newbio quarterly report for october through december 2013 i · newbio quarterly report for october...

NEWBio Quarterly Report for October through December 2013 i

Table of Contents NEWBio Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1 Project Administration ................................................................................................ 2 Technical Thrusts 1 Human Systems in the Northeast Regional Bioeconomy .................................... 6 2 Feedstock Improvement for Perennial Energy Crops ......................................... 9 3 Harvest, Preprocessing, and Logistics of Integrated Biomass Supply Chains .. 18 Integrative Thrusts 4 System Performance and Sustainability Metrics .............................................. 29 5 Safety and Health in Biomass Feedstock Production and Processing Operations

...................................................................................................................... 35 6 Extension ....................................................................................................... 38 7 Education ....................................................................................................... 45 8 Leadership, Stakeholder Involvement, Knowledge-to-Action (K2A), and Program

Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 47 Appendices A. NEWBio Task List and Timeline ....................................................................... 51 B. Fact Sheet: Miscanthus Budget for Biomass Production .................................. 53 C. NEWBio Evaluation: Linking Knowledge-to-Action Technical Report – Year 1 ... 58

NEWBio Quarterly Report for October through December 2013 ii

Notice This quarterly report was prepared by Penn State University and NEWBio research, extension and education partners from Cornell University, Delaware State University, Drexel University, Ohio State University, Rutgers University, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, University of Maine, University of Vermont, West Virginia University, USDA Eastern Regional Research Center, US DOE Idaho National Laboratory and US DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This work was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2012-68005-19703 from the United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (“USDA-NIFA”).

NEWBio Quarterly Report for October through December 2013 1

The Northeast Woody/Warm-Season Biomass Consortium: Building Sustainable Value Chains for Biomass Energy Quarterly Report: October 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013

NEWBio Objectives

I. Understand the values, legacies, and motivations that drive perceptions and decisions

about land management and business development for biomass energy systems to overcome barriers to development of perennial feedstocks.

II. Generate price-supply curves, facility siting and forward contracting tools to provide entrepreneur and investor confidence in biomass feedstock supply.

III. Develop and deploy as industry standards sustainable production practices for perennial grasses and short rotation woody crops to improve yield 25% and reduce costs by 20%.

IV. Commercialize the current pipeline of improved willow (Salix spp) and switchgrass varieties and develop genomic tools to accelerate breeding for marginal land.

V. Develop harvest, transport, storage and preprocessing systems that increase feedstock value as biomass moves through the supply chain toward advanced biofuel refineries.

VI. Create a culture of safety in the biomass production, transport and preprocessing sectors that addresses machinery hazards and environmental risks to protect workers.

VII. Transform standards of practice for biomass value chains to greatly improve carbon paybacks, net energy yields, soil and water quality, and other ecosystem services.

VIII. Deploy safe, efficient and integrated supply chains in four demonstration regions, each providing 500 to 1000 tons/day of high-quality low-cost sustainable biomass.

IX. Create learning communities of farmers, entrepreneurs, employees and investors informed about the best practices and emerging technologies in their bioenergy interest areas.

X. Provide business support services to generate at least 100 supply contracts and support over 50 new supply chain businesses to harvest, transport and preprocess biomass from short rotation woody crops and warm-season grasses.

XI. Educate students, citizens, landowners and policymakers to increase public understanding of biomass alternatives, including the social, economic, and environmental impacts of sustainable bioenergy systems in the Northeast.

XII. Create a culture of opportunity to support corporate commitments for two commercial-scale advanced biofuels facilities and encourage many more such commitments in the Northeast.


Project Administration Project Organization and Governance Accomplishments Project Director Tom Richard continues to lead the overall NEWBio effort, assisted by Associate Director Timothy Volk and Executive Committee members Larry Smart and Jingxin Wang. The committee is supported by Project Manager Barbara Kinne, who coordinates the day-to-day administrative operations.

• Project Progress Each thrust continues to show satisfactory progress in meeting task objectives and schedules.

• Advisory Board Advisory Board members were actively engaged with the project on a number of levels this quarter. Lee Lynd, Professor of Environmental Engineering and Biology at Dartmouth and co-founder/Chief Scientific Officer for Mascoma Corporation, visited Penn State in October, where he held discussions with team members on winter rye as a potential feedstock for NEWBio. Two board members contributed to NEWBio’s “Business of Biomass: Next Generation Biomass Conversion” shortcourse, held November 11-12 near Philadelphia. Dante Bonaquist, Senior Corporate Fellow/Chief Scientist for Praxair Green Technologies discussed Economics of Scale for Biorefining and Frank Lipiecki, Research and Development Director for Renmatix hosted a site visit of Renmatix’ technology center and advanced analytical facilities. Our second round of seed grants gave board members an opportunity to participate in the evaluation of proposals and help guide the research process. Seven board members provided proposal reviews (see Seed Grant section below).

• Communication and Collaboration NEWBio maintains a full schedule of monthly Executive Committee, Leadership Team and All Hands meetings. All seven research and integrative thrusts hold regularly-scheduled meetings, too. Monthly NEWBio eNEWS emailings advise our team and our group of industry-agency-interested party subscribers of research and extension activities. The emailings include NEWBio upcoming events, job opportunities, new


publications, and research vignettes. We include other AFRI CAP information when available. The Executive Committee received input from USDA Program Manager William Goldner on NEWBio in particular and the Bioenergy CAPs in general in a teleconference on December 9, 2013. Goldner expressed positive comments on NEWBio’s momentum and trajectory after Y1, and outlined Y3 continuation application plans and timing. Data management strategies were also discussed, as well as plans to schedule a workshop on this topic. Jessica Leahy and Laura Lindenfeld, both from the University of Maine, are NEWBio’s external evaluators. At the December 19 All Hands meeting, Leahy presented elements of their report, NEWBio Evaluation: Linking Knowledge-to-Action Year 1. (See Appendix C for the full report.) The report summarizes results of the voluntary team-wide survey and leadership team interviews they conducted over the course of 2013. With a focus on communication and collaboration, in general, project reviews were positive. The evaluation offered recommendations on maintaining momentum, mobilizing mentorship opportunities (particularly with stakeholders), engaging the Advisory Board, and promoting the use of distance technology. Planning for our 2014 Annual Meeting is underway. The meeting will be held at Cornell’s NY State Agricultural Experiment Station, in Geneva, on July 31-August 1.

• Financial Matters Penn State’s financial administrators worked with the NEWBio Leadership Team to reallocate a portion of unused Y1 funds, funds that were available largely as a result of hiring delays. Budget amendments were issued in October and November for the following:

○ University of Vermont: $16,913 to increase writing, editing, and media assistance time for online outreach.

○ Drexel University: $42,000 to partially support two doctoral candidates in the development of a data collection and archiving protocol for NEWBio.

○ West Virginia University: $4,249 for additional salary support to continue development and maintenance at our WV demonstration sites.

○ Rutgers University: $6,000 to support a 2014 Bioenergy Scholar. ○ Penn State: $10,000 to purchase a calorimeter to test samples generated by the

Harvest, Preprocessing and Logistics Thrust.


The following funds were redistributed to reflect intra-thrust needs: ○ The Education Thrust moved funds to support its Secondary Educator Training

workshops. Funds were moved from Cornell University to West Virginia ($20,811 for salary and logistical support) and to Penn State ($1,278 to increase materials and supplies budget).

○ The Extension Thrust moved funds from Cornell Cooperative Extension ($30,000) to SUNY ESF to support an extension educator at a location more reflective of NEWBio’s needs.

• Seed Grants

The Y2 Seed Grant RFP was distributed to team members on October 1st. Six proposals were received, requesting a total of $91,528. With $40,000 in funding available, the Executive Committee asked for the NEWBio Advisory Board’s assistance in evaluating the proposals in the areas of intellectual merit, potential for continued activity beyond the seed grant phase, and potential for developing new and productive collaborations or strengthening existing collaborations between investigators. These reviews were completed in November, with the following ranked highest:

1) Potential Economic Impact of Renewable Fuels and Sustainable Biomass Feedstock for the Northeast (Human Systems proposal, with PIs at Penn State and Iowa State, $19,581 requested). Penn State funds awarded.

2) Initiation of Soil Microbial Community Analysis of NEWBio Switchgrass Trials (Feedstock Thrust, Penn State PI, $17,880). USDA funding will be requested for this study.

3) Extending Supply Chain Optimization Models to Integrate Warm Season Grasses (Harvest, Preprocessing, Logistics Thrust, West Virginia PI, $19,900 requested). The balance of available USDA funding ($2,120) will be requested to help this project get underway.

Plans for Next Quarter

• The Y3 CRFA is expected by the end of January 2014. Much of the next quarter will be devoted to developing NEWBio’s reapplication narrative and budget.

• Plans are underway for a refresh of the NEWBio public website and refinements to our private intranet to make our information repository more easily accessible.


Publications, Presentations, Proposals Submitted Conference Presentations Richard, Tom. Growing a Sustainable Bioenergy Industry for the Northeast. American Association for Industrial Crops - USDA AFRI CAP Project Directors Joint Meeting, October 12-16, 2013. Washington, DC.


Thrust 1: Human Systems in the Northeast Regional Bioeconomy Human Systems focuses on understanding the values, legacies, and motivations that drive perceptions and decisions about land management and business development for biomass energy systems. During the project’s first year, the team began to acquire and synthesize socio-economic data and develop a media library on the social acceptability of biomass. During year two, the team will a) project the economic availability of biomass feedstocks in the Northeast with an emphasis on dedicated feedstocks from mined lands and other economically marginal lands, b) complete the media analysis to identify key issues in proximate communities related to the biomass energy industry and state policy analysis related to bioenergy for NY and PA, and c) start interviews with biomass growers and potential growers in NY and PA, and initiate the scoping of communities near demonstration sites to identify key issues and key informants. Task 1.1: Understanding social and economic constraints Task 1.1.1: Economic availability 1. Planned Activities

• Continue to work on POLYSYS to evaluate feedstock supply and price. • Incorporate modeled yield data from within NEWBio and NE Sun Grant Initiative

feedstock partnership. 2. Accomplishments Revised 2013 feedstock supply and price projections submitted to BioFPR. Secured a seed grant to look at economic impacts. Continued with development of a business strategy hierarchy to help illustrate the

relationships among the different NEWBio thrusts and to show the relationships to the business world.

3. Explanation of Variance Delay experienced on availability of modeled yield data to incorporate in POLYSYS.

4. Plans for Next Quarter • Incorporate analysis of potential productivity from marginal lands. • Account for yields and costs from mined lands and reclaimed mined lands.


Task 1.1.2: Social Acceptability 1. Planned Activities

• Continue research tasks definition. • Work on publication on media analysis. • Hire post doc and begin organizing and sequencing research tasks.

2. Accomplishments Graduate students conducted media analysis coding (undergrads working on this too),

and interviews. Interviewed applicants for the Research Associate position at ESF in mid-December and

are waiting for letters of reference to make a decision on an offer. Two students finished their reports on media analysis. Parker and Selfa are working with students to develop a publication. Refined questions for the interviews that will be conducted by the Human Systems group. Liaised between Extension and Human Systems.

3. Explanation of Variance

Activities and accomplishments are on schedule. No variance to report.

4. Plans for Next Quarter • Work on media analysis publication. • Hire post doc and begin organizing and sequencing research tasks • Review results of media analysis and interviews to develop procurement supplier

analysis. Task 1.2: Assess demonstration sites as they pursue scale-up of biomass crop production

and supply chain infrastructure 1. Planned Activities

• Continue work on narrowing site selection. • Conduct targeted background and scoping interviews with stakeholders relevant to the

demonstration sites.


2. Accomplishments • Media analysis is ongoing which is providing background on communities.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Build on the media analysis, begin planning for community focus groups. • Begin identifying key interviews in communities near demonstration sites.

Thrust 1: Publications, Presentations and Proposals Submitted None to report this quarter.


Thrust 2: Feedstock Improvement for Perennial Energy Crops Feedstock Improvement will optimize low input perennial feedstock crops (shrub willow and perennial grasses) that research has shown to be the best suited for Northeast climates and marginal soils. Feedstock Improvement’s goal is to deliver plant cultivars with improved performance across the wide range of marginal land types found throughout the Northeast. During the first year of the project, the willow team conducted more than 60 crosses, 27 of which were successful and produced over 4,600 seedling progeny. Switchgrass and willow yield trials and demonstration sites were established in NY, OH, PA and WV. During year two, the team will collect measurements of first season growth in yield trials of new willow cultivars that will indicate their yield potential relative to existing commercial cultivars. We will also continue to generate novel hybrid willow progeny and establish new trials for trait mapping in willow. Evaluations of a new switchgrass trial will inform us about the impact of disease on yield and ongoing surveys of switchgrass breeding nurseries will lead us toward new cultivar selections. Task 2.1: Breeding of non-invasive triploid hybrids of willow displaying hybrid vigor 1. Planned Activities

• Continue to maintain diploid, triploid and tetraploid progeny planted in nursery beds. • Conduct survival censuses in 2013 Family Selection Trial and cut back plants to ground

level to promote coppice regrowth the following spring. • Conduct end of growing season growth measurements in the S. purpurea association

trials. • Plan for 2014 crosses by making selections for potential parents.

2. Accomplishments Little maintenance in the willow nursery beds was required during this reporting period.

Cuttings from some accessions were collected for gender determination and for DNA extraction to complete the next GBS plate.

Due to early and excessive snows and extreme cold temperatures, the first year growth in the 2013 Family Selection Trial was not cut back. Survival will be scored after snowmelt when identification tags will be more visible. First year stems will then be cut back to ground level using a sickle bar mower or brush saw. In addition to the replicates planted in this trial, extra cuttings were installed in the field to serve as nursery beds for future scale-up activities.

End of season stem diameters have begun in the Geneva, NY Association Trial. Plans have been made to conduct measurements in the Morgantown, WV trial in late January.


End of season growth measurements include stem diameters, maximum plant height and stem density and biomass composition.

Phenotypic data collected from the association trials during the 2013 growing season are being analyzed for correlations in traits among entries. These data will be used to guide the selection for 2014 crosses.

3. Explanation of Variance Activities and accomplishments are on schedule. No variance to report.

4. Plans for Next Quarter

• Collect and prepare cuttings for cold storage for spring 2014 Tetraploid Crossing Block trial. Cut back all remaining stems in the nursery beds prior to bud break in spring.

• Conduct survival counts in the 2013 Family Selection Trial. Cut back all remaining stems to ground level before bud break.

• Assess 2013 families in nursery beds for number of cuttings that can be obtained for QTL mapping trial.

• Continue growth measurements in the 2012 Geneva Association Trial. Measurements will begin in late-January in Morgantown, and measurements are planned for February in the Portland, NY Association Trial

• Phenotypic data analysis will be used to assist in the selection of parents to be involved in 2014 crosses to be performed during this quarter

Task 2.2: Genetic basis for pest and disease resistance in willow and perennial grasses 1. Planned Activities

• Continue to scan willow leaves and analyze for rust prevalence. • Prepare a manuscript on anthracnose resistance in switchgrass germplasm.

2. Accomplishments Leaf scanning was completed for Geneva and Portland, NY association trails. Leaf image

analysis for rust was delayed due to a malfunction of an external data storage device. All data were recovered and scanning has resumed, with one rep completed from the Geneva trial.

Data has been analyzed for the switchgrass anthracnose paper and a draft manuscript is currently being developed.


