The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPeat Resource Estimation in Alaska Final Report Vol 1 August 1980PEAT RESOURCE ESTIMATION IN ALASKA | PEA 002 | FINAL REPORT Northern Technical Services EKONO, Inc. 750 West 2nd Avenue & 410 Bellevue Way SE Anchorage AK 99501 Bellevue WA 98004 Under Contract to: State of Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development Division of Energy and Power Development 338 Denali Street Anchorage AK 99501 Prepared for: US Department of Energy Division of Fossil Energy Grant No. DE-FGO1-79ET14689 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Department of Energy, nor any of their employees, nor any of their con- tractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsiblity for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or pro- cess disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights. PEAT RESOURCE ESTIMATION IN ALASKA FINAL REPORT Northern Technical Services EKONO, Inc. 750 West 2nd Avenue & 410 Bellevue Way SE Anchorage AK 99501 Bellevue WA 98004 Under Contract to: State of Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development Division of Energy and Power Development 338 Denali Street Anchorage AK 99501 Prepared for: US Department of Energy Division of Fossil Energy Grant No. DE-FGO1-79ET14689 PREFACE The State of Alaska, with its abundant energy resources, is interested in developing them for the best benefit of the population of the United States, as well as for the benefit of its own people. Choices between energy resources with different characteristics can be made more wisely if the characteristics of each are thoroughly known and understood. This first Estimation of Alaskan Peat Resources will aid the search for the most viable combination of energy resources for the United States. Mr. Donald R. Markle Division of Energy & Power Development State of Alaska Table of Contents PFEfACE 6... eee cece eee cece cence nee cence eee seteteeeeseensneentetuetetuteveneucene ii List of Figures List of Tables 1. Summary .... 26... cece eee ee eee e ee eees 1 11 Scope and Purpose of Report Resource Information ..............0e00e =a Model of Evaluation ..............00c eee a | 1.2 Description Of Work ......... ccc cece cece eee cuccevecucucucvaeeuceenees 1 Task 1 — Assessment of Existing Data and Prioritization of Peat Areas to be Surveyed ..........cccccceceuccuceees Task 2 — Identification of Sampling Procedures and Strategy Task 3 — Procurement of Equipment and Supplies ................ +e Task 4 — Preliminary Peat Resource Estimate ..............ecceeceeeee 2. Background Statement ............. 0... ccc ec ccc cece cece cen eecueeueuceveneucenes 2.1 Peat Evolution ............. Definition of Peat ......... cc cece cece eee aee Peat Formation Processes 2.2 Reserves Of Peat ......... cece cece cect cence eee e tet eeeceseeenseveneus Peatland Areas of the World Domestic RESOUrceS ........ cece cece ese e eee eee cee cenceucenecuncencs 2.3 Peat Classification 2.0.0.0... ccc cece cece ccc e ee eeee tee senseueeuecuneencs 7 U.S. Bureau of Mines ....... cece eee cece neces 7 American Society for Testing Materials International Peat Society and the Soil Conservation Service ............ 7 2.4 Fuel Properties of Peat .......... cece cece cece ceececevevcuceucuceceeenes Degree of Decomposition Water Content ............ cece ccc ce cece cee eesevens Ash Content ........... ese e eee ee Heating Value Proximate Analysis ............... Ultimate Analysis ................ Ash Fusion Characteristics Bulk Density 0.0... 0... cece cece cece cece cece cucucueeucuctctctsvnens 3. Inventory Program Methodology .............ce cece cece eee e eee e een eneneneeeeees 11 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4. Results and Discussion 41 4.2 Location Of DeDOSite =. iin cc65c cc ticvic cect v0 ce cevees vetccvevecusecevece ant Literature Review Related Supporting Programs ..........cceeeeee eee cece cree eneeeees 11 Prioritization of Areas Surveyed ..... cc cece cece cere eee e cent eeneeeenne 12 Preliminary Estimation of Fuel Peat in Alaska ..........csceceeeeeeeees 12 Prioritization Based on Peat Utilization Potential ............ceee eee 12 Survey Site Selection Soils Mapping ............65 Bog Selection 2... .. ccc cece cece ete eee renee eee ence enon eeeeneees Survey Program 2... cece cece cece tence ee ee eee een ee ee eeeenen ee eeenee Field Maps ...........00000 Radar Field Program ........ A. Selection ...........685 B. Theory of Operation .... C. Spring Field Program Sampling Program ......c cece cece cece cence eee e eee e eee eee enn eneee Summer Field Program Coordination with Other Agencies ...........c cece cece eee eee e ences 19 Analysis Program ..... ccc cece eee e cence eee ence nee nee e een e een eenes 19 Model Development ......... ccc cee cece e eee centre ener eee eee teens eenee Introduction .............08- Map Derived Information A. Permafrost ...........- B. Surficial Geology C. Climate ..............- D. Ecosystem 2... .. cece ccc e eee e cece eee eee eee e eee teeeee eens Site Inspection Information ........ cece cece e eter cee tence ence eee eees A. Physiography and Geomorphology B. Vegetation ..... ccc cc eee e cece cece eee eee eeeee C. Slope and Microtopography . D. Fire History... cece cece cece cence eee teen eee eee ee eeeeenees Ground Penetrating Radar Site Descriptions Mile 55 Kettles 2.0.0... cece cece eee cece e eee een ees Nancy Lake West Rogers Creek ........eeeee eaves Mile 196 West ...........0es0eee Nancy Lake East Stephan Lake 2.0... .. cece cece cece cece eee cece eee ee eee en eens eeeee Field Program ...... cece cece cece cece e cece eee eee ence eee eetneeeees Susitna Valley ......... cece cece aes A. Analytical Results ............ B. Bog Cross-Sections Remote Sites 20... 6. cece cece cece cece ence een e eee e teens eneeneees A. King Salmon/Naknek B. Dillingham ........ cc cece eee eee CK GCN A rrrrsanne seo eats rn 0 ciate See ee D. Kenai Peninsula East E. Kenai Peninsula West F. Fairbanks 4.3 Fuel Peat. Probably Provinces oii) bos oe co duels oo e's oicie sites ee 6 eelcle e slee sles Fuel Peat Model — Analytical Data POE TE 6 bees ios cuheteueeeesancevae A. MOG ADBIICABON ieee ceca sas Fuel Peat Probability Provinces oe ea a AMM tl aM MAI wa oe WS AGa ee a aa a 54 Appendices Annotated: BIDIOGraDi yl ue euielele aMule aia ara le Rita MtAL Ul Model Development .............. Permafrost Considerations Peat Radar Profiles ..............65 Ce Eee eee eee aidlalatalatealalalalalaataMllla SMe Ura atm ai GoM Supplementary Maps Map A Map B List of Figures Figure No. Title Page 1 Map-Derived Inventory of Potential Alaskan Fuel Peat Occurrences .......... 2 2 Paludification Process 3 Laken Process oie eel eia stele lalallala lala 4 Moisture Levels in Peat 5 Effect of Moisture Content on Heat Value of Peat 6 Susitna Valley Sampling Sites ......... cece cece eee eee e eee 7 Fe eels saaltsele stelatele! slietelaleialsliaiats ata 8 Dc ced ta 0d ee Sve 9 Kettle 2 — Peat Depth Contour Map ....... cece cece cece eee e ee eteeeneeees 10 Nancy Lake East and West ........... ccc eeeee cence een eees ah Transect Map — Nancy Lake East and West 12 Nancy Lake West — Peat Depth Contour Map ........... cece cece eee eee 13 RODE OOO eee eee ee a et ee ea eee rele aM ane ge 14 Transect Map — Rogers Creek ............cccccscscccsecees 15 Rogers Creek — Peat Depth Contour Map 16 RE Oe ese oe cise ielaslal ality alerstalale (dials dla elusaitlatsla Wea bls AlAlis Ml 17 Transect Map — Mile 196 West ............c ccc e cece e ee eeee 18 Mile 196 West — Peat Depth Contour Map 19 Nancy Lake East — Peat Depth Contour Map .................. 