour Gordan Gulch Stewardship Contract project – review stewardship contracting plans for Front Range 

(Dan Len)

•	 Gilpin County biomass collection yard

•	 Tour Gilpin County biomass heating facility at the 

county shops

Session wrap-up, Q&A, and closeout Len, Perko, and Ford

•	 Review the week’s visit and first impressions

•	 Schedule follow-up conference calls to review progress 

and follow-up actions

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–192
21

Appendix II—Technical Assistance 

Visit (TAV) Participants

Forest Products Laboratory

TAV Team Members

Madison, Wisconsin

Ted Bilek, Economist

Rusty Dramm, National Sawmill Specialist

John Zerbe, Wood Energy Specialist

Dubois, Wyoming

Monday, September 8, 2008

Stephanie Bason, Partnership Coordinator

Dubois–Crowheart Conservation District

Scott W. Bell, Rural Community Assistance Coordinator, 

U.S. Forest Service Region 1 and 4

Al Christophersen, Director of Habitat 

Stewardship Services, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

John Crisp, Resource Forester

Wyoming State Forestry Division

Ron Eliason, Owner

Eliason Logging

Ruth Esperance, District Ranger

Shoshone National Forest

Mark Harrison, Mayor 

Town of Dubois, Wyoming

Gayle Hinschberger, District Coordinator

Dubois–Crowheart Conservation District

Ellen Jungck

Shoshone National Forest

Roger Leseberg

TY Construction

Rick Metzger, District Ranger

Shoshone National Forest

Paul Morecency

Wyoming State Forestry Division

Dan Perko, Deputy State Forester

Wyoming State Forestry Division

Tim Rogers, Owner

Wyoming Logsmiths

Dave Riebe

Dubois, Wyoming

Randy Spiering

Shoshone National Forest

Dana Stone, District Forester

Wyoming State Forestry Division

Randy Williams, Executive Director

Teton Conservation District

Saratoga, Wyoming

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Steve Best, District Ranger

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin 

National Grassland

John Crisp, Resource Forester

Wyoming State Forestry Division

Phil Cruz, Deputy Forest Supervisor

Medicine Bow–Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin 

National Grassland

Sandy DaRif

U.S. Senator John Barrasso’s Office

Mark Drucker

Carbon County Economic Development Council

Nancy Fishering,

Intermountain Forest Products

Intermountain Resources, LLC

Chris Meyers,

Intermountain Forest Products

Intermountain Resources, LLC

Daniel Mika, Vice Chairman

Saratoga—Encampment—Rawlings

Conservation District/City of Rawlins

Jerry Paxton, Vice Chairman

Carbon County Commissioners

Dan Perko, Deputy State Forester

Wyoming State Forestry Division

Matt Scott, Resource Specialist

Laramie River Conservation District

Tim Spilchen, Business Development Manager

GeoSynFuels

Arla Strasser, Resource Specialist

Saratoga–Encampment–Rawlings Conservation District

Russell Waldner, Director of Engineering Services, Carbon 

Power and Light

Randy Williams, Executive Director, Teton Conservation 

District

Front Range, Colorado

Wednesday/Thursday, September 10 and 11

Amanda Bucknam, Research Associate

Colorado State University

Colorado Wood Utilization and Marketing Program 

Raul Bustamante, Owner

United Wood Products, Inc.

Wyoming–Colorado Technical Assistance Visit Trip Report
22

Brian Davis, Wood Utilization and Marketing Assistant, 

Colorado State Forest Service

Joseph A. Duda, Forest Management Division Supervisor, 

Colorado State Forest Service

Susan Ford, Urban and Community Forestry Specialist, 

Cooperative Forestry, Rocky Mountain Region

Scott Golden, Forestry and Biomass Specialist, Parks and 

Open Space

Craig Jones, Biomass Specialist, Colorado State Forest 

Service

Dan Len, Vegetation Management Program Manager, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Dave Lentz, Forester

Larimer County, Fort Collins, Colorado

Kurt Mackes, Harvesting and Wood Products Utilization

Department of Forestry, Rangelands, and Watershed Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Mountain Pellet Company Inc.

Walden, Colorado

Earl Robinson, Director Road and Maintenance Department, Gilpin County, Colorado 

Wes Rutt, Committee Member

Colorado State Tree Farm

Matt Schulz, Forest Management and GIS Coordinator

Colorado Parks and Outdoor Recreation

Carl Spaulding, Special Projects Manager

Renewable Fiber, Inc.