3. Explanation of Variance Most activities and accomplishments are on schedule.

4. Plans for Next Quarter • Continue to analyze leaf images for rust prevalence. Submit manuscript to Plant Disease

on anthracnose resistance in switchgrass. • Solidify plans for management of switchgrass anthracnose fungicide trial for 2014. • Develop data collection protocol for switchgrass germplasm trials in NJ and NY.

Task 2.3: Breeding and selection of willow and switchgrass cultivars adapted for

Northeast conditions 1. Planned Activities

• Measure stem diameters and heights of first-year post-coppice growth of 2012 NE Sun Grant Yield Trials at Rock Springs, PA and Geneva, NY.

• Conduct survival censuses in 2013 willow yield trials and cut back plants to ground level to promote coppice regrowth in spring.

• Conduct survival censuses in the four replicated biochar trials in WV and cut back willow plants in these trials and at the large willow demonstration site near Rupert, WV.

• Evaluate the need and availability of sites for 2014 yield trials. • Identify potential parents for 2014 breeding efforts based on field trial results. • Take notes on 2013 switchgrass nurseries.

2. Accomplishments Stem diameters and plant heights were measured in the 2012 Geneva Willow Yield Trial

in mid-December. Two commercial cultivars were at the top the rankings, while two new selections were present in the top five for both stem area and height. Stem segments were also collected for determination of wood density and biomass composition. (Figures 2-1 and 2-2.)

Plans to measure stem diameters and heights and collect stem segments from the 2012 Rock Springs, PA Willow Yield Trial have been set for mid-January.

Early and excessive snow and cold temperatures have prevented assessments of survival in the 2013 willow yield trials at Fredonia and Willsboro, NY.

Survival was assayed in the WV biochar trials and demo sites. Cuttings were collected from the biochar trials and a suite of compositional analyses will be performed this winter.


Figure 2-1.

Mean plot stem area for 28

cultivars in the 2012 Geneva Willow Yield

Trial.

Figure 2-2.

Mean plant height in for 28 cultivars in the 2012 Geneva Willow Yield

Trial.


A willow trial established in 2009 in Geneva, NY looking at a two-year harvest cycle in a single-row planting design was harvested for the second time in December. The trial is paired with a trial that will be harvested on a four-year cycle in a double row design and the data suggest that higher yields may be obtained on a shorter rotation in single rows. (Figure 2-3.) This is important information for potential growers and the trial has also produced yield data on new cultivars and selections that support Task 2.3.

Figure 2-3. Two two-year

yield results from the 2009 Geneva single-row yield

trial.

Plants in the 2013 NY SWG nursery were each given an overall vigor score

encompassing height, number of stems, freedom from disease, and uprightness. Soil samples from nurseries in New York and New Jersey were taken and submitted to

DairyOne for analyses. Results are shown in Table 2-1.

3. Explanation of Variance Excessive and early winter weather has slowed field measurement progress, but time was devoted to these measurements in the work plans for both 2013 Q4 and 2014 Q1, so activities are mostly on schedule.


Table 2-1. Soil sample analyses from New York and New Jersey nurseries.

Cultivar/Rep/State OM % Buffer pH CEC pH Ca P Mg K Na Fe Zn Cu Mn B Al

CIR REP 1 NJ 1.06 6.38 4.7 6.36 469 117 152 57 8 155 1.2 1.5 5.4 0.1 677CIR REP 2 NJ 1.41 6.31 4.9 6.16 468 77 147 51 9 130 0.9 1.3 6.6 0.0 755CIR REP 3 NJ 1.02 6.44 4.9 6.66 525 138 174 50 8 178 1.3 1.6 6.3 0.1 653KANLOW REP 1 NJ 1.35 6.42 5.0 6.58 524 76 177 50 8 123 0.9 1.3 6.8 0.1 714KANLOW REP 2 NJ 1.63 6.34 6.2 6.17 667 41 202 59 5 121 0.7 0.8 4.3 0.0 815KANLOW REP 3 NJ 0.71 6.29 3.4 5.68 274 84 83 42 8 136 1.0 1.1 5.2 0.0 607

Cultivar/Rep/State OM % Buffer pH CEC pH Ca P Mg K Na Fe Zn Cu Mn B Al

CIR REP 1 NY 3.44 6.41 10.9 6.89 1513 20 281 86 15 201 1.0 1.7 63.1 0.3 777CIR REP 2 NY 3.13 6.27 10.6 6.41 1413 35 232 98 19 167 1.0 1.7 77.6 0.3 853CIR REP 3 NY 3.12 6.08 9.2 5.84 1076 35 179 87 15 170 0.8 1.6 40.6 0.2 847CIR REP 4 NY 3.2 6.29 11.3 6.48 1544 46 250 90 18 190 1.1 2.2 65.0 0.3 848KANLOW REP 1 NY 3.66 6.21 11.3 6.3 1507 40 233 108 17 170 1.0 1.9 65.1 0.3 913KANLOW REP 2 NY 4.04 6.2 11.7 6.29 1593 42 220 105 18 157 1.0 1.8 60.0 0.3 914KANLOW REP 3 NY 3.69 6.18 10.6 6.18 1417 40 194 88 18 163 0.9 2.0 52.8 0.3 819KANLOW REP 4 NY 3.98 6.27 11.8 6.55 1691 32 212 78 20 139 1.2 2.7 73.5 0.4 803

avg for NJ 1.20 6.36 4.9 6.27 488 89 156 52 8 141 1.0 1.3 5.8 0.1 704stdev for NJ 0.33 0.06 0.9 0.35 127 34 41 6 1 22 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.1 75

avg for NY 3.53 6.24 10.9 6.37 1469 36 225 93 18 170 1.0 2.0 62.2 0.3 847stdev for NY 0.37 0.10 0.8 0.30 183 8 32 10 2 19 0.1 0.4 11.6 0.1 49

Cultivar/Rep/State Morgan P Morgan K Morgan Ca Morgan Mglb/A lb/A lb/A lb/A

CIR REP 1 NJ 27.1 100.9 596.3 275.6CIR REP 2 NJ 9.5 91.5 594.1 266.2CIR REP 3 NJ 37.4 88.7 708.1 315.5KANLOW REP 1 NJ 11.3 89.7 705.6 320.9KANLOW REP 2 NJ 1.0 105.0 987.6 366.8KANLOW REP 3 NJ 19.7 74.8 211.9 149.1

Cultivar/Rep/State Morgan P Morgan K Morgan Ca Morgan Mglb/A lb/A lb/A lb/A

CIR REP 1 NY 1.0 153.2 2660.1 510.0CIR REP 2 NY 1.0 173.3 2462.5 420.3CIR REP 3 NY 1.0 155.1 1796.5 324.0CIR REP 4 NY 2.5 160.3 2721.4 453.6KANLOW REP 1 NY 1.0 191.9 2648.2 423.2KANLOW REP 2 NY 1.0 186.6 2818.2 399.2KANLOW REP 3 NY 1.1 155.6 2470.4 351.1KANLOW REP 4 NY 1.0 138.6 3011.9 384.4

avg for NJ 17.7 91.8 633.9 282.4stdev for NJ 13.2 10.6 251.7 74.5

avg for NY 1.2 164.3 2573.7 408.2stdev for NY 0.5 18.1 361.3 58.3

- - - - - - - - - - ppm - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - ppm - - - - - - - - - -



• Complete end of season growth measurements in the 2012 Rock Springs Willow Yield Trial.

• Assess survival and cut back willow in the 2013 Fredonia and Willsboro, NY Yield Trials.

• Assess first year post-coppice growth data from 2012 trials to inform 2014 breeding choices.

• Start seed of progeny from switchgrass polycross blocks conducted in 2013. • Plan 1: Discuss and develop protocol and rating scales for documenting disease and

insect reaction in switchgrass nurseries over the three locations. • Plan 2: Cut off the Ithaca Nursery with the chopper.

Task 2.4: Breeding and selection of willow and switchgrass yields on reclaimed mine

land 1. Planned Activities

• Conduct survival census in 2013 Philipsburg willow yield trial and cut back plants to ground level to promote coppice regrowth the following spring.

• Discuss the possibility of locating a site in WV to replace the 2012 willow yield trial. • Develop switchgrass plans for 2014 based on 2013 results; Manage weeds in new

plantings. 2. Accomplishments Plans have been made to assess survival in the 2013 Philipsburg willow yield trial and to

cut back plants in March of 2014. It was decided that survival and growth was too poor at the 2012 Mylan Park willow

yield trial to continue the trial. Plans have been made to mow, spray with herbicide and till under the existing trial. It will be replaced with a new trial with half the original number of cultivars, due to excessively poor and heterogeneous conditions in two of the planting blocks of the 2012 trial. The new trial will be planted in spring of 2014. Plans for management of the 2013 switchgrass germplasm evaluation on reclaimed mine land are underway. We have been discussing fertility and weed control.




4. Plans for Next Quarter • Assess survival in the 2013 Philipsburg willow yield trial and cut back plants in early

March 2014. • Prepare Mylan Park mine land site for new willow yield trial. Solidify spring

management plan for switchgrass mine land trial and make plans for data collection for 2014 on all switchgrass plantings.

• Develop plan for replacing check cultivars in PA reclaimed mine site in spring 2014. • Review soil sample results from reclaimed mine site and develop plan for adding fertility

at the reclaimed mine site in spring.

Thrust 2 Publications, Presentations, Proposals Conference Presentations Bonos, S.A. Biomass Feedstocks: Production, Properties, Structure. NEWBio Business of Biomass Shortcourse on Next Generation Biomass Conversion. Nov. 11, 2013. Malvern, PA. Crawford, J., A.G. Taylor, J.L. Hansen, R. Crawford, and D.R. Viands. Using Seed Treatment and Priming to Extend the Switchgrass Planting Season. Poster presentation at Switchgrass II, September 10-12, 2013. Madison Wisconsin. Educational and Other Curricula Bonos, S.A. Developing Perennial Grasses for Biofuel.Department Seminar, Department of Plant Biology and Pathology, Rutgers University. Nov. 22, 2013. New Brunswick, NJ. Bonos, S.A. Composition of Switchgrass on Marginal Land. NEWBio All Hands Teleseminar. Nov. 21, 2013. Crawford, J., J.L. Hansen, R. Crawford, and D.R. Viands. The NEWBio Project: Expanding commercial deployment of bioenergy crops in the Northeast: Switchgrass Breeding. 2013 CCE Agriculture and Food Systems In-Service, Cornell University. Nov. 20, 2013. Serapiglia, M. Willow Genotype-by-Environment Effects on Biomass Composition. NEWBio All Hands Teleseminar. Nov. 21, 2013. Crawford, J., J.L. Hansen, R. Crawford, and D.R. Viands. The NEWBio Project: Expanding commercial deployment of bioenergy crops in the Northeast: Switchgrass Breeding. 2013 CCE Agriculture and Food Systems In-Service, Cornell University. Nov. 20, 2013.


Proposals Submitted Bonos, S., J. Hansen, G. Bergstrom, D. Viands, S. Mitchell, Q. Sun. Utilization of Genomic Selection Models to Improve Disease and Insect Resistance in Switchgrass. Submitted to USDA, DOE Plant Feedstock Genomics for Bioenergy: A Joint Research Funding Opportunity. Submitted on Dec. 18, 2013.


Thrust 3: Harvest, Preprocessing, and Logistics of Integrated Biomass Supply Chains

For perennial crop systems like willow, miscanthus and switchgrass, harvesting and transportation can account for 40 to 60 percent of the delivered cost of biomass. Preprocessing of biomass through drying, size reduction, storage and compaction can increase transportation efficiency, reduce delivered costs, and improve conversion efficiency. During the first year of the project, the team designed willow and switchgrass harvesting protocols and collected time-motion data for various pieces of harvesting equipment, and developed base case models for these feedstock supply chains and models for optimizing biomass harvest and logistics scenarios. Year two efforts will include biomass harvest production and cost data analysis, further refinement of the supply chain optimization model, and biomass storage and dry biomass loss testing and analysis. Further tests will also be conducted on torrefaction, pelletization and pyrolysis. Techno-economic and life cycle analyses will be improved through more robust process modeling and data acquisition. Task 3.1: Significantly reduce the harvesting cost per ton of biomass feedstocks from

willow and perennial grasses Task 3.1.1: Optimize the operation of the forage harvester 1. Planned Activities

• Continue to process time motion data from large scale harvests 2. Accomplishments Completed analysis of large-scale willow biomass harvesting operations, which provided

new insights on how a single-pass chip-and-cut harvester functions in willow. Based on results of the analysis the harvesting module of the Ecowillow cash flow model

is being updated to account for costs based on throughput rather than ground speed. Preparing a manuscript based on harvesting data collected.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Continue to collect time-motion data from large-scale willow harvests.


Task 3.1.2: Detailed time and motion data collection and fuel use analysis 1. Planned Activities

• Analyze production fuel consumption and emissions. 2. Accomplishments Time and motion data from large-scale harvests were processed.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Continue to determine time and motion data collection procedures and experimental

design. Task 3.1.3: Cost effective technologies for harvesting perennial grasses 1. Planned Activities

• Continue data collection on switchgrass harvest. 2. Accomplishments

Nothing to report this quarter.


4. Plans for Next Quarter • Continue data collection on switchgrass harvest.

Task 3.1.4: Optimize the operation of the perennial grass harvester 1. Planned Activities

• Collect data on fall miscanthus field harvests.


2. Accomplishments Nothing to report this quarter.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Continue to collect and process data.

Task 3.1.5: Feedstock Logistics, supply chain and modeling optimization 1. Planned Activities

• Incorporate forage harvester system into modeling scenarios 2. Accomplishments Model has been revised to include a temporal balance of stored feedstocks. Revised method of estimating available feedstock:

o Incorporating terrain and spatial dispersion into feedstock availability estimates; o Developing models for dry matter loss based on literature values; o Incorporating multiple processing and transport technologies into model; o Investigating the impact of growers payment on availability and price of feedstock.

• Working on interfacing the BLM and Optimization models (Figures 3-1, 3-2, 3-3.)


4. Plans for Next Quarter • Develop models representing forage harvesting systems.


Figu

re 3

-1.

Fee

dsto

ck su

pply

cha

ins i

ncor

pora

ted

into

BLM

inpu

t file

.


Fi

gure

3-2

. Fee

dsto

ck su

pply

cha

in in

corp

orat

ed in

to B

LM.


Fi

gure

3. R

evis

ed se

nsiti

vity

ana

lysi

s cap

abili

ty in

corp

orat

ed in

to B

LM a

s a re

sult

of N

ewBi

o w

ork.


Task 3.2: Quantify the role of preprocessing for densification and storage on

transportation efficacy and downstream fuel conversion Task 3.2.1: Quantitative metrics of preprocessing parameters of biomass densification 1. Planned Activities

• Continue to conduct torrefaction tests and analysis on feedstocks 2. Accomplishments

• Torrefied and comminuted raw biomass samples were prepared and delivered to USDA-ERRC for analysis.



4. Plans for Next Quarter No activities planned for next quarter.

Task 3.2.2: Effects of preprocessing transportation and downstream fuel conversion 1. Planned Activities

• Continue to measure energy and fuel yield from torrefied biomass feedstock. 2. Accomplishments

None to report this quarter.




Task 3.2.3 Biomass densification 1. Planned Activities

• Continue densification studies for switchgrass and miscanthus and willow; analyze impacts

2. Accomplishments

None to report this quarter. 3. Explanation of Variance



Task 3.3: Assess the storage requirements and effects of long term storage on the

quality of willow and perennial grasses Task 3.3.1: Storage system development and assessments for perennial grasses 1. Planned Activities

• Continue long-term storage studies for switchgrass and miscanthus and analyze impacts. 2. Accomplishments Larger scale grass storage trials are in place. Data from bench-scale experiments are being examined.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Continue long-term storage studies for switchgrass and miscanthus harvest, analyze

storage impacts.