20 ee eee eee NIUE a aA 21 Transect Map — Stephan Lake ............ 22 Bog Cross-Section: Kettle 2 — Transect 1 23 Bog Cross-Section: Kettle 2 — Transect 3 24 Bog Cross-Section: Rogers Creek — Transect 3 25 Bog Cross-Section: Nancy Lake East — N.E. Transect 1 26 Bog Cross-Section: Nancy Lake East — N.E. Transect 3 27 CG SN TE Ce ee ee ee eee a a a Ol6l4 ms hla lala Ml la na lat Figure No. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12a A-12b A-13a A-13b A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-19 A-20 A-21 A-22 A-23 A-24 A-25 A-26 List of Figures (cont.) Title King Salmon/Naknek ....... 0... cece cece eee ence eee e een e nent eneees Dillingham: Sample Sites ... Dillingham ............000e Kodiak: Sample Sites ................00. Kenai Peninsula East: Sample Sites Kenai Peninsula East .................. Kenai Peninsula West: Sample Sites Kenai Peninsula West ...............0005 Fairbanks ....... ccc cece cece eee eee eees Kettle 2 — Transect 1 Kettle 2 — Transect 2 Kettle 2 — Transect 3 Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 1 Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 2 Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 3 Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 4 Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 5 Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 6 Nancy Lake — N.W. Transect 7 Rogers Creek — Transect 1 Rogers Creek — Transect 2 Rogers Creek — Transect 3 Rogers Creek — Transect 4 Rogers Creek — Transect 5 Rogers Creek — Transect 6 Rogers Creek — Transect 7 Mile 196 West — Transect 1 .... Mile 196 West — Transect 2 .... Mile 196 West — Transect 3 .... Mile 196 West — Transect 4 Mile 196 West — Transect 5 Mile 196 West — Transect 6 Nancy Lake East — N.E. Transect 1 Nancy Lake East — N.E. Transect 2 Nancy Lake East — N.E. Transect 3 Nancy Lake East — N.E. Transect 4 wee Stephan Lake — Transect 1.0... icc ccc e cece cece eee nent nent teenies vi List of Tables Table No. Title Distribution of Alaskan Ecosystems by Region ...........cceceececeeeeeeeee Estimated Areas of Peatlands in Some Countries ......... United States Fuel Peat Resources and Potential Energy .. Field Classification of Peat ......... ccc cece cece e eee Alaska Fuel Peat Resources Estimation Energy Consumption of Candidate Communities ......... Climatic Comparisons ........... cece cece eee eee eeeees Distribution of Peat Series in High Priority Areas ............ccccececeeeees Approximate VHF Electromagnetic Parameters of Typical Earth Materials ....... 0... ccc cece cece cence cece nee teeeeeeeseseeeues 18 OMNONAWH = vii PEAT RESOURCE ESTIMATION IN ALASKA 1. SUMMARY 1.1 Scope and Purpose of Report Resource Information This report presents the location, size, quantity, and fuel characteristics of the vast Alaskan peat resource To add perspective, selected background information on previously identified Alaskan peat areas, their geologic setting, classification, and development characteristics is also presented. Model of Evaluation Since a good part of the resource is distributed throughout especially remote and practically inaccessible areas, it was necessary to develop an evaluation model to predict the probability of fuel grade peat occurrences. The model developed for this effort was based on the following physical parameters: - Frost occurrence: permafrost or seasonal frost - Surficial geology features - Climatological regime - Ecosystem characteristics - Physiography and geomorphology - Slope and microtopography - Vegetation Evaluate Fuel Value of Alaskan Peat A current estimate of the fuel value of the Alaskan peat resource is presented. This is based in part on the detailed investigation of selected resource areas, as well as on literature derived data relating to the more remote resource areas. The principal tool of extrapolation was the model which was developed to predict the most probable occurrences of fuel grade peat in Alaska. 1.2 Description of Work Task 1 — Assessment of Existing Data and Prioritization of Peat Areas to be Surveyed A comprehensive review of relevant scientific literature and of available topographic, geologic, and soil maps of Alaska was performed. The data assessment was supported by consultations with experts from government and private agencies currently conducting resource mapping efforts throughout Alaska. Figure 1 shows a map-derived inventory of potential fuel peat occurrences in Alaska. Additionally, the relation of fuel grade peat utilization potential to its geographic distribution was assessed. This was performed by determining the potential sites of fuel peat utilization as derived from existing data including other evident physical and socioeconomic factors. Gross demand of thermal energy was estimated and converted to a volume of fuel peat required. The prioritization and selection process for the field investigations involved mapping the organic soil associations in the suspected or previously delineated high-potential areas. Additional selection criteria included distance and access to major utilization potential areas, as well as physical continuity and harvesting conditions. DOE prescribed depth, area and heating value limitations were followed. Task 2 — Identification of Sampling Procedures and Strategy A field program was designed for each bog to be surveyed, with the intent of minimizing the number of peat samples taken within Alaska’s 365,000,000 acre land mass, while at the same time striving to maintain an acceptable degree of exploration confidence. Pace- and-compass transects provided necessary expediency in establishing the field correlation between areal definition and depth. The initial field surveys within the Susitna Basin were divided into two phases. First, the ground penetrating radar program was carried out using the radar equipment to record continuous depth profiles of pre-selected high potential bogs. This was done while the ground was still frozen. Following the spring break-up, peat samples were taken from various depths along completed radar transects. These samples were used for laboratory analyses and ground-truthing the radar depth profiles. Figure 1. Map-Derived Inventory of Potential Alaskan Fuel Peat Occurrences 2 At the remote sites, one core was taken to mineral soil at several representative sites throughout Alaska. These sites were chosen for their utilization potential. The exploration sites at given villages were preselected from airphotos and existing maps. Task 3 — Procurement of Equipment and Supplies A list of field support equipment was designed to meet Alaska’s unique conditions, specifically its remote nature. The list included radar equipment, manual augers, vehicles, sample preservation supplies, and items integral to logistical support at remote sites. Task 4 — Preliminary Peat Resource Estimate As a part of the field and office program, the total physical environment of the exploration sites was described. This description included surficial geology, topographic relief, drainage features, vegetation and effects of man’s