Jeff Thomas, Campaign Coordinator

Colorado Forest Products

Joe Turner, Site Manager

Peak to Peak Wood

John Twitchell, District Forester

Colorado State Forest Service

Wade Yates, Special Projects Coordinator

Development and Transportation Department

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–192
23

Appendix III—Technical Assistance 

Contacts

Woody Biomass Utilization Grants Program 

(Forest Service grant opportunity)

Susan LeVan, Program Manager

S&PF Technology Marketing Unit

Forest Products Laboratory

One Gifford Pinchot Drive

Madison, WI 53705-2398

Phone: 608-231-9518

E-Mail: slevan@fs.fed.us

Homepage: www.fpl.fs.fed.us/tmu/

Sawmilling; Lumber Recovery; Size Control; Sort 

Yards; Preliminary Feasibility

Rusty Dramm, National Sawmill Specialist

S&PF Technology Marketing Unit

Forest Products Laboratory

One Gifford Pinchot Drive

Madison, WI 53705-2398

Phone: 608-231-9326

E-Mail: jdramm@fs.fed.us

Homepage: www.fpl.fs.fed.us/tmu/

Feasibility Analysis; Business Financials; 

Economics

E.M. (Ted) Bilek, Economist

U.S. Forest Service

Forest Products Laboratory

One Gifford Pinchot Drive

Madison, WI 53705-2398

Phone: 608-231-9507

E-Mail: tbilek@fs.fed.us

Homepage: www.fpl.fs.fed.us/

Wood Energy

John Zerbe, Wood Energy Specialist

U.S. Forest Service, S&PF

Forest Products Laboratory

One Gifford Pinchot Drive

Madison, WI 53705-2398

Phone: 608-231-9353

E-Mail: jzerbe@fs.fed.us

Homepage: www.fpl.fs.fed.us/

Roundwood Structures, Wood Energy

Mark Knaebe, Roundwood Structures Coordinator

S&PF Technology Marketing Unit

Forest Products Laboratory

One Gifford Pinchot Drive

Madison, WI 53705-2398

Phone: 608-231-9422

E-Mail: mknaebe@fs.fed.us

Homepage: www.fpl.fs.fed.us/tmu/

Forestry Operations: Harvesting, Transportation, 

Safety

Bob Rummer, Forestry Operation Project Leader

Southern Research Station

G.W. Andrews Forestry Sciences Laboratory

520 Devall Dr.

Auburn, AL 36849

Phone: 334-826–8700

E-mail: rrummer@fs.fed.us

Homepage: www.srs.fs.usda.gov/

Regional Forest Service Contacts

Susan Ford, Urban and Community Forestry Specialist

Cooperative Forestry, Rocky Mt. Region

740 Simms St. 

Golden, CO 80401 (UPS Mail)

P.O. Box 25127

Lakewood, CO 80225 (Piece Mail)

Phone: 303-275-5742 

E-mail: sbford@fs.fed.us

Scott W. Bell, Rural Community Assistance Coordinator R1/R4

U.S. Forest Service—S&PF, R4

324 25th St.

Ogden, UT 84401

Phone: 801-625-5259

E-mail: sbell@fs.fed.us

Stewardship Contracting; National Forest System

Dan Len, Vegetation Management Program Manager

Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

2150 Centre Avenue, Building E

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Phone: 970-295-6646

E-mail: dlen@fs.fed.us

Forest Fuels Reduction Operations; Fire Ecology

Paul Langowski, Branch Chief—Fuels and Fire 

 Ecology

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region

740 Simms St.

Golden CO 80401 

Phone: 303-275-5307 

E-mail: plangowski@fs.fed.us

State Forestry Programs

Dan Perko, Deputy State Forester

Wyoming State Forestry Division

1100 West 22nd St.

Cheyenne, WY 82002

Phone: 307-777-5659

E-mail: dperko@state.wy.us

Craig Jones, Biomass Specialist

Colorado State Forest Service

2938 Kalmia Ave.#17

Boulder, CO 80301

Wyoming–Colorado Technical Assistance Visit Trip Report
24

Phone: 303-443-2088

E-mail: craigjo@lamar.colostate.edu

Biomass Extraction Study; Pellet Mill Feasibility; 

Lake States Logging Contractors

Don Peterson, National Sawmill Specialist

Timber Ridge Energy Enterprises, Inc (TREE)

1353 W. Highway US 2, Suite 2

Crystal Falls, MI 49920

Phone: 877-284-3882

E-Mail: tree_dpeterson@sbcglobal,net

Homepage: www.treepellets.com

Preliminary Business Feasibility Spreadsheet 

Tools

Dr. Robert (Bob) Govett, Distinguished Professor

College of Natural Resources

University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point

Stevens Point, WI 54481

Phone: 715-346-4212

E-Mail: rgovett@uwsp.edu

Homepage: http://www.forest.wisc.edu/extension/

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–192

Conversion Table 

English Conversion factor SI unit 

Btu 1.055 056 × 103 joule (J) 

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm) 

foot (ft) 0.305 meter (m) 

cubic feet (ft3

) 0.0283 cubic meter (m3)

board feet 0.00236 m3 (nominal)