Task 3.3.2: Storage system development and assessments for willow 1. Planned Activities

• Continue long-term storage studies for willow, analyze storage impacts. 2. Accomplishments Completed and ash analysis of willow samples collected from outdoor piles. Energy content of samples from outdoor willow storage piles was initiated and is about

two-thirds complete. Moisture and temperature data are being organized. Developing revised sampling procedure for willow chip pile sampling.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Complete processing of willow samples for energy content and being analysis of results.

Task 3.4: Techno-economic analysis, cost engineering, and life cycle analysis of

densification, storage preprocessing and biorefinery integration Task 3.4.1: Develop an integrated supply chain model 1. Planned Activities

• Integrate alternative harvest and storage scenarios 2. Accomplishments Base supply chains of willow and miscanthus/switchgrass were identified.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Test and revise algorithms for alternative supply chain scenarios.


Task 3.4.2: Cost engineering models for satellite preprocessing and storage 1. Planned Activities

• Finalize estimates of costs and inputs for LCA studies. 2. Accomplishments



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Continue to refine estimates of preprocessing facilities.

Task 3.4.3: Life Cycle analysis, techno-economic analysis, and model integration 1. Planned Activities

• Begin spatial/statistical LCA study for feedstock collection, transport and densification in region.

2. Accomplishments Some data on emissions, as well as energy and water usage, were collected for harvesting

and transportation and storage systems. Table 3-1 details the data source for each related process.

Table 3-1.

Process Names and Data Sources

Process Name Data Source Wood Chopper Ecoinvent 2.2

Cable loader Hsu, 2011 Loading Hsu et al., 2010

Transport Ecoinvent 2.2 Storage Hsu et al., 2010



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Construct SimaPro Model.

Thrust 3: Publications, Presentations and Proposals Submitted Conference Presentations Eisenbies, M., L. Abrahamson, J. Posselius, J. Zerpa, R.Shuren, and T. Volk, 2013. Evaluation of Large Scale Willow Biomass Crop Harvesting Using a Recently Developed Single-Pass Cut-and-Chip Harvest System. ASA, CSSA and SSSA International Annual Meeting. Tampa, Fl Nov. 3-6, 2013. Educational and other Curricula Volk, T.A. Willow biomass production and harvesting systems. National Bioenergy Day Tour and Presentation, Boonville, NY. October 17, 2013.


Thrust 4: System Performance and Sustainability Metrics Sustainability will assess the overall system performance and sustainability of biomass to biofuel systems through a combination of detailed measurements at willow and perennial grass experimental sites, regional simulations using benchmark scenarios, and integration of the techno-economic analysis. During year one, the team defined benchmark locations for assessment monitoring and modeling, established cover crop experiments, and formed a data management working sub-group with representatives across NEWBio thrusts to coordinate data and metadata collection. Year two activities will focus on implementation of a data management plan for NEWBio that cross-cuts all thrusts. Task 4.1: Site- and crop-specific knowledge gaps Task 4.1.1: Biomass production 1. Planned Activities

• Prepare white paper with simulation results and yield gap analysis. • Start installing second eddy covariance tower. • Continue harvest biomass sampling.

2. Accomplishments Prepared a poster with yield simulations for representatives of both C4 (switchgrass,

miscanthus) and C3 (willow) perennial crops at four locations. Three locations are in the NE: Constableville, NY (coldest and shortest growing season), State College, PA (temperate), and Lebanon PA (longest growing season). The fourth, Urbana, IL, is a reference point with a growing season comparable to Southeastern PA but with a colder winter. The poster was presented at the Tri-Society meetings and is the basis for a yield gap analysis. A simple method to estimate potential yield was outlined and used, as well as a full simulation model that simulates the growth of an established stand.

Collected biomass from experiments in NY and PA, and from the Feedstock thrust in NJ. Along with our economic team, began development of a method to simulate biomass

production in BCAP areas, with an ongoing effort in Western PA and Ohio, near Erie. We are selecting soils based on land use and land use capability, attempting to develop a method that is repeatable in the NE to extract information from SSURGO database. Several preliminary results are available.

Continued installation of an eddy covariance tower. Prepared a draft data use agreement that is under review.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Move simulation poster/white paper into a manuscript for publication. • Continue eddy covariance installation. • Finish soil selection for BCAP test area, and overlay weather. • Finish data use agreement for yield trials.

Task 4.1.2: Nitrogen demand and alternative supply 1. Planned Activities

• Continue development of the N cycling model for perennial crops/miscanthus. • Continue with routine monitoring experiments. • Conduct experiments with N response harvest.

2. Accomplishments The N demand model for miscanthus evolved into a generic model for perennial energy

crops; it is still evolving. Both our samples and literature data are being analyzed. A miscanthus response to N for three biotypes in PA was reported by Marvin Hall.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Create a first draft of the N cycling model. • Continue with routine monitoring experiments. • Plan 15N experiment to be replicated in NY for willow. • Consider 15N experiments for miscanthus (needs, literature review)

Task 4.1.3: Nitrous oxide emissions 1. Planned Activities

• Monitor NO3 in benchmark experiments. • Track relevant non-NEWBio research.


2. Accomplishments Continued soil sampling of NO3. Continued model development for N2O modeling in parallel with a sister project.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Continue systematic sampling of soil N. • Continue polishing soils data-sharing and storage strategy and prepare for full

implementation.

Task 4.1.4: Carbon storage 1. Planned Activities

• Sample for soil carbon in selected benchmark locations. • Continue installation or maintenance of CO2 and H2O monitoring stations (two closed

path and two open path eddy covariance systems) at Rockview, PA. 2. Accomplishments Batteries in eddy covariance tower monitoring CO2 flux in willow were affected by deep

freeze and are being replaced. A graduate student in the Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department at Penn

State is taking charge of this experiment as her main Master’s degree research project.

3. Explanation of Variance Activities and accomplishments are on schedule. We experienced a minor delay in deep soil sampling as the soil auger could not penetrate through several inches of frozen soil.

4. Plans for Next Quarter • Maintain eddy system. • Process soil samples. • Obtain soil samples from NY locations for long term storage (Fredonia, Mapping Trial)

(scheduled for February or March, when soil unfreezes).


• Decide on the addition of Meadville, PA as a new site for long-term monitoring of soil C via archiving of soils samples.

Task 4.2: Benchmark scenarios 1. Planned Activities

• Finish schedules and frameworks for willow and for miscanthus/switchgrass management.

• Develop a stable set of simulations that includes comparative cropland when needed and that can be used by economic team and sustainability to run regional assessments.

2. Accomplishments Management schedules are essentially done, with additional possible variations relevant

for N management under consideration. Soil databases are under preparation, as explained in 4.1 for yield modeling in BCAP

area.


4. Plans for Next Quarter • Finish work on BCAP test areas and share with the rest of the team. • Continue preparing a stable set of simulations that include comparative cropland when

needed and that can be used by economic team and sustainability to run regional assessments.

Task 4.3: Regional feedstock supply and environmental assessment 1. Planned Activities

• Define physical sites for extension and education demonstrations. • Define virtual sites for education and regional simulation demonstrations. • Establish water quality impacts and air quality impacts for industrial activity and

emergent pollutants. • Begin to evaluate land use change impact on biodiversity and landscape. • Define harmonized database for LCA and non-market impacts • Define data management for thrust and overall project.


o Integrate, conceptually, biomass production modeling with landscape characterization.

o Continue planning the coupling of biomass and water quality models (air quality is under way).

• Continue promoting data model development for each NEWBio thrust. • Complete an initial internal draft review of the extent to which bioenergy feedstock

production may increase emission of biogenic volatile organic carbon compounds, and how these compounds may reduce air quality.

• Decide whether to address water quality through specific funding, as current commitments make it impossible to produce watershed level assessments on a regional basis.

2. Accomplishments

• Definition of demonstration sites clarified. • Continued work on VOCs. A white paper/critical review is evolving and a team will meet

with Jose Fuentes from Penn State, a meteorologist with interest and experience in the subject.

3. Explanation of Variance • Reports are slightly delayed; Landscape-level characterization of bioenergy crops

requires the formulation of a framework, and this framework has not been completed.

4. Plans for Next Quarter • Continue efforts on the following tasks:

o Integrate, conceptually, biomass production modeling with landscape characterization.

• Continue promoting data model development for each NEWBio. • Complete an initial internal draft review of the extent to which bioenergy feedstock

production may increase emission of biogenic volatile organic carbon compounds, and how these compounds may reduce air quality.

Task 4.4: Biomass to biofuel life cycle analysis and multi-criteria sustainability 1. Planned Activities

• Define system boundaries for NEWBio feedstocks with regard to preprocessing methods and end-use markets.


• Perform peer review of proposed USDA National Agricultural Library data archiving methods for preparation of LCA data sets.

2. Accomplishments Prepared a draft document on the Data Management Plan for NEWBio that is currently

undergoing review by Spatari and Pradhan at Drexel. 3. Explanation of Variance


4. Plans for Next Quarter • As in previous quarter, continue data collection to compile techo-economic analysis

(TEA) models. • Continue work on sustainability matrix and identification of a specific example. The

BCAP area in Ohio/PA is a candidate. Thrust 4 Publications, Presentations, and Proposals Submitted Conference Presentation Kemanian, A.R., E. Fabio, L. Smart, P.B. Woodbury, F. Montes, T. Volk, W. Jiang and B.K. Richards. Biomass Production Potential of Miscanthus, Switchgrass, and Willow in the Northeastern United States. ASA-CSSA-SSSA International Annual Meeting. Tampa, Florida, November 3 – 6, 2013. (Poster)


Thrust 5: Safety and Health in Biomass Feedstock Production and Processing Operations

Safety and health aspects of the biomass product supply chain will be addressed from a holistic, systems perspective. During the project’s first year, the team conducted a literature search to review hazard and risk exposure and identified a framework for describing injury prevention opportunities and risk evaluations. Year Two will focus on developing journal and extension publications and presentations that more precisely identify hazards, best safety practices, and opportunities for safety and health management plans. Task 5.1: Biomass safety program development 1. Planned Activities

• A journal article from the presentations at the 2013 North American Ag Safety Summit will be developed & submitted to the Journal of Agromedicine.

• An in-depth journal review article on biomass safety will be developed and submitted to the Journal of Agricultural Safety & Health.

2. Accomplishments A journal article titled Safety and Health in Biomass Production, Transportation and

Storage, was submitted, peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by the Journal of Agromedicine (JAM). Publication is expected in the spring 2014 issue of the JAM.

3. Explanation of Variance A change in key personnel in August 2013 slowed development of the in-depth journal article. Aaron Yoder left Penn State for a new position at the University of Nebraska. Douglas Schaufler, a research associate in Penn State’s Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, joined the NEWBio team.

4. Plans for Next Quarter • Submission planned for an article tentatively titled “Safety and Health Hazards in On-

Farm Biomass Production & Processing” to the Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health.

• Begin review of respiratory hazards associated with biomass operations. • Begin review of fire hazards associated with biomass operations. • Develop a poster for display for education and outreach events.


• Present an eXtension webinar on biomass safety issues, Feb. 13, 1:00 pm Eastern, Doug Schaufler, speaker. Webinar will be co-listed with eXtension Farm Energy and NEWBio.

Task 5.2: Safety and health hazard inventory 1. Planned Activities

• Visit harvest and storage sites. • Examine new machines and technologies during site visits. • Conduct hazard and risks reviews.

2. Accomplishments

None to report this quarter.

3. Explanation of Variance Delays in scheduling field demonstrations with harvesting machines has precluded accomplishing planned reviews.


• Visit harvest and storage sites. • Examine new machines and technologies during site visits. • Conduct hazard and risks reviews.

Task 5.3: Develop, conduct and evaluate a comprehensive safety and health management

program 1. Planned Activities

• No activity planned for the current reporting period. 2. Accomplishments



4. Plans for Next Quarter • No activity planned for the next reporting period.


Thrust 5: Publications, Presentations, and Proposals Submitted Journal Article Yoder, A.M., C. V. Schwab, P. D. Gunderson, and D. J. Murphy. Safety and Health in Biomass Production, Transportation and Storage. Journal of Agromedicine, Accepted for publication, December, 2013.


Thrust 6 Extension Extension will transfer NEWBio project knowledge and skills developed to support rapid deployment of willow- and warm-season grass-based bioenergy systems for economic, social and environmental benefits. During year one, the team identified potential field demonstration sites, forward-positioned a step planter with a corporate partner, held workshops and webinars, and developed fact sheets and various NEWBio display materials. In year two, the Extension team will consolidate activities at demonstration sites, fully develop the equipment leasing program, and create extension and eXtension materials on business models and other key issues facing the bioenergy sector. Task 6.1: Integrated demonstration sites 1. Planned Activities

• Coordinate with partner Aloterra on a field harvest trial and development of protocols for on-farm research trials on herbicide effectiveness and fertility.

• At WV demo site: a) cut willow on demonstration and replicated sites to enhance next-years sprouting and growth; b) prepare clippings from demonstration site to determine biomass yield and quality; and c) collect soil samples from demonstration site.

• Combine funds from the NewBio project and NYSERDA to allow SUNY ESF to hire a full time extension person to support the willow biomass crop expansion that is occurring in Northern NY as part of the USDA BCAP project.

• Continue to identify potential cooperators at demonstration sites.

2. Accomplishments At the NY Demonstration Site:

o A harvest field day was held as part of National Bioenergy Day on October 17, 2013 in Booneville, NY. Approximately 75 people attended the field day and were provided general crop information along with demonstrations of harvesting technologies, processes, and end products. Participants also visited the Lyonsdale Biomass plant that is owned by ReEnergy. All the willow biomass that is being harvested in northern NY as part of the USDA BCAP program is being purchased by ReEnergy.

o A landowner/stakeholder meeting was held at SUNY ESF in Syracuse, NY on November 26, 2013 with 16 participants; topics included planting season experiences, harvest season experiences, tentative conclusions, economic analysis tools, reducing costs and improving returns.


o SUNY ESF hired Justin Heavey for the extension position for northern NY. Heavey joined the NEWBio team in January 2014.

About 75 people attended a willow biomass crop harvesting field day in northern NY, at a field site being managed by Celtic Energy Farms on October 17, 2013. The field day included a combination of discussion about the willow production system and harvesting equipment and a demonstration of the harvesting system based on a New Holland forage harvester and a specially designed cutting head.


NW Pa/ NE Ohio Demonstration site: o A Farm Energy Day is planned for Feb 5. o We are working with Aloterra on alternative markets and a business plan for farmer

contracts. o We participated in a conference call with Proe Power Systems to discuss potential

investors and/or projects to deploy their biomass fired power-plants. WV Demonstration site:

o We conducted a site visit to assess willow establishment and expansion on mine lands.

o We visited the MeadWestvaco demonstration site and replicated willow sites to collect willow cuttings.

o A proposal is under development for WVDOE for planting of biomass crops on surface mine sites in WV.


4. Plans for Next Quarter • Begin revision of EcoWillow economic model and Willow Biomass Producer’s

Handbook. • Host a Farm Energy Day in Meadville, PA on February 5. • Host a willow harvest demonstration tour in Central PA on January 28. • Work with Aloterra on signing up farmers to grow miscanthus. • Continue to collect cuttings on WV sites.