activities. Additionally, a detailed field description of the peat sequence was prepared based on the visual classification of the various strata as they were detailed by coring and/or radar techniques. Substrata beneath the peat were also examined as appropriate. All recovered samples were identified in the field and maintained in their native state by proper sealing and storage. Following field data acquisition, peat samples were forwarded to the Department of Energy Coal Laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for analysis. Proximate analyses for volatile fraction, fixed carbon, ash content and water content were made for each sample. Several samples from each major deposit were tested for ultimate analysis and heating value. Additional samples were taken at selected sites to be analyzed at a soils laboratory in Bellevue, Washington, for their bulk density, ash content, organic matter and cation exchange capacity. These latter data were acquired in order to quickly identify index properties applicable to the predictive model development. Information derived from the study was then plotted on appropriate maps, described in detail later in this report. These maps include general site maps, topographic, and where available, ownership and geologic maps. Data are presented in graphic form in both the vertical and horizontal planes to show peat distribution, thickness and quality. The vertical plane was used to present a detailed lithologic description of given exploration transects. The horizontal plane was used to present distribution of peat, surficial geology, drainage, topography, and other surface features. These maps are supplemented by current on-site photographic coverage. All field and literature derived data were used as appropriate in the construction of models of peat distribution and quality. Models were extrapolated to unsurveyed areas throughout Alaska to assess the probability of fuel peat availability in areas outside the regions of detailed on-site investigations. 2. BACKGROUND STATEMENT 2.1 Peat Evolution " Definition of Peat A recently proposed distinction between various types of organic soil materials (Classification of Peat and Peatlands, 1979) defines peat as: - An organic material from partly decomposed plant constituents, formed in water-saturated, anaerobic conditions, in sites termed “peatlands”. Other organic soil materials are mud and gyttja, defined respectively as: - An organic material from fully decomposed plant constituents, with addition of water sediments, formed in periodically water- saturated anaerobic and aerobic conditions, in sites termed “marshlands”, and - An organic material from plankton, with addition of plant and animal residues, formed in water reserviors. All these organic materials become muck after drainage. Peat Formation Processes Peat occurs in an unbalanced system where the rate of production of organic materials exceeds the rate of decomposition, usually under conditions of almost continuous saturation by water. The wet environment inhibits the exchange of gases that is necessary for microbial decomposers. When these anaerobic conditions develop, the rate of decomposition is greatly reduced and masses of partially decomposed material accumulate as peat. (inventory of Peat Resources, 1979) Contributing factors in the initiation and development of peatlands are topography, climate, and water. The rate of peat accumulation is dependent on the interaction of these factors. Peat formation generally occurs by two means — paludification and lakefill. Paludification (swamping) is a process of bog expansion caused by a gradual raising of the water table as peat accumulation impedes drainage (Figure 2). This process begins with reed or sedge growth in areas of little or no relief; these herbaceous materials accumulate as peat. Due to the low relief and the blockage of drainage by the peat, the water table begins to rise, leading to the growth of more herbaceous plants. As more peat accumulates, it begins to creep upslope and may gradully cover the divides. Thus, the elevations of peat covered areas may actually be higher then the elevation of mineral soil along rivers flowing through the bogs. Lakefill is defined as the filling in of lakes or ponds by vegetation (Figure 3). It is initiated when limnic materials (organic or inorganic materials deposited in water by the action of aquatic organisms or derived PALUDIFICATION WHITE BIRCH WHITE SPRUCE SAPRIC 1. MARGINAL STAGE WHITE SAPRIC SCATTERED BLACK SPRUCE MOSSES, SEDGES FLOATING SPHAGNUM LIMNIC le RAISED BOG >| BLACK SPRUCE STUNTED SPRUCE ,, DWARF BIRCH 16 km (10 mi) Figure 2. Paludification Process 2. FILLED WESTERN WHITE HEMLOC, HEMIC Figure 3. Lakefill Process WATER TABLE OPEN SEDGE FIBRIC SEDGE HUMMOCKS MOSSES FIBRIC 300 m (~ 1000 ft BIRCH HEMIC 3 m (~10 ft) from underwater and floating organisms) begin to accumulate on the lake bottom. This type of accumulation is sometimes referred to as aquatic peat. Simultaneously, sedge growth is initiated around the edges of the water-filled basin and gradually grows inward. The encroachment of the plant communities may actually occur as a floating mat. As the migration of plant communities continues to the center of the basin, dead plant matter eventually collects as peat. The more stable or outer portions of the peat allow other species of plant to migrate toward the center. Peat continues to accumulate inward, filling the basin, until the lake disappears. Ecology of Alaska Peatlands Nineteen ecosystems have been described within Alaska. Five of these are environments conducive to the accumulation of surficial soil organic material and include the following factors: moist and wet tundra, high brush, upland spruce/hardwood, lowland spruce/hardwood, and low brush/muskeg. The distribution of these ecotypes for each region of the state is presented in Table 1. In northern areas development of drainage patterns is usually inhibited by such factors as relatively impermeable substrate soil conditions, low precipitation levels, low erosion rates and very minimal topographic relief. Decomposition of vegetative growth by soil organisms is inhibited by depressed soil temperatures which result in conditions favorable to organic accumulation. It must be noted, however, that these same cold temperatures also impede the rate of vegetative growth itself. Moist and wet tundra, high brush and upland spruce/hardwood ecosystems are expected to yield shallow (less than 5 feet) peat deposits. The dominant vegetation is cottongrass and sedge, appearing in tussocks in most areas and becoming mat-like with increased wetness. Black spruce is the dominant vegetation on the more northerly slopes and poorly drained areas of the upland spruce/hardwood forest, including the dense interior forest. Interior forests, however, include stands of birch, aspen, poplar and white spruce. Mosses and grasses grow under the tree cover at all sites, but peat development correlates more reliably with black spruce cover. Permafrost may be present under these wet soils because of the thermal insulating character of peat. Peats more than 5 feet deep are expected in ecosystems of lowland spruce/hardwood and low brush/muskeg. The lowland spruce/hardwood ecosystem is a dense to open interior lowland forest of evergreen and deciduous trees, including extensive