| | Over 30 Vermont high schools are now heated with wood, including Mt. Abraham Union High School. Mt. Abraham High School installed a state-of-the-art wood chip gasifier in 2007 to heat the school. The school requires about 400 cords of wood annually in the form of hardwood bolewood. Bolewood chips do not include the leaves, twigs, and fine branches. Ideally, these nutrient-rich tree parts are left in the forest to compost. Mt. Abraham science teacher Tom Tailer and his students were instrumental in getting the school boiler converted from oil to wood. They raised community awareness of the opportunities and even helped to secure nearly $2 million in a state cost-share that picked up about 90% of the cost of design and construction.
 Dennis Weaver driving a cable skidder
Mt. Abraham partnered with Vermont Family Forests (www.familyforests.org) to ensure an ecologically sustainable supply of chips. The goal was to supply biomass from a family-held forest in ways that were sustainable, efficient, local, and fair. The selected forest was owned by Lynn and Willy Osborn in Lincoln, Vermont. Acquired in 1972, the 43-acre forest consists of two areas. Prior to the early 2008 treatment, the first area was an adequately stocked, even-aged northern hardwood forest with a highly variable basal area averaging 60 square feet per acre and dominated by red maple. Access was severely limited. The second area was an abandoned sugarbush on 25 acres of steep and slightly enriched soils. The pre-treatment basal area was 125 square feet per acre, with over 60%, of that being sugar maple of fairly low timber quality. The landowners' objectives were to conserve forest health, protect cultural resources and aesthetics, and improve access. The owners were also interested in utilizing some of the harvested wood for their local building project and home fuelwood, as well as involving students in supplying the local high school with some of its hardwood fuel needs.

The first phase of the timber sale was designed to establish access, regenerate two small patches using the group shelterwood method, and salvage about 10 thousand board feet (MBF) of overmature white ash and other mixed hardwood sawtimber. This portion of the sale involved about ten acres. The sale was operated by a local firewood dealer, Dennis Weaver, under frozen winter conditions. He operated an aged, 4-wheel drive, Same tractor equipped with a Farmi winch. He charged $240 per MBF for harvesting the sawtimber. He was paid $1000 for clearing and partially constructing the half-mile of new road, and was given the 70 cords of fuelwood. At the time of the operation, delivered green firewood and dry firewood were being sold for $180 and $250 per cord respectively. This was roughly equivalent to $72 and $100 per ton. The contractor sorted the wood into three piles: sawtimber, firewood, and chipwood. At the time of the harvest, Mt. Abraham was purchasing delivered hardwood bolewood chips under contract for $30 per ton. Because of this and the fact that firewood sales were brisk, only aspen, grey birch, and partially rotten mixed wood were put into the Mt. Abraham pile. Links Claire Lathrop holding bole chips | | | | 2 | Land Ownership Private
| | | | 3 | Location Lincoln, Vermont
| | | 4 | Forest Type Northern hardwood
| | | | Context |  | | | 5 | Is this project a part of a landscape plan? No
| | | | 6 | In a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)? No
| | | | 7 | Acreage treated Area 1: 18 ac; Area 2: 25 ac
| | | | 8 | Type of contract Timber sale
| | | | 9 | Funding source Landowners
| | | | 10 | Collaborators and partners Vermont Family Forests
| | | | 11 | Project start date Fall 2007
| | | 12 | Project completion date Fall 2008
| | | | Treatment Goals |  | | | 13 | Restoration, watershed or habitat improvement
| | | | 14 |
| | | | 15 |
| | | | 16 | Salvage
| | | 17 | Forest Stand Improvement
| | | | Treatment Specifics |  | | | 18 | Primary treatment objective Health forest and local economy
| | | | 19 | How does biomass removal fit with other objectives? Helps fund treatment and support local economy | | | | 20 | Treatment description Single-tree or group selection harvest of trees for biomass fuel
| | | | 21 | Description of contractors Local Contractors | | | | 22 | Travel distance for contractors 20 miles
| | | | 23 | Type of equipment used Hand felling, forwarder | | | | 24 | Treatment of residual slash if any Lopped and left in place except near trails.
| | | | 25 | Treatment cost per acre Unknown
| | | 26 | Trucking costs Unknown
| | | | Utilization |  | | | 27 | Products from project Timber, firewood, and roundwood to be chipped | | | | 28 | Price for products Unknown
| | | | 29 | Date of Sale Unknown
| | | | 30 | Did biomass markets exist previous to project? Yes
| | | | 31 | Type of utilization Wood chip gasifier
| | | | 32 | How well did the woody biomass match the utilization options? Unknown
| | | 33 | Distance to utilization Variable but generally within 15 miles | | | | Treatment guidelines, targets, limitations |  | | | 34 | Diameter limit Cut marked trees only – no diameter limit.
| | | | 35 | Basal area reduction Variable.
| | | | 36 | Crown coverage Intermediate treatments - 65 - 80% crown closure. Regeneration treatments - small patch clearcuts and shelterwood cuts.
| | | | 37 | Fuel loading Not applicable
| | | | 38 | Retention guidelines Retain wind-firm legacy trees
| | | | 39 | Treatment of snags and downed logs Increase number of large cavity, snag, and down trees | | | | 40 | Soil impacts Minimal – improved erosion control
| | | 41 | Other ecological impacts monitored BMP compliance, erosion, stream temperature, stream dissolved oxygen, stream turbidity, biodiversity indicators (LWD, snags and dens, seeps and vernal pools)
| | | | Pre Treatment |  | | | 42 | Fuel load
| | | | 43 | Stem density (stems/ac) Area 1: 752; Area 2: 216
| | | | 44 | Basal area (ft2/ac) Area 1: 56; Area 2: 128
| | | | 45 | Canopy closure (%) Area 1: very young canopy; Area 2: “mostly closed” | | | | 46 | Height to live crown base
| | | | 47 | Snags and downed woody material At least 6 cavity/snag trees per acre and at least 2 down trees per acre.
| | | | 48 | Size class distribution Area 1: No data, immature (30 year old) stand; Area 2: Mature stand majority 12-14"
| | | | 49 | Tree species composition Area 1: Red maple, sugar maple, yellow and paper birch; Area 2: sugar maple, white ash, yellow and paper birch
| | | | 50 | Presence/absence of invasive species None noted
| | | 51 | Soil and other ecological data Evidence of bear use, deer browse, moose browse, mast species, and spring seeps noted throughout. No unique or fragile plant communities noted.
| | | | Post Treatment |  | | | 52 | Fuel load
| | | | 53 | Stem density (stems/ac) Estimates: Area 1 – Minimum 60 ft2/ac; Area 2 – about 12 acres will be under regeneration post-group selection and intermediate treatments | | | | 54 | Basal area (ft2/ac)
| | | | 55 | Canopy closure (%)
| | | | 56 | Height to live crown base
| | | | 57 | Snags and downed woody material Target: >6 cavity/snag trees per acre, >2 down trees per acre
| | | | 58 | Size class distribution Target: 18 in diameter for principal species as listed above
| | | | 59 | Tree species composition 68% WF, 21% PP, 6% SP, 5% IC
| | | | 60 | Presence/absence of invasive species None noted
| | | | 61 | Soil and other ecological data
| |
| |