Task 6.2: Biomass equipment access program 1. Planned Activities

• Develop schedule for equipment use

2. Accomplishments Assisted with the purchase of two harvesters; A two-row New Holland FR9090 will be

maintained by Celtic Energy Farm and a one-row Danish will be maintained by Double A Willow.

Developed a leasing plan for the harvesters.


Harvesting carried out in NY and PA. 3. Explanation of Variance


4. Plans for Next Quarter • Examine new machines and technologies for hazards and risks during site visits, field

days and demonstrations. • Continue to develop schedules for use.

Task 6.3: Small business and economic development 1. Planned Activities

• Develop frameworks for business opportunities. • Prepare working paper on comparing supply chain models. • Identify markets for biomass and biorefinery byproducts

2. Accomplishments Collection underway of secondary data to identify business models of existing bioenergy

companies.

New Holland FR9090 harvester with the 130FB coppice header cutting four-year-old stems in a yield trial in Geneva. The harvester is owned by Celtic Energy Farm; the header was purchased with assistance from NEWBio.

Photo credit: Larry Smart


Developed a draft working paper on markets for biomass products. Integration underway of the supply chain framework, business model identification, and

marketing efforts in the NEWBio project. Liaison between Extension and Human System Thrusts.


4. Plans for Next Quarter • Examine non-energy markets as alternatives and stepping stones in ramping up

production of energy crops. • Add companies to the business model analysis and continue collecting secondary data. • Obtain input from Supply Chain Group on market identification working paper. • Develop a working paper on biomass market competition analysis. • Develop summary of work-to-date by supply chain group and demonstrate relevance to

extension and human systems.

Task 6.4: Expand eXtension.org for willow and warm-season grasses 1. Planned Activities

• Identify priority topics for publication. • Develop FAQs.

2. Accomplishments Identified priority topics for publication via a survey of all NEWBio collaborators;

focused on Bioenergy Supply Chain “Barriers”. Developed a NEWBio Research Summary template

○ “Grown for Biofuel, Energy-Efficient Shrub Willow Sequesters Carbon Below-Ground, LCA Shows” is a summary authored by Tim Volk.

Posted NEWBio webinar events to learn.extension.org Organized four web-based conferences to discuss mutual Extension activities across the

AFRI Bioenergy CAPs. Uploaded NEWBio images to the eXtension Farm Energy Media Archive Utilized Social Media to broadcast NEWBio events.


• FAQ authoring postponed to next quarter; organizing the list took longer than expected.

https://learn.extension.org/events/tag/newbio

http://farmenergymedia.extension.org/images?field_terms_tid=All&keywords=newbio&sort_by=created&sort_order=DESC&items_per_page=20



• Publish two fact sheets to address topics identified as top priority. • Develop FAQs on Supply Chain “Barrier” Topics. • Meet with two NEWBio teams to develop publication plans • Create NEWBio home-page index on eXtension.org

o Link to all NEWBio publications and resources • Update posts to eXtension.org Farm Energy sites (Learn events, Media). • Web-conference with Extension for all Bioenergy CAPs and use this network to improve

outreach efforts.

Task 6.5: Interactive and innovative learning-lessons tools 1. Planned Activities

• Continue delivery of bioenergy webinars. • Develop NEWBio “Frequently Asked Questions” sheet. • Continue to prepare fact sheets. • Organize and deliver “Business of Biomass” workshops. • Publish video series on successful biomass businesses. • Continue to populate website. • Send out monthly e-newsletter.

2. Accomplishments The Business of Biomass: Next Generation Biomass Conversion short course was held in

November outside of Philadelphia, with 50 attendees. Fact sheets developed (see Publications). Field days and tours were held at demonstration sites (listed in task 6.1) Added updates and FAQ to Willowpedia website. Planning Mid-Atlantic Heat and Power Conference in Gettysburg, PA on April 24-25.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Continue delivery of bioenergy webinars. • Develop NEWBio “Frequently Asked Questions” sheet.

http://willow.cals.cornell.edu/


• Continue to prepare fact sheets. • Organize and deliver new short courses. • Continue to populate website. • Send out monthly e-newsletter.

Thrust 6 Publications, Presentations, and Proposals Submitted Books Jacobson, M. and D. Ciolkosz (Eds) 2013. Wood-Based Energy in the Northern Forests. Springer. Educational Aids or Curricula Jacobson, M., et al. 2013. Miscanthus Budget for Biomass Production. A Penn State Extension Renewable and Alternative Energy Fact Sheet. NEWBio Bioenergy Webinar: Renewable Energy from Woody Biomass and Shrub Willow. October 8, 2013. Speakers: Mike Buckley and Sara Boggess (ReEnergy Holdings)m Tim Volk (SUNY-ESF), Robert McDonough (Celtic Energy Farm). NEWBio Bioenergy Webinar: Wood and Biomass Pellets for Regional and Global Energy. December 10, 2013. Speaker: David DeVallance (West Virginia University). NEWBio Shortcourse: The Business of Biomass: Next Generation Biomass Conversion. November 11-12, 2013. Multiple speakers and facility tours. Smart, L. The NEWBio Project: Expanding commercial deployment of bioenergy crops in the Northeast. Cornell University Inservice. Nov. 20, 2013. Wurzbacher, S. Miscanthus as an emerging dedicated energy crop. Cornell University Inservice. Nov. 20, 2013. Wurzbacher, S. Biological conversion of plant material into biofuels. Renewable Energy Academy, Greensburg, PA. Dec. 5, 2013. Proposals Submitted Kelsey, T., S. Swenson and M. Jacobson. Potential Economic Impact of Renewable Fuels and Sustainable Biomass Feedstock for the Northeast. Submitted to NEWBio Seed Grant Program. Awarded December 2013.


Thrust 7 Education The NEWBio education program will develop critical human capital by preparing learners to understand, contribute to, and lead the Northeast US bioenergy industry via three coordinated, complimentary programs that inform, engage, and enable students at secondary, undergraduate, and graduate levels. The education team operationalized all three programs during year one, placing eight bioenergy scholars with mentors at NEWBio partnering institutions, conducting two secondary educator week-long workshops, and inaugurating the graduate distance education program with an online course on biomass energy systems. Year two will continue these efforts. Task 7.1: Secondary educator training 1. Planned Activities

• Continue with system to receive and collect applications, • Recruit participants for summer 2014, and • Continue organizing training.

2. Accomplishments Registration system launched for summer 2014 workshops. Teacher training program videos broadcast on the NEWBio YouTube channel.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Recruit participants for summer 2014. • Continue organizing training. • Begin planning workshops with site directors.

Task 7.2: Regional Bioenergy Scholars 1. Planned Activities

• Market program. • Receive applications. • Recruit candidates.

2. Accomplishments


2014 program marketing carried out via direct mailing and email. Bioenergy scholars videos broadcast via YouTube. Projects and mentors identified for 2014; Applications opened.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Market program. • Review applications, select candidates. • Organize host sites.

Task 7.3: Graduate distance education in bioenergy 1. Planned Activities

• Marketing of program, • Delivery of courses, and • Review of spring semester applications, and communication of decisions.

2. Accomplishments Program marketed via electronic and print advertisement. Scholarship recipients for Spring 2014 selected. Fall 2013 course delivered.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Marketing of program, • Delivery of courses, and • Review of summer semester applications, and communication of decisions.

Thrust 7 Publications, Presentations, and Proposals Submitted. None to report this quarter.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9Z2nhZr4XoXMjLLRgeJuXQ


Thrust 8 Leadership, Stakeholder Involvement, Knowledge-to-Action (K2A) and Program Evaluation

The primary focus here is to link stakeholder involvement to all NEWBio activities through demonstrated transdisciplinary collaborations, research that is closely aligned with stakeholder needs, and effective and efficient dissemination of scientific knowledge to support the expansion of perennial energy crops in the Northeast U.S. Task 8.1: Executive and thrust conference calls 1. Planned Activities

• Continue monthly teleconferences for Executive Committee and Leadership teams. • Target bi-monthly teleconferences for each Thrust Team.

2. Accomplishments Held Executive Committee teleconferences on October 3, November 7 and December 5. Held Leadership teleconferences on October 17, November 14, and December 12. Held a total of 16 thrust and working group teleconferences to address such subjects as

communications, data management, feedstock budgets, online bioenergy course offerings and scholarship procedures, and farm operations.



4. Plans for Next Quarter • Continue present monthly scheduling for Executive Committee and Leadership team

meetings. Task 8.2: All Hands teleseminars and meetings 1. Planned Activities

• Continue monthly teleseminar schedule to deliver project updates and share thrust progress toward goals and objectives.

• Issue Year 2 Seed Grant Request for Proposals.


2. Accomplishments Held All Hands teleseminars on October 24, November 21, and December 19 with these

featured presentations: ○ Kevin Kenney, INL: Feedstock Variability (October 24) ○ Stacy Bonos, Rutgers: Compositional Analysis of Switchgrass Genotypes Grown on

Marginal Land and Michele Serapiglia, Cornell: Willow Genotype-by-Environment Effects on Biomass Composition

○ Jessica Leahy and Laura Lindenfeld, University of Maine: NEWBio Evaluation: Linking Knowledge-to-Action Year 1 (Full report is available in Appendix II.)


4. Plans for Next Quarter • Continue monthly teleseminars. • Engage thrusts, and especially graduate students, in the planning and organization of our

monthly teleseminars and the August annual meeting. Task 8.3: External Advisory Board meetings and strategic planning 1. Planned Activities

• Invite advisory board members to participate in NEWBio All Hands teleseminars. • Invite advisory board members to participate in NEWBio seed grant proposal evaluation.

2. Accomplishments Advisory board members are routinely invited to monthly All Hands teleseminars. Seven advisory board members participated as evaluators for our second round of seed

grants. The proposals were reviewed in November 2013.

3. Explanation of Variance Activities and accomplishments are on schedule. No variance to report

4. Plans for Next Quarter • Solicit new board member involved in economic and community development. • Solicit board member involvement in future All Hands meetings as presenters/co-

presenters.


Task 8.4: Task and project evaluation 1. Planned Activities

• Participate in Management and All Team teleconferences. • Observe team interactions. • Complete a draft of the Year One evaluation by November. • Provide feedback to the project team at the December 21, 2013 All Hands meeting.

2. Accomplishments NEWBio Evaluation: Linking Knowledge-to-Action, Technical Report for Year 1.

Report delivered to the NEWBio project team on December 21, 2013.


4. Plans for Next Quarter • Participate in Management and All Team teleconferences. • Observe team interactions. • Develop Y2 evaluation schedule and identify external stakeholders as potential

participants. • Seek input from the project team on specific questions to include in the evaluation

protocols for Y2. Thrust 8 Publications, Presentations, and Proposals Submitted Technical Report Leahy, J. and L. Lindenfeld. 2013. NEWBio Evaluation: Linking Knowledge to Action, Technical Report – Year 1.


Appendix A

NEWBio Task List and Timeline


-- -- Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

Thrust 1 Human Systems

Task 1.1 Understanding socia l and economic constra ints O X O X O X X X X XTask 1.2 Assess demonstration s i tes as they pursue sca le up of biomass

crop production and supply cha in infrastructure O X O X X O X O XThrust 2 Feedstock Improvement for Perennial Energy Crops

Task 2.1 Breeding of non-invasive triploid hybrids of willow displaying hybrid vigor O X O O O X

Task 2.2 Genetic basis for pest and disease resistance in willow and perennial grasses O X O X O X O X O X

Task 2.3 Breeding and selection of cultivars adapted for NE conditions O X O X O X O X O XTask 2.4 Breeding and selection of willow and switchgrass yields on

reclaimed mine lands O X O X O X O X O XThrust 3 Harvest, Preprocessing, and Logistics of Integrated Biomass

Supply Chains

Task 3.1 Significantly reduce the harvesting cost per ton of biomass feedstocks from will and perennial grasses in the NE O X O X O X X X

Task 3.2 Quantify the role of preprocessing for densification and storage on transporation efficiency and downstream fuel O X O X O X O X X

Task 3.3 Assess the storage requirements and effects of long term storage on the quality of willow and perennial grasses O X

Task 3.4 Techno-economic analysis, cost engineering, and LCA of densification, storage, preprocessing, biorefinery integration X O X O X O X X

Thrust 4 System Performance and Sustainability Metrics

Task 4.1 Site- and crop-specific knowledge gaps O X O XTask 4.2 Benchmark Scenarios O O X XTask 4.3 Regional feestock suppy and environmental assessment O O XTask 4.4 Biomass to biofuel LCA and multi-criteria assessments O O X X OThrust 5 Safety and Health in Biomass Feedstock Production and

Processing Operations

Task 5.1 Biomass Safety Program Development X X X X X XTask 5.2 Safety and Health Hazard Inventory O O O O OTask 5.3 Develop, conduct and evaluate a comprehensive safety and

health management program O O O O O

2016 2017NEWBIO TASK LIST AND TIMELINE 2012 2013 2014 2015

See table legend on next page.


-- -- Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

Thrust 6 Extension

Task 6.1 Integrated demonstration sites O O X O XTask 6.2 Biomass equipment access program O O O O O O O O O XTask 6.3 Small business and economic development X O X O O X O O XTask 6.4 Expand eXtension.org for willow and warm-season grasses X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XTask 6.5 Interactive and innovative learning-lessons tools X X O X O O X O O X XThrust 7 Education

Task 7.1 Secondary educator training O O O O OTask 7.2 Regional Bioenergy Scholars O O O O XTask 7.3 Graduate distance education in bioenergy O XThrust 8 Leadership, Stakeholder Involvement, and Program Evaluation

Task 8.1 Leadership, management and thrust team conference calls OTask 8.2 All-Hands teleseminars and meetings O O O O O OTask 8.3 External advisory board meetings and strategic planning O O O O XTask 8.4 Task and project evaluation X X X X XTask 8.5 Administrative program evaluation X X X X XTask 8.6 Final evaluation and program report X X

2016 2017NEWBIO TASK LIST AND TIMELINE 2012 2013 2014 2015

Key Deliverables

Project Milestones OFact Sheets, Reports, Articles, Videos X Low Activity High Activity

Activity Level

NEWBio Quarterly Report for July through September 2013 53

Appendix B

Miscanthus Budget

for Biomass Production

Renewable and Alternative Energy Fact Sheet

November 2013

54

R e n e w a b l e and a l te R na t ive e n e R g y F ac t S h e e t

Miscanthus Budget for Biomass Production

Giant miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) is a sterile hybrid perennial warm-season grass that grows relatively fast on less-than-ideal soils, making it a preferred energy crop. This fact sheet provides an enterprise budget for growing miscanthus. The objective is for growers to understand the inputs, costs, and potential revenues involved in cultivating miscanthus. An example budget is described, but since each situation is different and prices can vary, a spreadsheet is available at extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/energy/ field-crops/resources for adjusting inputs and prices to individual conditions. The scenario provided in this fact sheet is based on growing the crop in northeastern Ohio/northwestern Pennsylvania. All quantities and prices are on a per-acre basis. The costs are based on farm custom rates published by Ohio State University Exten- sion and Penn State Extension. The budget is based on a 15-year timeline. This fact sheet does not discuss transportation costs of harvested miscanthus from the field to processing facility, which will vary from site to site. This fact sheet focuses on the budget items considered in cultivating miscanthus for bioenergy. Additional information on miscanthus is available at www.newbio.psu.edu.

