Where the Woodchips Meet the Road: Pellet Plant Blocked
By Cyril Vidergar

Designated in September 22, 2005, the Colorado River Headwaters Byway drops 1,700 feet in elevation along US Highway 40, meandering past reservoirs, through lush ranchlands and narrow canyons, flanked by the State’s prinicpal east-west railroad corridor. From above Grand Lake through Grand County, wildlife abounds along the byway, which enables access to miles of public land with year-round recreation and views of mountain landscapes and geology. What you will not find along the byway however is a densified wood pellet plant built by Forest Energy Coolroado, LLC.

Proposed Parameters
Rob Davis and Project Manager Scott Heron prepared the Forest Energy Colorado application for the pellet plant, which was reviewed by the Grand County Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment in April 2007. In coordination with the parent corporation, Forest Energy, Inc. in Arizona, the project called for construction of a 2-acre-sized plant on a 23 acre parcel situated nine miles east of Kremmling, Colorado which would produce 4-10 tons of pellets and densified wood logs per hour at full operation. The site had easy access from US 40 in an unpopulated area, a proximity to other industrial factilities (recycling and automobile salvage yard, Burlington Northern/Santa Fe rail line), and offered a central location for log deliveries from throughout the region.

Though the primary market for the product would be the Colorado Front Range, the plant would also satisfy the local market currently served out of Arizona. No retail sales were proposed, and all operations would be contained within the low modular plant and its 6 storage silos, with the exception of log decks and loaders moving material into the first stage grinder. Proposed operations were 24/7 with deliveries between 6:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekdays only.

By recent counts, over 600,000 acres of trees in Grand County have been “hit” by the Mountain Pine Beetle, leaving nearly 360 degrees of ever-reddening views from any highpoint in the area, resulting in a cascade of community concerns. As detailed in the 2007 printed Grand County Living, fire hazard is the largest concern among this community nestled along the western edge of the Continental Divide. Closely following that issue is what to do with the fallen trees and cleared land. While the Forest Energy facility would not have provided an immediate solution to the effects of de-nuded forest erosion, it would have provided a ready outlet for the mounting acres of log decks throughout the county.

In addition to reducing the current stock of cut lumber, otherwise unmarketable due to small trunk diameter (see [article on outlets for blue stain wood] in 2007 printed Grand County Living), the plant would have encouraged public and private entities to cull standing dead forests. The process was poised to pull the cord on the progress of the Pine Beetle, by removing both standing and cut host trees before the summer “flight”, when the beetles emerge from last year’s hosts to mate and infest new stands. Upwards to 20 personnel would also be required to operate the plant, directly supporting local employment. But alas, there is such a thing as too sweet of a deal.

Poor Submissions left Commissions with Only Part of Picture
In a perfect world, decisions are made on what the record contains and if you don’t speak up, your later complaints should not be heard. The Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment did not appear to have all the facts before them to truly consider the Forest Energy project. The applicant struggled to find a potential site for the plant throughout 2006, and did not prepare a complete application for either administrative planning body for the site near Kremmling. As such, despite the well-intended plans of the applicant, too many questions were left unanswered for approval to practically have emerged from the county bodies.

The public too did its part to spread doubt among the various board members, who truly evaluated only that which was before them. The voices of the organized were heard on April 18 and April 25, and those who opposed this project were better organized than the applicant. The Planning Commission reviewed a project that required a 45’ height variance (above the 35’ county standard) for 6 storage silos and placed a commercial operation with up to 1000 logs decked beside a scenic byway and one of the county’s principal tourist attractions: fly-fishing the Colorado River. The following week, the Board of Adjustment considered the 45’ height variance, but had no evidence of a hardship requiring the taller silos, other than the economics of redesigning the plant.

Neither body heard a strong argument for the design Forest Energy advanced. The design however, was largely non-negotiable as the plant with its six 80’ storage silos employed a patented manufacturing process Forest Energy controls. While strong public opposition centered on the visual impact of the silos and log decks, including suggestions regarding how another design might garner approval, both administrative bodies appeared to miss this point. Without writing a primer on intellectual property law, Forest Energy either must use its patented process or potentially pay a competitor to use another process.

Variations in the design or implementation of a patented process “weaken” the patent and encourage infringement or depletion of value in the patent. Aside from the operational aspect of not employing a patented process, the high cost of prosecuting a patent would be lost if that process was not applied.

While each board held up their end of the bargain, fairly representing the community and bringing their respective perspectives, they failed to rise above the banter of community misperception. Also lacking, amid the odor of pasture-cured brimstone hanging in the air at the close of both hearings, was the glimmer of buy-in by the community. That is, buy-in for an idea that did not come from within their ranks, for among the voices of protest heard was that of an operator of a local facility that would complete with the Forest Energy plant for energy/heating sales.

Kingdom Lost for Want of a Horseshoe Nail
The Planning Commission was charged with evaluating whether to grant a special use permit for the project, in the Forestry and Open zone district. The Board of Adjustment was charged with deciding whether a variance for the 80’ silos would be granted to enable Forest Energy to employ an efficient palletizing process. Despite disagreement about the specific design of the facility, there was unanimous agreement from the boards and community on the need for the plant. From which side of the table the voices emanated though dictated whether “but” followed that sentiment.

For want of a horseshoe nail, the kingdom was lost, is the parting idea of a child’s lyrical tale recalled by this writer. (Because a horseshoe nail was lost, the horse threw a shoe, and in turn a battle was lost and the kingdom fell.) In much the same manner, for want of a the perfect site, one not visible from any home, not peeking over a hillside, not too close to a bus stop or public road, not..., not…, not… the public slew an idea that had merit. For want of all the good that hard work could bring, but none of the sweat required, a rural, economically-declining community, on the cusp of irretrievably losing its ranching traditions and falling into a service-industry bound death spiral, failed to see the light of tomorrow amid the pallid single-candle light in which is stood. Educated voices commenting on the merits of the Forest Energy facility were not heard over the din of NIMBYism, and so another economic opportunity passes Grand County by, despite apparent sentiment that the plant and service are needed. Send us the cash, just put the plant somewhere else!