pure stands of black spruce. These black spruce are slow growing and seldom exceed 8 inches in diameter or 50 feet in height. The low brush, muskeg system is found both on the coast and in the interior. Coastal muskeg and bogs are usually found in wet, flat basins. Vegetation is varied, but commonly consists of a thick sphagnum moss mat, sedges, rushes, fruticose lichens, cottongrass, Labrador tea, common juniper, crowberry, willow, cranberry and blueberry. A few slow growing, poorly formed shore pine, western hemlock or Alaska cedar are scattered on drier sites. Shrubs are dominant over the sedge and herbaceous mat in drier areas. Extensive bogs are found in the interior where conditions are too wet to support tree growth. Bog vegetation consists of varying amounts of sedges, sphagnum and other mosses, bog rosemary, resin birch, dwarf Arctic birch, Labrador tea, willow, cranberry and blueberry. Localized saturated flats have large patches of cottongrass tussocks. Areas of tall willow, alder brush and widely spaced dwarf spruce and tamarack are found within and around the marginal higher portions. Bog surfaces often have uneven, string-like ridges which are too wet for shrubs. Table 1 Distribution of Alaskan Ecosystems by Region Arctic Northwest Yukon Southwest Southcentral Southeast State Total Millions of Acres Coastal hemlock/spruce - - 5.9 26% 166 74% 225 6% Moist and wet tundra 34.3 35% 19.3 20% 13.6 14% 260 27% 46 5% 0.3 <1% 98.1 26% High brush 63 36% 40 23% O07 4% 26 15% 40 22% - - 176 5% Upland spruce/hardwood 1.3 2% 66 10% 43.4 68% 93 14% 40 6% - - 64.6 17% Lowland spruce/hardwood — — 10 3% 23.2 66% 66 19% 43 12% - - 35.1 9% Low brush/muskeg — — O01 1% 92 88% 05 5% 06 6% - = 10.4 3% Bottomland spruce/poplar — — 14° 8% 120 67% 35 19% 1.1 6% - - 18.0 5% Percentage figures represent percent of state total for each particular ecosystem. Soils supporting this latter ecosystem are poorly drained, deep, sandy or silty loams with overlying peat layers of varied thickness. Deep peat soils occupy depressions along drainages. Permafrost tends to be more continuous under interior Alaska muskegs. In sharp contrast to the above systems are the peat deposits typical of Southeastern Alaska. Deep peat depths have been recorded in the steeply dipping bedrock of the alpine areas and on the marine shelfs. Formation of organic materials in those areas is also greatly enhanced by a moderate climatological regime as well as by generally heavier precipitation levels. 2.2 Reserves of Peat Peatland Areas in the World The estimates of the total area of peatlands in the world and in the major peatland countries have changed considerably during the past decades. According to V. Bulow (1929), the total area was approximately 250 million acres, according to Nikonow & Sluka (1964), the area was 276 million acres, while Tibbetts (1968) gave the estimate of 370 million acres and Moore & Bellamy (1974) said 568 million acres. Current estimates, e.g., Kivinen (1979) run at 850 million acres. (Classificaton of Peat and Peatlands, 1979) Table 2 lists various estimates for peatland areas of some major peat countries in the world. Some variance is due to different reporting methods. The higher estimate in Table 2 refers, in most cases, to peatlands deeper than one foot. TABLE 2 ESTIMATED AREAS OF PEATLANDS IN SOME COUNTRIES Country Millions of Acres Soviet Union 228-370 Canada 34-250 United States 53- 94 Indonesia 3.3- 64 Finland 24- 36 Sweden 13- 17 Norway 2.6-7.4 Great Britain 4.0-5.8 Ireland 3.5-7.3 Poland 3.2-8.6 Germany 2.7-13 Domestic Resources Table 3 presents a well known estimate of 1443 quads (10'° Btu) for the total energy potential of U.S. peat resources (Peat Prospectus, 1979). The figure is based on certain assumptions, the reliability of which is being verified by surveys. The assumptions are: - Average depth of deposits is 7 feet. - Moisture content of peat when utilized is 35%, resulting in a heating value of 6000 Btu/b. - Bulk density of peat is 15 Ib/cu. ft. TABLE 3 UNITED STATES FUEL PEAT RESOURCES AND POTENTIAL ENERGY Area Quantity —_ Potential Energy State (Millions of (Billions of (10'° Btu) Acres) Tons) Alaska’ 27.0 61.7 741 Minnesota 7.2 16.5 198 Michigan 45 10.3 123 Florida 3.0 69 82 Wisconsin 28 6.4 7 Louisiana 1.8 41 49 North Carolina 1.2 27 33 Maine 7 18 21 New York 65 1.5 18 All Others 3.66 8.4 101 Total 52.58 120.3 1443 1) Permafrost areas excluded. The majority of the domestic peat resources of the U.S. are allocated within three geographical regions — Atlantic Coastal, North Central and Alaska. There are also substantial deposits of peat in New England, especially in Maine. By far the largest domestic resource of peat, as shown in Table 3, is found within the state of Alaska. Excluding permafrost areas, the estimate shows 51% of the nation’s peat is in Alaska. Previous Alaskan Resource Descriptions Extensive literature search yields little information on Alaska-specific peat deposits. Dachnowski-Stokes (1941) conducted the only previous inventory of Alaskan peat, concentrating, however, on surficial deposits for horticultural use. Estimates of total peat in the state range from 27 to 107 million acres; the variation is a result of the widely differing definitions used for peat. The more important references on Alaskan peat resources are included in the annotated bibliography as an Appendix to this report (Appendix 1). It should be recognized that an important consideration in any state-wide inventory is that the total area of the state is in excess of 365,000,000 acres. A large scale map of the state has been prepared (Supplementary Map A), which shows the locations of the areas surveyed for this report. In addition, sites of previous Alaska-specific organic soil investigations and a brief summary of their results relative to fuel peat are included. 2.3 Peat Classification Peat is generally classified on the basis of degree of decomposition and the botanical identification of the plant remains. The degree of decomposition is dependent upon the amount of plant residue, the amount of humus, the wood content, the structure of the peat, and the amount of water. Botanical identification is dependent on the dominant plants in the peat. (Inventory of Peat Resources, 1979) U.S. Bureau of Mines This Bureau defines three types of peat: 1. Moss peat is formed principally from sphagnum, hypnum and other mosses. Sphagnum moss peat is light tan to brown, light in weight, porous, high in water-holding capacity, high in acidity, and low in nitrogen content; “top moss” is the living part of the sphagnum plant and should not be confused with moss peat which has aged and partially decomposed. Hypnum moss peat is darker brown, of low acidity, and physically similar to reed-sedge peat. 2. Reed-sedge peat is formed principally from reeds, sedges, marsh grasses, cattails, and associated plants. Fibrous, partially decomposed reed-sedge peat is brown to reddish brown, but more decomposed peats are darker. The water-holding capacity and the nitrogen content of reed-sedge peat are of medium values. 