Soil test The first step is to evaluate the land quality for growing miscanthus, which includes a soil test. Miscanthus grows well in soil with a pH of 5.5–7.5 and medium to high fertility, but it adapts to a wide variety of soils. A standard soil test is recommended to determine the nutrient availability for miscanthus establishment. The test is generally done based on a grid sampling of five-acre units every three years. Ignoring the cost for collecting the sample, on a per-acre basis, and assuming $15 per soil test, testing will cost $3 per acre in year 1 (establishment year) and $1 per acre for each year thereafter.

Site Preparation The amount of work needed to prepare a site varies depending on the previous land use. If the growing site is already in crop production, there should be minimal site preparation. For land that has been fallow, clearing undesirable brush with a standard brush mower will cost about $10 per acre. Next, the land should

“NEWBio”is the Northeast Woody/Warm-season Biomass Consortium, a regional project funded by the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) to promote next-generation bioenergy production in the northeastern United States.

be plowed with a moldboard plow at a one-time cost of around $19 per acre. After plowing, the land most likely will require two disking passes and two soil finishing passes, at costs of roughly $28 per acre and $29 per acre, respectively. Soil amendments Miscanthus does not usually need soil amendments since it adapts to many soil conditions and may even build up soil Nitrogen. Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and lime requirements, as recommended by research at the University of Il- linois are as follows. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are applied at an annual cost of $7 per acre.

• Nitrogen fertilizer is typically applied at about 7.5 pounds per ton of biomass after establishment and during the first year of harvest. As the yield increases, these costs will increase. Based on the assumption of yields in this scenario, the first application in year 2 costs $21 per acre, increases to $42 per acre by year 4, and so on.

• Phosphorus (P2O5) is typically applied at 1.5 pounds per ton of biomass (by soil test recommendation) 6 months before planting and each harvest season thereafter. As the yield increases, these costs will increase. Based on the assumption of yields in this scenario, the first application in year 2 costs $5 per acre, increases to $9 per acre by year 4, and so on.

• Potassium (K2O) is typically applied at 5.5 pounds per ton of biomass (by soil test recommendation) 6 months before planting and each harvest season thereafter. As the yield increases, these costs will increase. Based on the assumption of yields in this scenario, the first application in year 2 costs $13, increases to $26 per acre in year by year 4, and so on.

• Lime, if needed, is generally added 6 months prior at 4 tons per acre for about $152 per acre, and then at 2 tons per acre every fourth year, which annualized is about $18 per year. This includes application costs.

Plant Material Miscanthus is planted with rhizomes using a specialized rhizome planter. About 7,000 rhizomes per acre should be used. The assumed price per rhizome can vary from 10 to 25 cents depending on the vendor. Total seed cost is about $700 per acre. In year 2, replanting rhizomes in places where previous ones did not survive could be required. For this budget, we assume one-eighth (12.5 percent) of the rhizomes will be replanted at a cost of $88 per acre.

http://www.newbio.psu.edu/

Miscanthus Budget for Biomass Production ..................................................................................................

55

Planting costs Currently, industry practice is to plant the rhizomes 4 inches deep and 3 feet apart within rows. Maintain 3 feet between rows. Planting costs are based on Aloterra Energy custom rates for their planter, which is $30 per acre. For year 2, replanting one-eighth of the rhizomes while still driving over the whole acre to fill gaps at a cost of $30 per acre is assumed. This can vary depending on where the replanting is needed and how much needs to be done by hand.

weed control Weed management during the planting season is crucial for establishment as the crop is sensitive to weed competition. An initial burndown with 32 ounces of glyphosate is required prior to planting, costing an estimated $7 per acre. A preemergence herbicide treatment of 4 pints of acetochlor and atrazine should be implemented right after planting and in year 1 at an estimated cost of $18 per acre. A postemergence herbicide using 1 pint of 2,4-D is also suggested during the establishment year and in year 2 at a cost around $3 per acre. The sprayer cost for the three passes discussed above is a conservative $7/acre per spray = $21/ acre in first year. Due to the relatively recent emergence of miscanthus, contact your county extension office for current herbicide recommendations.

Maintenance costs As mentioned above, some fertilizer applications are made over time as needed. By year 2 there should be no need for more herbicides since the grasses shade out the weeds. The cost to maintain a 25-foot field boundary (per the requirements of the Federal Biomass Crop Assistance Program) by brush mowing will cost an estimated $1 per acre of planted miscanthus. Currently no pests are found on miscanthus.

harvesting costs Miscanthus can be harvested in year 2 and every year thereafter. However, in year 2 only 50 percent of the yield is achieved (5 tons per acre); in year 3, 75 percent (7.5 tons per acre) is achieved; and in full production, year 4, 100 percent yield of 10 tons per acre is achieved. Traditional hay mowing and baling equipment is used. Mowing will cost around $13 per acre per year. Baling, assuming 15 percent moisture in the grass and a weight of 1,200 pounds per bale, costs about $117 per acre at full yield (i.e., to bale 10 tons). Baling costs are lower in the first four years since yield per acre is smaller.

yield and Revenues Miscanthus yields an average of about 7–10 dry tons per acre per year. At an assumed farm-gate price of $45 per dry ton for a mature yield of 10 tons per acre, annual revenue would be $450 per acre per year. There is no revenue in the first year. In the second year, we assume that only 50 percent of the yield, or 5 tons per acre, is achieved, for a revenue of $225 per acre. Third-year yield is 7.5 tons per acre, for a revenue of $338 per acre. Revenue for years 4 through 15 is $450 per acre.

net Revenues and Financial analysis The last columns of the spreadsheet show the total costs, revenues, and present value of each item. The total costs over 15 years are estimated to be $4,189 per acre while total revenues are estimated at $5,962 per acre. Net revenue is $1,773 per acre for the 15-year budget period. The payback period—which tells investors how long it will take for revenues to cover establishment costs—is six years using the financial assumptions in this scenario.

Since this project occurs over a 15-year period, you need to account for the time value of money to get an accurate value. The time value of money is reflected in an interest (discount) rate used by investors. Revenues and costs not received today are“discounted” to the present, hence net present value (NPV). This allows investors to compare alternative projects over the same lifetime. If the NPV is positive, it implies that investors receive at least their acceptable rate of return. The NPV in this scenario, using a 4 percent rate, is $1,041 per acre. This NPV would obviously change if the discount rate, project length, and the costs and revenues were changed. Annualiz- ing the NPV gives us an equal annual income (EAI) value of $94. The EAI compared to an annual rental on the land expresses NPV as an annual return, so it can, for example, be a good investment.

Miscanthus rhizomes. Photo courtesy of David Marrison. Summary Giant miscanthus is one of the faster-growing warm-season grasses that are propagated by rhizome division. These unique planting requirements mean that the up-front costs for miscanthus establishment are higher than for other dedicated energy crops. However, the yields are quite attractive relative to other energy crops. This scenario, albeit conservative, still shows a positive return. The six-year payback period can be shortened, especially if cost-share monies are available for planting costs and prices or yields per ton are higher. Using the Spreadsheet This scenario was developed to show the different costs and revenues involved in growing miscanthus. The spreadsheet format shown below can be downloaded from extension.psu.edu/ natural-resources/energy/field-crops/resources and adapted to fit specific grower conditions. You can change the quantity of inputs and their respective prices (shown in yellow cells), allowing you to adapt costs and revenues to your situation.

Miscanthus Budget for Biomass Production ..................................................................................................

56

Quantity

Unit Price/

Unit Year 1

(Estab.)

Year 2

Year 3 Years 4–15

Total Present

Value

SELECT CASH EXPENSES

Plant Material

Rhizomes 7,000 rhizome per acre $0.10 $700.00 $0 $0 $0 $700.00 $700.00

Soil Fertility1

Nitrogen

7.5 pounds per ex-

pected ton per acre

$0.56

$0

$20.81

$31.22

$41.63

$551.53

$410.00

P O

1.5 pounds per ex-

pected ton per acre

$0.63

$0

$4.73

$7.09

$9.45

$125.21

$93.00

K O

5.5 pounds per ex-

pected ton per acre

$0.48

$0

$13.20

$19.80

$26.40

$349.80

$260.00

Fertilizer application annually acre $7.00 $0 $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 $98.00 $74.00

Lime see

inputs

ton

$38.00

$152.00

$17.54

$17.54

$17.54

$397.54

$337.00

Soil testing2 per soil test $15.00 $3.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $17.00 $14.00

Weed Control3

Burndown 32

ounces

acre

$6.50

$6.50

$0

$0

$0

$6.50

$7.00

Preemergence 4 pints acre $17.50 $17.50 $17.50 $0 $0 $35.00 $34.00

Postemergence 1 pint acre $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $0 $0 $6.00 $6.00

Sprayer (3 sprays) 3 acre $7.00 $21.00 $14.00 $0 $0 $35.00 $34.00

Establishment and Maintenance4

Brush mowing 1 acre $10.00 $10.00 $0 $0 $0 $10.00 $10.00

Moldboard plow 1 acre $18.20 $18.00 $0 $0 $0 $18.20 $18.00

Disking (2 passes) 2 acre $13.70 $27.00 $0 $0 $0 $27.40 $27.00

Soil finish (2 passes) 2 acre $14.20 $28.00 $0 $0 $0 $28.40 $28.00

Rhizome planter 1 acre $30.00 $30.00 $4.00 $0 $0 $33.75 $34.00

Brush mowing/field barrier maintenance5

0.1

acre

$10.00

$1.00

$1.00

$1.00

$1.00

$15.00

$12.00

Harvesting

Mowing4 1 acre $13.00 $0 $13.00 $13.00 $13.00 $182.00 $137.00

Baling (large, round)6 16.67 bale $7.00 $0 $58.00 $88.00 $117.00 $1,545.83 $1,149.00

TOTAL CASH EXPENSES $1,018.00 $175.00 $185.00 $234.00 $4,182.00 $3,385.00

REVENUES Biomass Mature yield

(estimation)

10

dry ton

0

5

7.5

10

132.5

Revenue stream $45.00 $0 $225.00 $338.00 $450.00 $5,962.50 $4,433.00

REVENUE ABOVE EXPENSES -$1,018.00 $50.00 $152.00 $216.00 $1,780.00 $1,048.00

EQUAL ANNUAL INCOME (annualized over 15 years) $94.00

BREAKEVEN PAYBACK PERIOD7 6 years

ASSUMPTIONS Interest rate 4 percent

Number of years of growth (years 4–15)

12

years

INPUTS Establishment lime 4 tons per acre

Maintenance lime 2 tons per acre

Weight of bale 1,200 pounds

2 5

2

Adapted from Michigan State University spreadsheet by Dennis Pennington. bioenergy.msu.edu/economics.

table Footnotes

1. Based on 7.5 pounds of nitrogen, 1.5 pounds of P2O5, 5.5 pounds of K2O crop removal per ton of biomass, and 4 tons of lime per acre during establishment and 2 tons per acre every fourth year.

2. Based on a grid sampling of 5-acre units every 3 years.

3. Burndown application is 32 ounces of glyphoshate; preemergence, 4 pints of acetochlor and atrizine; and postemergence, 1 pint of 2,4-D.

4. Custom rates for brush mowing, moldboard plow, disking, soil finish, and harvest mowing are from 2012 Ohio Farm Custom Rates. Custom rate for rhizome planter as charged by Aloterra Energy.

5. Biomass Crop Assistance Program provisions require a 25-foot buffer around each field. Cost will change based on field size/ dimension.

6. Harvested at 15 percent moisture with a bale weight of 1,200 pounds.

7. Payback period is calculated by determing when revenues exceed establishment costs.

Prepared by Mike Jacobson, professor of forest resources, Penn State; David Marrison, extension educator and assistant professor, Ohio State; Zane Helsel, extension specialist, Rutgers University; Dennis Rak, owner, Double A Willow; and Barry Forgeng and Nichole Heil, interns, Penn State.

Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences research and extension programs are funded in part by Pennsylvania counties, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This publication is available from the Publications Distribution Center, The Penn- sylvania State University, 112 Agricultural Administration Building, University Park, PA 16802. For information telephone 814-865-6713. Where trade names appear, no discrimination is intended, and no endorsement by Penn State Cooperative Extension is implied.

This publication is available in alternative media on request. Penn State is committed to affirmative action, equal opportunity, and the diversity of its workforce. Produced by Ag Communications and Marketing © The Pennsylvania State University 2013 Code EE0081 11/13pod

For more information on the NEWBio project, visit www.newbio.psu.edu and Penn State Extension’s Renewable Energy website, extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/energy.

n n n

57

http://www.newbio.psu.edu/


Appendix C

NEWBio Evaluation:

Linking Knowledge to Action Technical Report – Year 1

By Jessica Leahy and Laura Lindenfeld University of Maine

NEWBio External Evaluators

December 2013

58

59

NEWBio Evaluation: Linking

Knowledge to Action Technical Report – Year I

Jessica Leahy and Laura Lindenfeld

NEWBio External Evaluators December 2013

60

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our gratitude to NEWBio team for participating in our survey and interviews.

This work was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2012‐‐‐68005‐‐‐19703

from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

61

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 4 Study Methods and Administration 5

Data Analysis 5 Study Limitations 5 Survey Results 6 Interview Results 16 Recommendations 23

62

INTRODUCTION

NEWBio aims to expand the role of biomass, a long‐‐‐standing resource for energy and materials in the northeastern

U.S., in the coming decades. Perennial energy crops, especially willow and warm‐‐‐season grasses, can play a central

role in creating a sustainable bioenergy future for the region. This region, stretching from New England to the Ohio

River, encompasses less than 10% of the land area of the U.S. yet contains over 20% of its population. Although it

includes four of the eleven largest metropolitan regions in the nation, the landscape is dominated by rural

communities with ample but often underutilized natural resources, with many communities suffering from

decades of decline. NEWBio envisions biomass energy as key source that can help drive social, economic and

ecological change in the Northeast. The ability of NEWBio to align the science and scientific products it produces

with societal needs depends on the project’s ability to advance interdisciplinary collaboration across universities

and transdisciplinary engagement with external stakeholders and institutions. This depends, in large part, on the

team’s ability to communicate and collaborate across a number of geographically dispersed institutions of higher

education.

This technical report summarizes Year 1 evaluation findings for the NEWBio Consortium. It focuses on the team’s

status with regard to developing an infrastructure to support communication and collaboration. The study was

designed to gather information from stakeholders through an online survey of the entire NEWBio team and

interviews with the project’s leadership team. This information will be used support the team’s decision‐‐‐making in

subsequent project years based on understanding how the team is communicating and collaborating. This

information will also serve as a baseline for understanding how the team changes over time, and help to

understand how effectively the team is collaborating with external stakeholders.

Specific objectives of this study included:

• Assess current approaches to interdisciplinary collaboration and identify key strategies for advancing the

team’s ability to collaborate across multiple disciplines and different geographic settings;

• Identify strengths and weaknesses with regard to project management and communication and

collaboration infrastructure and practices;

• Understand team members’ perceptions of key stakeholders and stakeholder groups and their needs for

project research, extension, and education activities;

• Assess the team’s capacity to collaborate with stakeholders;

• Understand the current and prospective future roles of the project’s Advisory Board;

• Utilize the data collected in this study to provide guidance the project’s future.

The results obtained through our two‐‐‐part study provide important and useful data for understanding team

members’ and the leadership team’s views on the project and its ability to advance effective inter‐‐‐ and

transdisciplinary collaboration.

The conceptual framework of this evaluation emphasizes the importance of developing effective communication

across inter/transdisciplinary projects as a way of helping to improve project networks and strengthen collective

capacity and the ability achieve high levels of integration.1 Such integration depends on the development of what

Thompson terms “collective communication competence,” a framework that depends on core processes such as

the establishment of trust, ability to spend time working together, and explicit discussions about disciplinary language differences.

2 Dewulf et al. stress the need for creating context through the use of frames that help “make

1 Thompson, Jessica Leigh. (2009). Building collective communication competence in interdisciplinary research teams. Journal of

Applied Communication Research, 37(3), 278‐‐‐297; Lindenfeld, Laura A., Hall, Damon M., McGreavy, Bridie, Silka, Linda, & Hart,

David. (2012). Creating a place for Environmental Communication research in Sustainability Science. Environmental

Communication, 6(1), 23‐‐‐43. 2 Thompson, Jessica. (2007). Interdisciplinary research team dynamics. A system approach to understanding communication

and collaboration in complex teams. Saarbruecken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller.

63

sense of the issues of importance in a specific research context.”3 Given the aims of NEWBio to link the project’s

knowledge with tangible action, the ability to create a dynamic, collaborative environment is central to the

project’s ability to achieve its aims.

STUDY METHODS AND ADMINISTRATION

We conducted an online survey in April 2013 and phone interviews between August and December 2013. Survey

participants were recruited from the NEWBio consortium directory of researchers including faculty and graduate

students. All research, extension, and education team participants were invited via email to participate in the

survey, administered online through Qualtrics. Before the emails were sent, an announcement about the study

was made by the NEWBio consortium director, Professor Tom Richard, at monthly all‐‐‐team meetings and at the

All‐‐‐Hands Team Kick‐‐‐Off Meeting in August 2012. Participants for the surveys were then recruited via an email

that invited them to take the survey. The email included a link to the survey. Those who wished to participate

completed the surveys online by following the link. Participation in the surveys was voluntary.

Participants for the interviews were recruited via email from members of NEWBio’s Executive Committee and

Leadership Team, which included all NEWBio Thrust Leaders.4 The qualitative data supplement quantitative data

collected via the survey instrument and help to understand in greater depth how individuals are collaborating with

each other across disciplines and institutions and with key project stakeholders. The interviews also enable a

deeper understanding of what motivates individuals to participate in the project and how this commitment can be

sustained and augmented over the next years. Individuals received a copy of the informed consent, which

explained the purpose of the study, and were invited to participate in the interview. Participation in the interview

was voluntary. Twelve team members were interviewed, and interviews lasted approximately 30 – 40 minutes.

The purpose of the study is to improve knowledge of inter‐‐‐/transdisciplinary research teams, assess the strengths

and weaknesses of the NEWBio Consortium’s development, and provide feedback to the team as a means of

improving its collaborative structure, strengthening its research, extension, and outreach outcomes, and

contributing to a broader scholarly dialog on large interdisciplinary teams.

DATA ANALYSIS

For the purposes of this technical report, we analyzed the survey response data using Qualtrics software. We

calculated descriptive statistics, such as mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and frequency distributions, for

all survey items; the frequency distributions of these statistical analyses are reported in the results section of this

report. Surveys and interviews were transcribed and coded according to questions used to frame the study. We

identified and organized data using open coding to preserve the participants’ language and explore emergent

issues, concerns, and ideas. To protect confidentiality, identifying markers such as names, titles, and addresses

were removed from the data sets. Interview recordings were kept secure and evaluated only by Leahy, Lindenfeld,

and their evaluation assistants. Furthermore, only certain sections of interview transcripts are shared in this

report to ensure confidentiality.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

As with any evaluation, there are limitations to the data collected. First, the survey sampled NEWBio team

members who were willing participate in the study. The interviews targeted only the Leadership Team. While we

had a high response rate, some leadership team members chose not to participate in the study. The data

presented represent the views and opinions of these team members who chose to participate and, thus, of a

particular set of individuals. For the purposes of this Year 1 analysis, external stakeholders were not interviewed or

surveyed. Future research will build on these internal team data to assess the reliability of both the online survey

3 Dewulf, Art, François, Greet, Pahl‐‐‐Wostl, Claudia, & Taillieu, Tharsi. (2007). A framing approach to cross‐‐‐disciplinary research

collaboration: Experiences from a large‐‐‐scale research project on adaptive water management. Ecology & Society, 12(2), 1‐‐‐24. 4 For the purposes of this report, all references from hereon to the Leadership Team will include members of the Executive

Committee.

64

and the interviews, and we will also integrate stakeholder perspectives into the evaluation to ensure that their

perspectives are represented. These data offer valuable insight into the input we received from the participants,

but it is not generalizable to a larger population. Rather, it forms the basis for ongoing collaboration and provides

valuable input for the team as it seeks to advance NEWBio.

SURVEY RESULTS

Description of Participants

Of the 65 NEWBio members invited to participate in the online survey, a total of 45 participated for a response

rate of 69%. Most of the survey participants were faculty members (69%). Graduate students (11%), staff (11%),

and other personnel (9%), such as those with federal agencies, were also involved.

Answer Response %

Faculty 24 69%

Post‐‐‐doc 0 0%

Graduate student 4 11%

Staff 4 11%

Other 3 9%

Total 35 100%

There was at least one participant from each of the university and federal partners, except for the University of

Vermont. Mirroring the population structure of NEWBio, Penn State and Cornell had the most participants.

Answer Response %

Penn State 15 43%

Cornell University 8 23%

West Virginia

University

1

3%

Delaware State

University

1

3%

Drexel University 1 3%

SUNY ESF 3 9%

Idaho National

Laboratory

1

3%

Oak Ridge National

Laboratory

1

3%

Ohio State

University

1

3%

Rutgers 2 6%

University of

Vermont

0

0%

USDA ARS 1 3%

Total 35 100%

65

Nineteen participants were male, 13 were female and another 3 selected the “preferred not to respond” option.

Answer Response % Male 19 54%

Female 13 37%

Prefer not to

respond 3

9%

Total 35 100%

Participants were asked to select their primary thrust, recognizing that many NEWBio members participate in

multiple thrusts, or are on a thrust and the Leadership Team. Each of the thrusts was well represented by survey

participants. Most members of the Leadership Team selected a technical thrust as their primary “home” within

NEWBio.

Answer Response %

Human Systems in the Northeast Regional

Bioeconomy

Feedstock Improvement for Perennial Energy

Crops

Harvest, Preprocessing, and Logistics of Integrated

6 17%

7 19%

Biomass Supply Chains 5 14%

System Performance and Sustainability Metrics 5 14%

Safety and Health in Biomass Feedstock

Production and Processing Operations

3 8%

Extension 5 14%

Education 4 11%

Leadership, Stakeholder Involvement, and

Program Evaluation 1 3%

Total 36 100%

At the time of the survey, just over half (51%) of the survey respondents had been with NEWBio for over a year,

with 49% a part of the consortium for less than a year.

Answer Response %

0‐‐‐6 months 2 6%

6‐‐‐12 months 15 43%

12‐‐‐24 months 12 34%

More than 24

months 6

17%

Total 35 100%

Findings

Overall:

Survey respondents reported strong shared understanding, support, and value for NEWBio. For instance, 100% of

all respondents said that they agreed or strongly agreed that they understand the vision of NEWBio. Similarly,

66

100% of all respondents said that the work they do with NEWBio is important to them professionally. Areas of

concern are that around 13% of survey respondents disagreed that their department, university, college, or

research institution adequately credits them for the work they do on NEWBio.

Question

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Total

Responses

Mean

I understand the vision of

NEWBio 0.00%

0.00% 0.00% 47.37% 52.63%

38

4.53

I support the mission and

vision of NEWBio 0.00%

0.00% 2.63% 39.47% 57.89%

38

4.55

The work I do with

NEWBio is important to

me personally

0.00%

0.00% 13.16% 39.47% 47.37%

38

4.34

The work I do with

NEWBio is important to

me professionally

0.00%

0.00% 0.00% 44.74% 55.26%

38

4.55

I feel that my

contributions to NEWBio

are valued

2.63%

2.63% 18.42% 36.84% 39.47%

38

4.08

My role in NEWBio is

clear to me 0.00%

5.26% 21.05% 42.11% 31.58%

38

4.00

I am satisfied with my

role in NEWBio 0.00%

2.63% 26.32% 47.37% 23.68%

38

3.92

My department credits

me adequately for the

work I do on NEWBio

0.00%

13.16% 31.58% 44.74% 10.53%

38

3.53

My university, college or

research institution

credits me adequately for

the work I do on NEWBio

0.00%

13.51%

35.14% 45.95%

5.41%

37

3.43

I have the resources and

administrative support I

need to do my NEWBio

work

5.41%

8.11%

32.43% 40.54%

13.51%

37

3.49

The accomplishments of

NEWBio will have a

significant impact within

the Northeast

0.00%

0.00%

8.11% 67.57%

24.32%

37

4.16

The accomplishments of

NEWBio will have a

significant impact outside

the Northeast

0.00%

0.00%

27.03% 59.46%

13.51%

37

3.86

67

The survey respondents were overall quite satisfied with the process, participants, and outcomes of NEWBio to

date. The only dissatisfaction of note was some slight concern about process. This was followed up in the

subsequent evaluation interviews.

Question Very

Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very

Satisfied

Total

Responses Mean

Process 0.00% 8.11% 16.22% 56.76% 18.92% 37 3.86

Participants 0.00% 0.00% 18.92% 48.65% 32.43% 37 4.14

Outcomes 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 55.56% 11.11% 36 3.78

Communication:

In terms of communicating across a large research, extension, and outreach team, 86.1% of respondents agreed or

strongly agreed that effective outlets for communication across NEWBio are available. It was noted that almost

40% of respondents either disagreed or were neutral about the effectiveness of the internal website. This may be

something to focus on for future improvements to communication systems. About 80% of survey respondents

agree or disagree that the monthly All Team calls are an effective communication platform. This percentage

increased to 91.4% for the in‐‐‐person All Hands meeting in August 2012.

Question Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither Agree

nor Disagree Agree

Strongly

Agree

Total

Responses Mean

Effective outlets for

communication

across NEWBio are

available

0.00%

2.78%

11.11% 72.22%

13.89%

36

3.97

The internal

NEWBio website

functions as an

effective

communication

platform

0.00%

11.11%

27.78%

55.56%

5.56%

36

3.56

The public NEWBio

website functions as

an effective

communication

platform

0.00%

2.78%

25.00%

63.89%

8.33%

36

3.78

The monthly All

Team Meetings are

an effective

communication

platform

0.00%

5.56%

13.89%

58.33%

22.22%

36

3.97

The initial All Hands

Kick Off Meeting

held in August 2012

was an effective

communication

platform

0.00%

0.00%

8.57%

40.00%

51.43%

35

4.43

The communication

systems of NEWBio

work effectively

0.00%

8.33% 11.11% 61.11% 19.44%

36 3.92

68

Within NEWBio, there is work to be done to connect researchers to each other. Combining neutral and both

disagree response categories, 44.5% of respondents indicated they were not aware of research being conducted in

other thrusts. This suggests the need for more cross‐‐‐thrust communication opportunities. Another 41.7 of

respondents reported being either neutral or disagreed in terms of feeling connected to other project members.

Question Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither Agree

nor Disagree Agree

Strongly

Agree

Total

Responses Mean

As a NEWBio member, I

am aware of the

research projects being

conducted in thrusts

other than my own

2.78%

11.11%

30.56%

47.22%

8.33%

36

3.47

As a NewBio member, I

feel connected to other

project members

0.00%

13.89% 27.78% 41.67% 16.67%

36 3.61

I feel that my input is

important to NewBio

0.00%

5.56% 19.44% 41.67% 33.33%

36 4.03

Survey respondents had strong communication method preferences. The top three preferred or highly preferred

communication methods were: emails (80.6%), conference calls (77.8%) and the public NEWBio website (77.8%).

Least preferred communication methods were blogs (36.1% not preferred) and webcam (30.6%).

Question

Not

preferred

Somewhat

preferred Preferred

Highly

Preferred Not Sure

Total

Respo

nses

Mean

Face‐‐‐to‐‐‐face

meetings

8.33%

25.00% 38.89% 27.78% 0.00%

36

2.86

Workshops 5.56% 36.11% 27.78% 19.44% 11.11% 36 2.94

Annual All Hands

Meeting in August

8.33%

8.33% 13.89% 58.33% 11.11%

36

3.56

Monthly All Team

Meetings

5.56%

33.33% 27.78% 30.56% 2.78%

36

2.92

NEWBio e‐‐‐News

emails

16.67%

13.89% 38.89% 30.56% 0.00%

36

2.83

Internal NEWBio

website

8.33%

13.89% 47.22% 27.78% 2.78%

36

3.03

Public NEWBio

website

5.56%

13.89% 50.00% 27.78% 2.78%

36

3.08

Blogs 36.11% 38.89% 19.44% 2.78% 2.78% 36 1.97

Emails 8.33% 11.11% 47.22% 33.33% 0.00% 36 3.06

Phone Calls 11.11% 30.56% 33.33% 22.22% 2.78% 36 2.75

Conference Calls 2.78% 16.67% 58.33% 19.44% 2.78% 36 3.03

Webcam 30.56% 30.56% 22.22% 11.11% 5.56% 36 2.31

Video Chats (i.e.

Skype)

16.67%

36.11% 27.78% 13.89% 5.56%

36

2.56

Adobe Connect

Conferencing

11.11%

13.89% 25.00% 41.67% 8.33%

36

3.22

Online

Newsletters

16.67%

25.00% 41.67% 11.11% 5.56%

36

2.64

69

Interdisciplinary & Engaged Research:

The survey respondents were strong believers in interdisciplinary research and engaged scholarship with

stakeholders. For instance, 94.6% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the opportunity to

collaborate on NEWBio with faculty in fields other than theirs is important to them. The same percentage of

respondents, 94.6%, indicated that the opportunity to collaborate on NEWBio with stakeholders outside of the

university was important to them. The survey respondents (91.9%) also agreed or strongly agreed that NEWBio

could be held up as a model research project for interdisciplinary research. Finally, there was a belief that the

interdisciplinary nature of the research would lead to synergies that might not be possible from working alone.

Question

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

Total

Responses

Mean

The opportunity to

collaborate on

NEWBio with

faculty in fields

other than mine is

important to me

0.00%

2.70%

2.70%

43.24%

51.35%

37

4.43

The opportunity

to collaborate on

NEWBio with

stakeholders

outside of the

university is

important to me

0.00%

0.00%

5.41%

43.24%

51.35%

37

4.46

NEWBio can serve

as a positive model for

interdisciplinary

research efforts

0.00%

0.00%

8.11%

48.65%

43.24%

37

4.35

Working as a

group, NEWBio

teams will be able

to accomplish

much more

together than

members could

working

individually

0.00%

2.70%

8.11%

35.14%

54.05%

37

4.41

Despite the strong response above to collaborating with stakeholders, at the time of the survey, only 33% of the

survey respondents had personally collaborated with stakeholders as a part of the NEWBio project. We defined

stakeholder as an individual or group external to NEWBio who has a vested interested in the project’s outcome.

Answer Response %

Yes 12 33%

No 21 58%

Unsure 3 8%

Total 36 100%

70

Participants were presented with a list of possible stakeholders to the NEWBio project and asked to indicate which

ones they consider most important in advancing bioenergy in the Northeast. Eighty nine percent of respondents

selected industry, followed by federal (69%) and state agencies (61%).

Answer Response %

State government

agencies 22 61%

Federal government

agencies 25 69%

Industry 32 89%

County or city

government

agencies

16 44%

Individual citizens 16 44%

Professional

organizations 9 25%

Environmental

organizations

15 42%

Other organizations 3 8%

Those who have had stakeholder contact related to NEWBio indicated that it was both a very positive interaction

and very useful.