3. Peat humus is derived from peat so decomposed that the original plant remains are not identifiable. It is dark brown to black, has low water-holding capacity, and medium to high nitrogen content. The U.S. Bureau of Mines’ definitions have historically been used for statistical purposes on peat reserves, production and sales in the United States. American Society for Testing Materials More specific classifications have been developed by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM). The ASTM classification developed primarily as a result of demand for uniformity of product quality standards. The producers also recognized that consistent nomenclature and uniform product standards would improve sales of United States peat. In 1969 the ASTM Committee on Peat defined peat in terms of materials and size of fibers (ASTM Standard D 2607). Accordingly, the term “peat” refers only to the organic matter of geologic origin, excluding coal, formed from dead plant remains in water and in the absence of air. It occurs in a bog, swampland, or marsh, and it has an ash content not exceeding 25 percent by dry weight. Fiber is defined as plant material retained in an ASTM No. 100 (150um) sieve, that is, material 0.15 mm (0.006 in) or larger consisting of stems, leaves or fragments of bog plants, but containing no particles larger than 12.7 mm (0.5 in). It excludes fragments of other materials such.as shells, stones, sand and gravel. Having defined peat, ASTM classified it into five major types according to generic origin and fiber content. The percentages of fiber are based on oven- dried weight and 105°C (223°F), not on volume. The five ASTM peat types are: 1. Sphagnum moss peat (peat moss) — The oven- dried peat contains a minimum of 66-2/3 percent sphagnum moss fiber of the total content by weight. These fibers are stems and leaves of sphagnum in which the fibrous and cellular structure is recognizable. 2. Hypnum moss peat — The oven-dried peat contains a minimum of 33-1/3 percent fiber content by weight, of which hypnum moss fibers compose more than 50 percent. These fibers are stems and leaves of various hypnum mosses in which the fibrous and cellular structure is recognizable. 3. Reed-sedge peat — The oven-dried peat contains a minimum of 33-1/3 percent fiber by weight, of which reed-sedge and other non-moss fibers compose more than 50 percent. 4. Peat humus — The oven-dried peat contains less than 33-1/3 percent fiber by weight. 5. Other peat — All forms of peat not classified herein. International Peat Society and the Soil Conservation Service The International Peat Society (IPS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS) have very similar classification systems. The IPS system is used in Europe, whereas the SCS system is used in mapping soils in the United States. (Classification of Peat and Peatlands, 1979) The IPS system uses three grades to classify peat according to the degree of decomposition; weakly decomposed peats (Ri), medium decomposed peats (R2), and strongly decomposed peats (R:). These correspond to the SCS classifications of fibric (Oi), hemic (Oe) and sapric (Oa). Both systems are capable of considerable detail in subclassifying peat. IPS field classification of peat is shown in Table 4. In the table, reference is made to the 10 degree von Post scale that has traditionally been used in Scandinavia since its introduction in 1924. This scale is not suitable for determining the decomposition degree of partly dewatered peats with coagulated humus. Other criteria used in the IPS classification system are botanical composition and trophicity of peat. Three kinds of peat are distinguished in each criterion, resulting in a 3 x 3 x 3 block system. Table 4 Field Classification Decomposition Degree Structure and Presence and Amount and appearance appearance appearance IPS v. Post U.S. SCS of the peat bulk of humus of water R, Hi-Hs Oi Spongy or fibrous, Not visible or occurs Great amount of Fibric built of plant res- in little amounts as water, which can Weakly idues tied with one a dispersed dark mass, be easily pressed decomposed another. For sep- saturating and coloring out and pours as a peats aration tearing off plant residues. streamlet. Almost the plant residues totally pure or is required. Easily slightly brownish. recognizable plant May contain dark residues (well pre- humus spots. served.) Elastic, compact. R2 H.-H, Oe Amorphous-fibrous; Distinctly discernible Can be pressed out Hemic grass and moss peats against which plant or flows by few drops; Medium contain numerous plant residues are visible. usually thick and of decomposed residues of various Humus can be pressed dark color/humus. In Ppeats size; woody peats are out between fingers of drained peat slightly more friable due to the clenched fist but colored with humus the presence of wood not more than 1/3 of coagulated in conseq- residues in amorphous the taken sample. uence of partly drying. humus. When pressed in fingers, transforms into an amorphous, plastic mass. R; H)-Hio Oa Lumpy-amorphous, con- Uniform mass, can be Cannot be pressed out, Sapric sisting in main part pressed out between instead the humus mass Strongly of humus. In lumpy- fingers of the clenched is squeezed. decomposed amorphous peat greater fist in the amount of a peat fragments of plant res- half or the whole of the idue/wood, rhizomes, greater rootlets/occur. Friable, disintegrates taken sample. under pressure. Amorphous peat strongly plastic, with sporadic greater plant residues. The numerical denotations and descriptions of classes in each criterion are: |. Botanical Composition 1. Moss peats 2. Grass peats 3. Wood peats ll. | Degree of Decomposition 1. Weakly decomposed peats 2. | Medium decomposed peats 3. Strongly decomposed peats Ill. Trophicity 1. Oligotrophic peats (low pH) 2. | Mezotrophic peats (moderate pH) 3. Eutrophic peats (high pH) It should again be mentioned that throughout all classification systems, a strong relationship exists between botanical composition and degree of decomposition. Peats composed primarily of sphagnum mosses are almost exclusively classified as fibric (weakly decomposed); reed-sedge dominant peats are consistently classified as hemic (medium decomposition). Peats unidentifiable by botanical origin are always classified as sapric (strongly decomposed peat, humus). am % MOISTURE REMOVAL 2.4 Fuel Properties of Peat Degree of Decomposition Generally a higher degree of decomposition indicates good fuel peat potential, provided that other parameters are positive. By experience, grass peats (Carex) are suitable at a lower decomposition degree than moss peats (Sphagnum), mainly because they dry faster. In principle, a weakly decomposed moss peat is unsuitable for fuel peat production, but may make excellent horticultural peat. Peats with a low degree of decomposition generally dry faster; this also determines the number of harvests per season with most current production methods. In Northern conditions, medium decomposed peat is optimal as fuel. Water Content The most difficult technical obstacle to utilizing peat as an energy source is reducing the large amount of associated water. Natural peat is approximately 90 percent water and in this condition, the heat of combustion of the solid matter is less than the heat of vaporization of water. Figure 4 shows the amount of water reduction necessary to achieve an acceptable feedstock for energy utilization.* (Peat Prospectus, 1979) The peat-water affinity is due to several factors, e.g., colloids, hydrogen bonding, etc. The effect of moisture level on peat quality is represented by the net heat value concept. Net heat value is the heat of combustion of the peat, minus the heat required to evaporate the water associated with it. Figure 5 shows net heat value as a function of water content for a typical peat. ASTM Standard D 2974 describes a standard test method for moisture content of peat materials. *Most currently used commercial harvesting processes rely on solar and convective drying, a slow and uncertain process that limits harvest to a period that is often very short. 100 10 90 : 80 8 70 7 60 6 50 5 40. 4 30 3 20 2 10: , 10 20 30 40 50 60 #70 +980 490 °° 100 % MOISTURE l+— ACCEPTABLE FEEDSTOCK — —| LEVEL | FOR ENERGY UTILIZATION IN BOGS Figure 4. Moisture Levels in Peat LB H,0/LB PEAT 10,000 9000 8000 7000 6000 (BTU/LB) 5000 HEATING VALUE 4000 3000 2000 1000 H 0 =~ am ow a am oo == -1000 10 20 30 IGHER HEAT VALUE NET HEAT VALUE SOD PEA MILLED PEAT 40 50 60 70 80 90 =100 % MOISTURE IN PEAT Figure 5. Effect of Moisture Content on Heat Value of Peat Ash Content The ash content can be as low as 5% on a dry basis. It depends on the bog water drainage history and can be higher than 20% when there is water flow passing through the bog. Ash contents exceeding 15% must be carefully taken into account in the design of boilers and firing equipment. ASTM Standard D 2974 describes a standard test method for ash content of peat materials. Heating Value Heating values of fuel peats range between 8300 to 10,500 Btu/Ib on a dry basis. This variable is most sensitive to moisture content, as discussed above. ASTM Standard D 3286 describes a standard test method for gross calorific value of solid fuels. 10 Proximate Analysis A procedure established in the coal industry is the proximate analysis. This involves a determination of the percentage by weights of moisture, ash, and volatile matter with the difference being defined as fixed carbon. The volatile content influences the design of peat fired boilers because it largely determines the length and luminosity of the flame. Fixed carbon is actually the carbonaceous residue (less ash) remaining in the test crucible after the test for volatile matter. It is not the total carbon in the fuel since the volatile matter includes hydrocarbons. Neither is it pure carbon as it may contain several tenths percent of hydrogen and oxygen, 0.4 to 1.0 percent nitrogen, and about half of the sulfur that was in the fuel. ASTM Standard D3175 describes a standard test | method for determination of volatile matter of coal. Ultimate Analysis An ultimate analysis of a peat sample is the determination of the ash and the elements of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur and oxygen. The sulphur content of peat is low compared to coal and oil. The nitrogen content, which contributes to the formation of nitrogen oxides, is higher in peats than in most coals. ASTM Standard D 3176 describes a standard method for ultimate analysis of coal. Ash Fusion Characteristics Ash fusion temperatures and an ash analysis are necessary in order to aid in predicting the slagging and fouling characteristics of the peat. Slagging is the accumulation of plastic or liquid deposits of ash on radiant heat exchange surfaces in the furnace. Fouling is the accumulation of deposits on boiler tubes. Both slagging and fouling can lead to loss of boiler efficiency and unacceptable downtime. The softening temperature in a reducing atmosphere is the characteristic most meaningful for boiler operation. ASTM Standard D 1857 details the procedures for determining ash fusion temperatures. Bulk Density The bulk density of peat is an important parameter as it influences the transport and handling costs, as well as the energy storage capacity at the plant. Aged, medium decomposed peat is denser than young peat from the surface of the bog. 3. INVENTORY PROGRAM METHODOLOGY 3.1 Location of Deposits Literature Review An annotated bibliography on the use of peat as a fuel resource has been compiled and cross-referenced by subject matter, see Appendix 1. Literature resources include references to all components of energy production, from peat harvest to production and reclamation methods. Reports of the results derived from similar programs in the United States and Europe have also been included. Related Supporting Programs Several governmental agencies are involved in inventory and mapping efforts relative to various Alaskan soil types. The organizations discussed below are continuing to gather data which will contribute to the further definition, preparation and refinement of the model used to project probable fuel peat resources in Alaska. To date, all such efforts are based on information gained from airphoto interpretation and reinforced by field programs aimed at gaining ground- truth in order to verify the interpretations. 11 The U.S.D.A. Forest Service has divided Alaska into four regions of interest to this study: one in the Chugach National Forest and three in the Tongass National Forest. The Chugach Forest is divided into landtype associations based primarily on land physiography. The associations are further divided into component landtypes by vegetational considerations. Peat in the Chugach National Forest is most commonly found in the linear muskeg valleys in association with the Ice Scoured Land landtype. This physiography is characterized by a parallel alignment of topographical features that are probably remnant of glacial scour or the weathering of variably resistant folded sedimentary rock. Ice Scoured Land is divided into a non-forested and forested landtype, the dividing point being 40 percent canopy cover. About 15 percent of the non-forested soils include a shallow, poorly drained peat. About 10 percent forested soils are defined by a deep, stratified peat that includes fibric, hemic and sapric types. In the Tongass National Forest soil mapping units are correlated to drainage and vegetative characteristics. Forest Service field maps outline these soil units on a scale of 1:31,680. Peat thickness descriptions range from less than 3 feet up to 30 feet; however, the Forest Service normally gathers data only on the upper sixty inches in organic soils. During the early 1940's, a peat resource survey was made in Southeast Alaska near Duncan Canal on Kupreanof Island. Maps of horticultural peat occurrences in this area where made and are accessible at the Tongass National Forest headquarters in Petersburg. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped most areas in the state along the highways and around cities and larger villages. Maps which group various gross soil association factors, were prepared. Subsequently, these associations were further classified into numerous more specific soil series. A representative profile and site description for each series have been developed, as well as potential use scenarios for various development projects inclusive of recreation facilities, wildlife habitats, woodland designations, and agriculture. The Susitna River Basin Study is multi- organizational effort established in part to develop resource inventories of the Susitna River Basin. The data base for soils, slope, topography and geology gathered by this organization will be fed into a computer and will allow generation of resource- specific maps. Computer output for the 2.5 millon acres of the basin study area should be available by late summer, 1980. Data on two million additional acres has been field verified and will be available by 1981. It is anticipated that this data may be incorporated in future inventory refinements. The Fish and Wildlife Service is in the initial stages of conducting a wetlands inventory of Alaska. Wetlands are classified according to vegetation types, visible hydrology and geography through stereoscopic examination of high altitude aerial photographs. Several of the cover-type systems, subsystems and classes may correlate well with peat deposits. 