Question

1

2

3

4

5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Responses Mean

Very

Negative:

Very

Positive

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 8.33%

0%

8.33%

33.33%

50.00%

12 9.17

Very Not

Useful:

Very

Useful

0%

0%

0%

0%

8.33%

0%

0%

16.67%

33.33%

41.67%

12 8.92

Four different models for engaging stakeholders were presented to survey participants: Lead, Consulting,

Facilitating, and Full. They were instructed, “Stakeholder‐‐‐NEWBio partnerships can be structured in many ways. By

partnerships, we mean ways NEWBio researchers and stakeholders can work together to address salient

issues. We are interested in your opinion of four alternative participation strategies for stakeholders involved in

stakeholder‐‐‐NEWBio partnerships. In all cases, we assume implementation is handled by stakeholders.” The four

models are presented below:

71

Type of partnership

Problem Identification Research Proposed Solutions

NEWBio as Lead Partner

NEWBio researchers NEWBio researchers NEWBio researchers

NEWBio

as Consulting Partner

NEWBio researchers and

Stakeholder NEWBio researchers NEWBio researchers

NEWBio

as Facilitating Partner

NEWBio researchers

and Stakeholders NEWBio researchers NEWBio researchers

and Stakeholders

NEWBio as Full Partner NEWBio researchers

and Stakeholders

NEWBio researchers

and Stakeholders

NEWBio researchers

and Stakeholders

Participants were first able to rate their preferences of the four models using a four‐‐‐point scale, as the bar chart

below presents:

Following that, survey participants were asked to select the stakeholder engagement strategy they most preferred.

There were nearly equal numbers of survey respondents selecting Facilitating and Full.

Answer Response %

Lead 3 9%

Consulting 2 6%

Facilitating 15 44%

Full 13 38%

Other 1 3%

Total 34 100%

72

The pattern of responses was very similar when asked which engagement model stakeholders would most prefer.

Answer Response %

Lead 4 12%

Consulting 2 6%

Facilitating 15 44%

Full 11 32%

Other 2 6%

Total 34 100%

Survey respondents were also asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that they trusted stakeholders

because of variety of factors such as trusting stakeholders because they provide scientific information or because

they provide unbiased information. The highest points of disagreement were providing unbiased information and

sharing the researcher’s values. The highest point of agreement was that the researchers trusted the stakeholders

because they give them input. In fact, over half of all survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed to the

following reasons for trust: give me input, present useful information, provide reliable information, have high

technical competence, provide understandable information, and focus on issues I want to know about.

Question

Strongly

disagree

Disagree

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

Total

Responses

Mean

Provide scientific

information

0.00%

14.29% 57.14% 25.71% 2.86% 35

3.17

Provide unbiased

information

2.86%

14.29% 62.86% 14.29% 5.71% 35

3.06

Provide reliable

information

0.00%

5.71% 34.29% 48.57% 11.43% 35

3.66

Give me input 0.00% 2.86% 25.71% 62.86% 8.57% 35 3.77

Respect diverse

opinions

0.00%

2.86% 54.29% 31.43% 11.43% 35

3.51

Are familiar 0.00% 8.57% 51.43% 37.14% 2.86% 35 3.34

Provide

understandable

information

0.00%

5.71% 37.14% 45.71% 11.43% 35

3.63

Present useful

information

0.00%

2.86% 31.43% 45.71% 20.00% 35

3.83

Provide timely

information

0.00%

5.71% 48.57% 40.00% 5.71% 35

3.46

Care about

NEWBio

2.86%

5.71% 60.00% 25.71% 5.71% 35

3.26

Focus on issues I

want to know

about

0.00%

8.57% 40.00% 42.86% 8.57% 35

3.51

Have high

technical

competence

0.00%

5.71% 34.29% 51.43% 8.57% 35

3.63

Share my values 0.00% 14.71% 55.88% 26.47% 2.94% 34 3.18

73

Survey respondents also provided additional feedback on NEWBio through open‐‐‐ended comments:

Time and Budget Comments:

• “Too many meetings and no one can attend all meetings. Meeting minutes may be helpful. Time spent on

budget rollover was too much. We always want to fully rollover. Thus, college contract office should help

researchers on this. What is the overhead for? Should other matches be on the budget, such as

departmental scholarships for graduate students who work on the NEWbio? Again, financial people should

help, not leave this for researchers to struggle...Quarterly report should have a template that makes

researchers easy to follow and creates ‘easy to compile’ thrust report. The matrix was so hard to follow

and lack of flexibility. This is another time‐‐‐consuming issue.”

• “I think we spend too much time on conference calls. If I add up all the time spent on All Team calls,

thrust calls, plus other calls, we have MANY hours (PROBABLY WEEKS) in a year just on the phone. While

having presentations from different members is theoretically a good idea, when the topics are very

technical and not in my area it is hard to justify the time spent.”

• “We may be trying to do too much with the resources we have available, which makes us less effective in

many areas.”

Communication Comments:

• “I think all PIs should have web cams and know how to use them, so it is easier to set up video

conferencing, rather than just phone conference calls.”

• “I think the frequent communications already is very sufficient for collaborations.”

• “During all‐‐‐hands meetings, it would be better if we didn't have to hear beeping sounds every time a

person entered or exited the conference call.”

• “The annual meeting at Penn State is a very good outlet for bringing all researchers and stakeholders

together to review past work and plan future work; as are the monthly webinar meetings. I unfortunately

have not had time to attend any of the extension meetings and workshops, but these are very important

to the success of the projoect. it might be interesting to try and organize the annual meeting at one of

the sites within the NEWBio region map, to see some of the short rotation forestry operations at a larger

scale.”

Interdisciplinary Research Comments:

• “Need highly visible, functioning, active threads of collaborative research that extend through all of the

Major Task Groups and involve meetings of members from all of the tasks. This might work best if it

involves one or a few of the activities within each task having been set up and dedicated to cross‐‐‐task

collaboration, starting with Feedstock production and Improvement.”

• We are somehow missing the opportunity for synergy. This is a start‐‐‐up year so it may take time for this to

develop, but a lot of time is required to just keep the system together or developing. Not enough effort is

being spent on collaborative projects and initiatives.

• “Enforced joint experiences in the field.... meetings and phone calls only go so far.”

• “Repeat of the speed‐‐‐dating exercise held at Year‐‐‐1 All Hands meeting at PSU.”

• “Encourage individual members to cross thrust boundaries, just keep the leadership informed. Create

cross‐‐‐thrust groups by crop, soil, expected processing of biomass, regions and other issues. The within‐‐‐

thrust budget has some limiting effects.”

• “I think there needs to be cross‐‐‐thrust calls outside of the All‐‐‐Hands meetings. There is not time in the All‐‐‐

Hands meetings to discuss the inter‐‐‐dependencies between the thrusts and to ensure information needed

by one thrust is being gathered by another thrust.”

Stakeholder Engagement Comments:

• “I have not had much success interacting with the companies involved in conversion work.”

• “I think we need to define more clear actionable projects that draw people together ‐‐‐ stakeholders,

different universities, different thrusts.”

74

INTERVIEW RESULTS Description of Participants

A total of 16 were invited to participate in the interviews. Twelve interviews were completed.

Findings

Interdisciplinary Collaboration:

In terms of their perceptions of what it takes to enable good interdisciplinary collaboration, NEWBio participants’

ideas parallel ideas expressed throughout the literature on this subject. In particular, the following concepts

emerged as central to interdisciplinary collaboration:

• Communication is seen as centrally important. Almost all participants interviewed emphasize

communication. People stress the need for ongoing, regular interactions.

• Learning each other’s methodologies is important and enables collective learning about how people think

across different disciplines. One team member summarized this by asking how can we “figure out what

new methodologies and approaches work in the spaces that conventional disciplines don’t cover.”

• Teams are systems and it is important to be able to pitch the project at a level where people can

recognize the importance of their individual parts as part of a bigger whole, as exemplified by this quote:

“basically we’ve pieced together the big picture, and each person has a piece of that big picture.” Shared

vision is critical, and participants recognize this.

• Time management emerged as an important theme: time can slip away and things don’t get done.

• Similarly, it is important to maintain momentum and help the project participants look toward future

goals.

• Understanding roles and roles of others perceived as key – have a “very clear plan with very clear

responsibilities.” Numerous participants stressed the importance of understanding goals and objectives,

and making sure there are deliverables.

• Finding middle ground and compromising were recognized as important characteristics to advancing team

collaboration, especially across a geographically distributed team.

• Data management is critical.

• Humility is important, as are patience, persistence, and mutual appreciation.

• A number of participants identified that some team members are very good at interdisciplinary

collaboration, and that this is an asset. The question becomes, how can people “leverage what other

people on the team are doing so they don’t just stay within their normal narrow grounds.”

Overall, the team is enthusiastic and excited about interdisciplinary collaboration and recognizes how central this

is to advancing the project’s goals. As one participant summed it up, “I’m going to be very interested to see if

we’re going to reach that point that Tom mentioned, where all of a sudden, all this overhead involved in running

this group actually pays off.”

Interdisciplinarity on NEWBio: Struggles and Assets

When asked how NEWBio is advancing its interdisciplinary collaboration, a range of responses emerged.

Overall, there is strong enthusiasm for interdisciplinary collaboration. As one participant states, “I think overall the

communication and the enthusiasm and the engagement are working very well.” Another emphasizes, “We’re

doing an amazing job with what we have!”

A number of participants have deep experience with this kind of collaboration and understand that it develops in

stages. This recognition parallels the literature on interdisciplinary collaboration. One states, for example, “We’re

sort of in this nebulous stage and so that’s the difficult part of the engagement and the interdisciplinary approach,

but it makes it interesting too . . . frustrating in a way too, but interesting!” One participant notes, “we haven’t

75

really formalized the fact that we are interdisciplinary,” while another describes this initial phase, stating, “I’m

hoping that the first year is just sort of getting our feet wet.” Another stated that year 1 was “like drinking from a

fire hose,” in explaining how much work needed to be done to build the project. Yet another described how the

project is still functioning as multiple disciplines working alongside each other rather than an interdisciplinary

effort: “But mostly what we have is multidisciplinary but more or less doing their own things and checking in with

one another. But not really working together.” These responses are typical during the first year of a new project,

especially given the geographic distance between institutions and the range of disciplines and different types of

institutions involved.

Some people expressed concern that the interdisciplinary nature of the project be prioritized, and this concern

emphasizes how important interdisciplinarity is: There is “interest and enthusiasm in the idea,” but we need to be

mindful of not “drifting back toward disciplines.” Opportunities are there, but people may not be willing to put in

the effort to turn this into reality.

Recognizing that time management is critical to success, participants noted the amount of time that NEWBio

requires. Project communications can consume significant amounts of time. Some participants talked about

receiving a great deal of email. The following statement summarizes the concerns of a number of participants: “I

wish there was a way that we could – there’s so much time on the monthly calls, it’s so much I feel spent that I’ve

spent all my allocated time on administrative stuff and updates. I wish there was a streamline to make more time

for the meaningful and interesting stuff. I feel burdened.” Another echoes this sentiment, “Well, I see an awful lot

of effort being required of us for not having very much money in the project or time paid for. So we’re on

leadership, extension, some other conference calls. At least three different groups. All Hands meetings”

Communication in General

NEWBio has laid the groundwork for effective cross‐‐‐institutional communication with a number of platforms and

practices. Overall, the project has been very effective at engaging participants on an ongoing basis. This is a

tremendous challenge for a project of this scope, and the leadership team has worked hard to prioritize this. A

few suggestions to improve communication emerged.

People identified multiple channels of communication but many stated that these are not being taken advantage

of to the degree they might be. For example, the project webinars are not as well attended as they could be.

There appears to be some attrition on phone calls. This may mean that “some people aren’t engaging as they

need to engage,” as one participant stated. A number of individuals emphasized that people could make better use of the intranet as a repository for working documents. One recommended helping to make it a little more user

friendly of a place to store things. The project should motivate members to use it and communicate back how

effective it is.

Communication within Thrusts

Lots of effective practices appear to have emerged within thrusts. People appear to know each other within

thrusts and can easily name collaborators from other institutions. Some individuals are identified as being more

effective at communicating than others. One individual discussed collaborating across institutions as a “kind of

leveraging to get work done. It’ a darn good working relationship.” One project participant recommends that

NEWBio “keep a tight focus on deliverables and progress” within thrusts.

Communication across Thrusts

Some collaboration appears to be developing in very strong directions across thrusts, yet there needs to be more

cross‐‐‐thrust collaboration. Cross‐‐‐thrust collaboration appeared to be weaker than communication within thrusts,

not a surprising finding for Year 1. As one participant stated, “the level of interaction between groups is not

there.” The project can help facilitate this. One participant provided an example case: a request from MASCOMA

for resource assessment work might help trigger more cross‐‐‐thrust collaboration, for example, among human

systems, extension, and the logistics thrusts. One idea by a researcher was to have focused meetings of two

thrusts together to create deeper connections and learning opportunities. Another researcher mentioned the

“speed dating” that the project structured at the All Hands meeting and recommended that strategies like this be

76

used in the future, but a couple of individuals noted that the sessions were too short. Another recommends

“smaller meetings and focused on particular topics,” as these types of meetings are perceived to be more effective

and focused on content.” In short, the “relational piece has to be built.” We anticipate that cross‐‐‐thrust

communication and collaboration will grow over time, but the leadership of NEWBio should be mindful about

developing strategies to ensure success in this area, as individuals may fall into patterns established in Year 1.

Geographic Distances, Technology

Project participants mentioned a variety of technologies for communicating across sites with other team members

and for communicating with external audiences.

Face‐‐‐to‐‐‐face team distance communications very identified as key. People praised the project’s efforts to establish

distance technology for team communications. As one individual states, “I think they’re doing a great job at

accommodating people like me who are quick to take advantage of remote participation.” This person described

technology adoption as a “social process” with which some people are more comfortable than others. One

participant noted, “I have participated remotely . . . I was there the whole time, and they went out of their way to

accommodate me . . . I felt like I was in the room and engaged with the conversation.” This individual

recommended perhaps incentivizing people to participate remotely to save money, and that a percentage of the

savings be put into people’s research budget. We would encourage NEWBio to consider this strategy.

Involvement of Extension was identified as a key strength because “by nature they are already engaged in

outreach and have been . . . they’ve got a network developed . . . for communicating internally.” Drawing on the

expertise of Extension colleagues to help the project adapt and adjust over time could be an especially productive

strategy.

There were some concerns that there will not be enough face‐‐‐to‐‐‐face interaction. As noted above, the amount of

time spent on calls to coordinate efforts can be significant, and is a hallmark of multi‐‐‐institutional team

collaboration. There is concern that this may consume more time than it is worth, as exemplified by the statement

of one researcher: “Unless someone is sitting on multiple calls, the linkages are getting missed. People are

spending lots of time on calls. It’s a dilemma. […] Much time gets consumed by management issues, and more

time needs to be spent on research ideas and linkages.”

Social media described by some as “very critical” especially with regard to public perspectives and awareness.

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn were mentioned as technologies worth exploring, but many participants expressed

mixed feelings. There are clearly some generational gaps with regard to such technologies, and they are not used

universally. Some platforms, Facebook in particular, serve mixed functions (both professional and personal/social).