3.2 Prioritization of Areas Surveyed Preliminary Estimation of Fuel Peat in Alaska The initial estimate of the Alaskan peat resources for this inventory was based on information derived from various physical system maps of the state in conjunction with known ecosystem descriptions. The initial estimate for this inventory, based on the initial map-derived data, was the maximum figure of 107 million acres of peat in Alaska. Of this, 47 million’ acres are expected to be at least five feet deep and are located in areas of discontinuous permafrost. Further withdrawal of areas of thick, discontinuous permafrost (Category III) reduced the remaining 47 million acre estimate to about 30 milion acres of potential fuel grade peat deposits in Alaska. (Table 5) A large scale map (1:5,000,000) of the state has been prepared showing this information in greater detail and indicating areas of expected shallow and deep peats in the state south of the 8rooks Range and well outside the continuous permafrost (Supplementary Map A). Prioritization Based on Peat Utilization Potential In order to limit the resource estimation effort to a proportionally most useful level, the rate and geographic distribution of potential peat utilization were assessed. Assessment was performed by listing the potential areas of fuel peat utilization based on preliminary evaluation of evident physical and socioeconomic factors. The listing of sites and the estimation of thermal energy demand figures were made by using available community profiles, energy statistics, and climatic data, verified in some cases by direct contacts to utilities. The energy consumption of candidate communities was thus estimated in terms of space heating Btu’s, electric kilowatt hours, and gallons of diesel fuel. The data are presented in Table 6. In order to assess the relative significance of the potential use areas, the energy consumption figures were first converted to pounds of fuel peat, then to cubic feet and, finally, to acres of bog area required to produce that amount of fuel peat with current production methods. The heating value used in the conversion was 4100 Btu/Ib, corresponding to medium grade fuel peat at a moisture content of 50%. Bulk density used in the conversion was 22 |b/cu. ft. Since no American figures for the specific fuel peat yield of a bog acre are available, an estimated yield was provided for each general area. The estimation was based on the average Finnish yield of 7,200-10,000 cubic feet per acre from 16 harvests per year at a moisture content of 40-55%. The yield was adjusted according to a comparison of climatic data provided for Alaskan peat areas and Finnish peat utilization and production sites (Table 7). This data includes: latitude, degree days of thaw and heating, average ambient air temperatures, annual precipitation, number of wet days, and average wind speed. Significant differences between Alaska and Finland exist in the number of degree days of thaw, in average summer temperatures, in amount of precipitation, and in the number of wet days. It is estimated that the climate in Alaska would allow for 10-16 harvests per year with current production methods, depending on the location, as shown in Table 7. The yields would range between 4500 and 7500 cubic feet of fuel peat per acre. The bog areas required to produce fuel peat to cover the total energy use of each general area give the relative significance of the areas for survey prioritization purposes: - Matanuska-Susitna Valley 29 square miles (including Anchorage) - Fairbanks area - Kenai Peninsula - Bristol Bay area 24 square miles 9 square miles 0.6 square miles Table 5 Alaska Fuel Peat Resources Estimation Permafrost Zone Seasonal Thick Thick Fuel Peat Frost Discontinuous Discontinuous Continuous (Millions of Acres) I iH] ul IV Deep Peat 5 25 17 1 Shallow Peat 17 6 33 3 Table 6 Energy Consumption of Candidate Communities Estimated Annual Energy Consumption Space Heat Power Diesel Fuel Area Community (Billions of Btu) (GWh) (Gallons) Matanuska- Anchorage 11,400 600 Susitna Chugiak 200 Eagle River 900 Willow 50 Palmer 160 Wasilla 110 0.2 Fairbanks ‘Fairbanks 4,550 670 North Pole 50 Bristol Bay Dillingham 100 25 500,000 Naknek 20 King Salmon 20 50,000 New Stuyahok 20 0.3 62,000 Kenai Homer 120 Kenai 420 Soldotna 130 3.3 Survey Site Selection Soils Mapping The next step in the inventory process involved mapping the organic soil associations in the two high priority candidate areas. (This mapping program was also an initial step in the development of the predictive model.) The mapping program showed that the prevalent bog soil in the railbelt (Matanuska-Susitna Valleys) is the Salamatof Series (dysic Sphagnic Borofibrists) consisting of poorly drained soils of deep fribrous peat derived from sphagnum moss and sedges. The Starichkof (dysic Fluvaquentic or Typic Borohemists), Clunie and Doroshin (dysic Terric Borohemists) peat series are less frequently found in the railbelt (Table 8). These organic soil occurrences were then mapped on a U.S.G.S. topographic base map on a scale of 1:250,000. In addition, the Soil Conservation Service soils descriptions were reviewed for the Fairbanks area and the area immediately surrounding the villages of Dillingham and Naknek in the Bristol Bay region. Bog Selection Additional selection criteria for the identification of 13 specific bog sites for detailed exploration were based on engineering and economic considerations as derived from existing fuel peat production sites, as follows: 1. Distance to a major utilization potential site, not to exceed 30 miles by road, 50 miles by railroad. 2. Distance to a major road, not to exceed 5 miles, suitable roadbed topography provided. 3. Bog area to exceed 80 acres, preferably 320 acres per square mile (640 acres). 4. Consideration of drainage configuration or other physical constraints. 