One participant recommended that NEWBio launch a NEWBio Youtube channel (which, we note, has been done and

is available at http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9Z2nhZr4XoXMjLLRgeJuXQ?feature=watch). New content could

be produced for this channel. We recommend the project explore these options. Students involved in NEWBio may

be great resources for assisting with the development of new media technologies to communicate about the

project, both internally and externally.

Management and leadership

The project is perceived to be very well organized and managed. Participants also recognize that this is a large,

complex team and that effective, clear management is especially important. People identified Tom’s strengths as a

leader. Tom is a clear leader, and people know him. They also recognize that there is a clear concerted effort to

lead the project forward, as one individual summarizes: “I think Tom’s doing an excellent job, and I’m totally

impressed with all the efforts.” Another participant notes that Tom “can synthesize things quite well.” He makes

it clear in a diplomatic way “this is what we’re going to do, people, that keeps you in the fold but also lets you

know that there’s accountability.” With regard to communication and team building, one participant stated, “I

think the leadership understands the challenges, and I think they’re doing a great job at working through them.”

Another states, “I’ve actually been impressed with the leadership with this grant, especially compared to other

grants.” While the overwhelming consensus notes the strengths of this leadership style, one individual noted that

the management is a “little top‐‐‐down for my taste.” Overall, we commend the project on its clear, effective

77

management and leadership. The literature on team collaboration emphasizes the need for clarity about decision‐‐‐

making and direction, and NEWBio is providing important oversight and guidance for the team.

Stakeholders – Who are They?

There is an impressive understanding across the project of who the stakeholders are. Likewise, participants

recognize that there are multiple kinds of stakeholders and never fall into the trap of thinking of the “general

public” as one aggregate group. Multiple types of stakeholders were identified, with some being more

organizational stakeholders with “clearer interests in what we’re doing” such as (startup) companies (like growers,

producers, machine manufacturers, etc. government agencies, national laboratories, environmental organizations

and federal organizations. These stakeholders are perceived to have specific interest in the project.

A number of participants pointed to universities and the research community as stakeholders who need to create

greater impact. A number of participants emphasized that students, both graduate and undergraduates, are

stakeholders who will enter the future workforce.

There was discussion of political agents, policy makers, and other decision makers. One participant stated that this

is a key audience: “we potentially get the most done by influencing policymakers.”

The broader public, including community members, landowners, and others are clearly important to the project,

but may not be viewed by all as primary stakeholders. Some participants stressed the importance of public

perceptions: “We’re reaching some of them, but we really have got to have some priorities and significant job and

business opportunities demonstrated before we can get too many of them interested. Otherwise, it’s just the

usual sort of business‐‐‐pitching idea where it’s not going to turn out to be anything.” Inspirational energy emerged

from some participants: “I am totally passionate about this field because I think stakeholders are citizens of this

country and citizens of the world . . . Renewable energy for me is a really big deal for me, and thus bioenergy is a

really big deal for me.”

Overall, there is great passion for and commitment to engaging with diverse stakeholders. Similarly, participants

have clear views of what stakeholders can gain from the project, ranging from those who have a vested interest in

the success of the project (like project partners), to students, to the general citizenry. There is significant

agreement that these stakeholders have a vested interest in the success of the project. As one interview revealed,

“We have no choice but to work with stakeholders.” Stakeholders have “on the ground, hands‐‐‐on knowledge of

the system, and they can provide us incredible feedback on what’s working and what’s not.”

Year 2 evaluation will focus on stakeholder perspectives to understand how they view the project and determine

how research, extension, and outreach might be aligned more effectively and strategically with NEWBio’s efforts.

Stakeholder Engagement Challenges

Again, we were impressed with the nuanced understanding of what challenges stakeholder engagement

encompasses with particular regard to NEWBio, but also to researchers in general. One participant described

stakeholders as “people with full plates.” A number of individuals stressed the dire need for this project to

succeed, emphasizing that stakeholders/businesses are investing in the project’s ideas. To that end, it is important

to ensure that NEWBio aligns what it can offer with stakeholder needs and avoids producing things that aren’t

useful. One individual stated, “The burden is on us to demonstrate our value. We need to engage one ‐‐‐on‐‐‐one

with key individuals and engage more effectively and deeply.”

The theme of risks that business/industry stakeholders face became very clear. One researcher describes it this

way: “The full industrial sector has got a very large chicken‐‐‐egg problem, with demand and price of finished

products, determining whether companies can actually think about funding a very large facility and then growing a

very large partner in economic decisions . . . the industry doesn’t really exist at this point, at least not compared to

existing fuel companies.” Another iterates the need for concrete outcomes: “It’s hard to talk to stakeholders

without something concrete . . . like a market, and there’s a lot of risks involved on both sides.” “Nascent, new

market.”

78

It is clear that the demonstration sites can be key to helping dispel misunderstandings and aligning project

research, extension, and outreach with stakeholder needs. This aligns with the need to dispel myths about the

biofuels industry.

Clearly, NEWBio has engaged some researchers with deep insight into the nature of university‐‐‐stakeholder

collaboration. One researcher, in particular, emphasized that stakeholders are “…putting their own personal

money into this enterprise. […] I don’t put much of my own money into my lab work, and yet I’m asking this fellow

to put his own money into this project. […] So I think that’s the biggest challenge, having an understanding that his

business […] is not profitable right now. How can I ask him to do even more?” Researchers like this one are a

tremendous asset to the project and can help convey the intricacies of working across complex institutional

boundaries. Similarly, researchers on the project recognize the complexities of working with stakeholders. As one

individual stated, “stakeholders can hijack a project. “

For some, the challenge of working with stakeholders is the time lag between research on campus and

implementation on the ground. This finding is not uncommon. Open and clear communication about what can be

delivered when can help to alleviate the sometimes inevitable mismatch between the time it takes researchers to

produce research findings and the need for on‐‐‐the‐‐‐ground implementation strategies and technologies.

Participants would like more direct engagement with stakeholders who might be brought to more meetings to

facilitate communication and interaction.

Engaging the NEWBio Board

The interviews revealed some concerns with the management and focus of the advisory board. People were

confused about the board’s levels of engagement, the role of the board, and their organization/structure. One

participant mentioned that board members “just bolted and didn’t stay for the meet and greet” after the All Hands

meeting. A number of people recommended some structural changes to how the board is organized and

convened. A common theme was the desire for more concrete feedback from the board that includes concrete

tasks and ideas of what companies need. A number of participants recommended spending time with individual

stakeholders/board members rather than having the whole group visit at once. Through one‐‐‐on‐‐‐one interaction,

participants may be able to evaluate the board’s needs and delegate tasks to different thrusts depending on needs

and concerns.

Many participants didn’t appear to understand the role of the board. Yet, they would like to receive honest

feedback and direction. There is clearly a desire for interaction more often than only once a year. People

recognize that board members are very busy people. With regard to structure, a number of individuals

recommended that groups focused on specific areas could interact with subgroups of NEWBio rather than just

having the board look at the big picture. Periodic quarterly conference calls emerged as a concept in a number of

interviews. There is a perception that some individuals may be interacting with some board members, but that

these interactions are not being conveyed back in a systematic way to the leadership. One individual noted the

desire to see specific companies, especially conversion companies, much more engaged in using NEWBio’s samples

in their process.

There is a need for a clearly identified board meeting. The All Hands retreat was confusing and tried to fulfill too

many different purposes. In sum, we recommend at least one face‐‐‐to‐‐‐face annual meeting with the board and

then perhaps quarterly teleconferences with the executive committee and maybe one to two thrust leaders not

represented by the executive committee. August may be an especially difficult time for this group. People

expressed enthusiasm for the board chair, Ann Swanson, whom they perceived to be very articulate, clear,

committed.

NEWBio: Concerns and Opportunities

It is clear that there is strong enthusiasm and commitment to the project. A few key concerns and some potential

opportunities emerged throughout the interviews.

79

• Some participants are concerned about proper allocation of resources and want to be sure that funding

has not been diluted to the detriment of the project. Similarly, it is important that the budget be able to

address emerging needs, for example the need for policy analysis, as the project progresses.

• While there is clear enthusiasm at the current time, numerous participants mentioned the importance of

maintaining momentum, energy, and focus. There is a threat of people losing focus and getting interested

in other new things. Seed grants can help to create energy and commitment, and they can help instigate

collaboration and interaction.

• Strategic use of assignments and deadlines can help people interact and accomplish things together.

• Identifying clear roles and opportunities for graduate students will help advance the project. Connect

students more directly to corporate partners. One participant mentioned the idea of having students in

the program submit a write‐‐‐up in plain English of their research was and what it means to the common

lay‐‐‐person.

• Some of the goals were identified as very ambitious (90,000 acres of biomass planted).

• Does NEWBio have enough of the expertise it needs? Policy, economics, and price may not be adequately

represented on the team, but this is a stakeholder need. How will the project address these gaps and

where will it draw the line between what stakeholders want/need and what it can offer?

While some concerns emerged, there was an overwhelming sense of enthusiasm, drive, and commitment to this

project. A number of participants emphasized that NEWBio has the opportunity to help transform universities. As

one individual stated, “One of the reasons we’re creating these coordinated agricultural projects is to try to figure

out if there are ways that land grant universities could reboot their mission and their methods to tackle these

system‐‐‐level problems in ways which they’ve never really been very effective at over the last hundred years.” One

participant, when talking about the lack of budget, stated, “I’m really grateful for the opportunity to participate,

even with a low budget, because I think it’s a great project!” People are inspired by this project. One participant

states, “I really love being involved with all of these people, because you have smart people, they’re out there

doing something that’s going to matter. Maybe one year from now, but certainly five, ten, fifteen years from now,

and when you think about it, for the rest of eternity, when it comes to figuring out how to get by without fossil

fuels.” The enthusiasm is a tremendous asset, and NEWBio should focus on maintaining this deep commitment

and helping it grow across the team.

Most of the participants share a common vision for the project: “If NEWBio and other projects are successful at

supporting the commercialization of clean, renewable energy, and it comes with jobs in largely rural communities

where jobs may be needed in the Northeast, then I see opportunity for success.” There is deep personal and

professional commitment to this work and to working on a team to get there. People are enthusiastic and curious

about participating, as one person stated: “Hopefully this will be a real insightful learning experience for me.”

The tangible outcomes the project aims to deliver have attracted researchers who want their work to matter

more: “I don’t want to be a researcher who just stays in his lab and thinks that everything we do is, you know,

wonderful and golden, and then when it gets out in real life it doesn’t make any sense. So I want my research to

make sense in the real world, and these are the guys who were the best connection to that.”

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our evaluation of NEWBio, we offer the following key recommendations. The evaluation team is happy

to provide more detail on these recommendations and to engage in discussions with the leadership team about

implementation strategies.

1) Maintain momentum.

Given the high levels of commitment and energy that NEWBio has stimulated, it will be important to maintain

momentum over the coming years. We recommend the following strategies for achieving this:

80

• Professor Tom Richard’s leadership is critical. He is seen as a clear leader, and the team appreciates his

style and approach. We recommend he continue to fill this role and that he maintain and build

interpersonal relationships, whenever necessary, to encourage cross‐‐‐team collaboration.

• Management by the Leadership Team and Thrust Leaders is also critical. Mobilizing this collective

capacity will be essential to maintaining focus and commitment and, especially, to facilitating cross‐‐‐thrust

collaboration. Consider delegating parts of the All Team meetings and annual the annual All Hands

organization to some thrust leaders. This will help distribute the workload, share leadership, identify

areas of joint interest, and build relationships across thrusts.

• Proactively engage in team building activities at meetings and retreats. This could include communication

and engagement training and workshops focused on strategies for connecting people with each other via

their research projects.

• Promote cross‐‐‐thrust communication and collaboration through what Thompson (2009) calls “backstage

talk,” that is, conversations about how the collaboration and engagement are working. This will help

create synergistic relationships across thrusts while anchoring people’s strong commitment to

interdisciplinarity to NEWBio goals and objectives.

• Developing collaborative papers and proposals will promote interdisciplinary and cross‐‐‐institutional

collaboration. Consider requiring and/or incentivizing synthesis papers and other research, extension,

and outreach activities.

• Consider new members, especially graduate students, as “boundary travelers.” Graduate students, in

particular, can help function as liaisons between institutions and across thrusts. Likewise, strategically

developed internships with members of the Advisory Board and other key stakeholders; cross university

exchanges; and multi‐‐‐institutional committee membership can help to foster effective collaboration and

maintain momentum.

2) Mobilize mentorship opportunities.

This team has a remarkable group of researchers who have deep experience with and insights into stakeholder

engagement and collaboration. This is an unusually skilled group that is clearly committed to linking knowledge

with action. At the same time, the team has many participants (58%) who have yet to engage with stakeholders.

We recommend the following strategies to foster cross‐‐‐generational learning and help build capacity within the

team.

• Take advantage of potential mentorship opportunities given the number of experienced interdisciplinary

researchers and engaged scholars through a structured mentorship program. There is significant strength

in the following areas: stakeholder engagement, distance technology, communication and outreach, and

interdisciplinary research. For example, the Extension team can help people with distance technology

communication strategies; some members of the team’s senior leadership team have extensive

experience engaging with industry stakeholders.

• Host workshops on these topics, led by team members with experience in respective areas of need.

Consider breakout sessions at All Hands meetings that foster cross‐‐‐team integration. Board members

might also be willing to help structure a workshop or activity.

• Consider hosting seminars or workshops on interdisciplinary collaboration, communicating with diverse

audiences (storytelling, improv techniques, and research, for example), and engagement strategies and

how NEWBio fits with research on interdisciplinarity. Given the levels of enthusiasm about

interdisciplinarity, team members might enjoy workshops on this topic, and research would inevitably

emerge as a central topic within this context.

3) Consider new strategies and structures for engaging the Advisory Board.

As outlined in the results section, there are multiple strategies for engaging the advisory board that emerged from

the evaluation.

• Structure the relationship with the board so it is clear:

1. Who the board members are;

2. What their role and function are;

81

3. When they are being engaged. Consider quarterly phone conferences with the board and a

board meeting during the All Hands meeting that is clearly communicated to the team.

• Develop ways to engage thrust leaders with board members (one‐‐‐on‐‐‐one interaction and delegation of

tasks to different thrust leaders depending on the needs and concerns of respective groups).

• If possible, structure on‐‐‐site or virtual tours of board members’ facilities (possibly after All Hands

meetings, if applicable).

• Feature a “board member of the month” at team meetings, in newsletters, and via social media. Board

members could present (during a specifically designated sub‐‐‐section of monthly meetings), and

participants can then ask questions.

• As you develop more online/social media capacity, consider featuring stories on YouTube, Facebook, etc.

about board members and NEWBio engagement with the board.

4) Create “carrots and sticks” to promote the use of distance technology

Clearly, there is a great need to maintain effective communication across diverse teams and institutional settings.

Some people have great strength and comfort with regard to distance technology, while others have yet to

incorporate this into their everyday usage. This deserves special attention.

• Find ways to offer hands‐‐‐on training and mentorship on using distance technology: consider pairing

inexperienced team members with tech‐‐‐savvy mentors.

• Focus on generating use of project technology: give people reasons to use the intranet. Logging on is half

the battle! You might, for example, require people to use a specific document, but make it only accessible

on the intranet site. Email reminders with links will provide the “stick” to make people use the site.

• Consider a workshop or webinar on how to use the technology, but also focus on how to make the most

of the communication experience.

• Consider financial incentives for strategic use of technology to avert travel costs (return, for example, 50%

of funding that would have been spent on a trip, to people who will participate fully via distance

technology).

newbio quarterly report for october through december 2013 i · newbio quarterly report for october...

Documents