5. Areal continuity. In addition, attempts were made during initial bog selections to meet the DOE fuel peat criteria of five foot minimum depth and 8300 Btu/Ib dry weight. With information derived from the organic soils maps, population center and transportation data bases, vegetation and ecosystem maps, surficial geology data and ownership plats, five sites that met the listed criteria were selected in the Susitna Valley for detailed consideration: Mile 196 bog, Nancy Lake area, Rogers Creek bog, Stephan Lake bog, and Mile 55 kettles (Figure 6). vl Table 7 Climatic Comparisons Degree Days Average Temperatures Wet Wind Yield Latitude Annual Jan. July Precipita- Days/ Speed Harvests/ cu. ft./acre Site oN Thaw = Heating F F° oF tion, in. Year mph Season year Tampere 61.5 3500 8190 38.8 176 62.2 22.6 7.4 Kuopio 63 3500 8875 37.6 15.1 62.8 27.8 8.3 Oulu 65 3000 9270 36.3 14.5 61.7 20.2 9.2 Jokioinen 61 3500 8000 39.0 17.0 61.2 22 47* Utti 61 3600 8000 37.2 18.3 62.8 24 47* Kihnio 62 3500 8200 36.7 15.8 61.0 23 49* 16*** 7200-10000*** Rauta- lampi 62.5 3500 9000 37.2 14.4 61.0 24 50* Tohma- jarvi 62 3500 9500 36.0 13.1 61.0 24 57* Haapavesi 64 3200 9300 36.0 9.3 59.7 21 53* Anchorage 61 3100 11200 35.0 11.8 57.9 14.7 60 6.6 16** 7500** Wasilla 61.5 3000 11200 35.4 13.1 58.3 18.4 50 68 16** 7500** Fairbanks 65 2000 14500 24.5 -16.3 64.5 11.2 40 5.3 10** 4500** Naknek 59 3000 11400 20 60 14** 6500** Dilling- ham 59 2900 11500 34.1 15.7 55.1 25.8 80 12** 5500** Homer 60 3400 10700 36.4 20.7 52.4 23.1 90 65 14** 6500** * Only between May 1 and September 30, which represents 50-53% of annual precipitation. Defined with daily precipitation of 1 mm (0.04 in). ** Estimated. *** Average figures for Finnish peat production sites. SL Table 8 Distribution of Peat Series in High-Priority Areas: Matanuska-Susitna Valleys and Kenai Peninsula SOIL SERIES SALAMATOF CLUNIE DOROSHIN STARICHKOF Total Acres Resource Areas Acres %Cover Acres %Cover Acres %Cover Acres % Cover Surveyed Anchorage Area 4,184 3.53 _ - 4,489 3.79 1,844 0.15 120,000 Susitna Valley 224,090 33.4 10,280 1.4 - _- - _ 730,390 Matanuska Valley 62,590 13.9 10,040 2.2 _ — — — 499,300 Total Mat-Su/ Anchorage Area 310,864 23.0 20,320 1.5 4,489 0.33 1,844 0.14 ~— 1,349,690 Homer-Ninilchik 39,081 14.4 _- _ 11,660 43 4,060 15 271,700 Kenai-Kasilof 46,294 19.4 3,371 1.4 4,108 1.7 4,407 1.8 238,243 Kenai Peninsula 85,375 16.7 3,371 0.7 15,768 3.1 8,467 1.7 509,948 Total Area 396,239 «21.3 23,691 «1.3.— 20,257, 1.1 10,311 0.6 (1,859,638 (Mat-Su + Kenai) (From Soil Conservation Service soil surveys) Figure 6. Susitna Valley Sampling Sites 1 inch = 6 miles pow. . ene Be ee Pele cca ee ry Clear LN? Vy Ticile Lake, Al Lor. Ca chi (4 jorsuchy YO eters Creek pagunt “ My EKIUINS SN ’ Wwe 16 3.4 Survey Program Field Maps Having identified specific sites to be surveyed, a field program was designed to assess each site as a source for fuel peat. Aerial black and white photographs (1:40,000), taken during 1978 and 1979 by NASA U-2 aircraft, were selected to serve as field base maps for each site. These were complemented by U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute series topographic quadrangles. Radar Field Program A. Selection A ground-penetrating radar system was used as the primary tool to define peat deposits in the top priority Susitna Valley sites. The radar technique was chosen for the spring field season because of its demonstrated speed, its ready availability, demonstrated applicability, portability, and high sensitivity to the peat/mineral soil interface. B. Theory of Operation The ground-penetrating radar system provides a means of gathering continuous and rapid profiles of subsurface stratigraphy. The system transceiver works with repetitive short-time electromagnetic impulses of 3 nanosecond duration, sent into the ground from a broad band width antenna. This impulse is reflected by discontinuities in subsurface media. The graphic record of these reflections is representative of the two- way travel time of the reflected pulse. It is, however, necessary to calibrate, or ground-truth, the system by probe determination of peat depth and direct comparison to the radar output. Propagation velocity through overlying material, peat in this instance, can be derived from the equation: Vin = 2D. t Vm = Velocity of radar signal in any given medium where D = measured depth to reflecting interface t = elapsed time between transmitted and received pulse (two-way time) The relative dielectric constant, €,, of the overlying material is derived from: in air,c = Vn, = 3x 10*m/sec = 1 foot/nanosecond [ns] (1 nanosecond = 10° second) On combining these two formulas, three variables become important in radar interpretation: the depth to the subsurface interface, the two-way time to that interface and the relative dielectric constant of the subsurface material. Knowledge of any two of these variables yields the third. 17 For example, with ground-truth it may be established that the peat/mineral soil interface is at a 10 foot depth. Scrutiny of the radar graphics indicates a travel time (t) of 160 nanoseconds. The propagation velocity can be calculated as follows: V,= 2D =_20ft. = 1ft. t 160ns 8ns Therefore, the relative dielectric constant is: «={—_ ¢_— - 1fV/8 ns e= 1 ft/ns =8 1 f/8 ns 6 = 64 With this information, peat depth may be calculated for similar areas with only minimal need for additional ground-truth probes to ensure calibration. Table 9 shows a compilation of relative dielectric constants for various earth materials. As the table suggests, the relative dielectric constant is strongly dependent upon moisture content. Other environmen- tal parameters which affect the propagation velocity of a ground penetrating electromagnetic pulse are tem- perature, pressure and subsurface material impurities or anomalies. C. Spring Field Program A small all terrain vehicle and trailer for carrying the radar instrumentation and recorder were utilized for the radar portion of the field program. Power was provided by a portable 1.5 kW generator. The tape recorder and power pack were put behind the vehicle driver, along with extra rope and a come-a- long for emergency towing in the frozen and swampy terrain. The trailer carried the graphic recorder and control unit, leaving enough space for the system operator to ride and make minor adjustments while moving. The antenna was mounted on a wooden skid and pulled across the survey area behind the trailer. As discussed earlier, aerial photographs and enlarged USGS topographic maps at a scale of 1:40,000 were used to locate potential peat deposits, and to establish ties to related landmarks, and as a mapping basis for field survey transects. A hand-held compass was used to establish all transect bearings. In lieu of taping or pacing, a mark was painted on the track of the all terrain vehicle, and every 5 revolutions of the track represented a distance of 75 feet. This distance was easily recorded on the radar data printout and replaced less accurate pacing as the primary linear distance measurement tool. Transects were flagged frequently with orange and red surveyor’s tape so as to preserve their location for the later ground-truth work. Field notes were made along each transect to record detailed site data such as slope, and moisture and vegetation changes that might later be pertinent to the predictive model development. Profiling Radar Table 9 Approximate VHF Electromagnetic Parameters of Typical Earth Materials Approx. Approximate _ Relative Conductivity _ Dielectric Material (mho/m) Constant Air 0 1 Fresh Water 10% to 3x10* 81 Sea Water 4 81 Sand “Dry” 10” to 10° 4to6 Sand, Saturated (Fresh Water) 10% to 10° 30 Silt, Saturated (Fresh Water) 10° to 107 10 Clay, Saturated (Fresh Water) 10' to 1 8 to 12 Dry, Sandy, Flat Coastal Land 2x 10° 10 Marshy, Forested Flat Land 8x 10° 12 Rich Agricultural Land Low Hills 10° 15 Pastoral Land, Medium Hills and Forestation 5x 10° 13 Fresh Water Ice 10° to 10° 4 Permafrost 10° to 10° 4to8 Granite (Dry) 10° 5 Limestone (Dry) 10° 7 Unusually early, warm and consequently rapid spring break-up conditions resulted in quickly deteriorating field accessibility. Initially, below freezing night time temperatures stabilized site surfaces enough so that the radar and vehicle could remain on the surface of frozen cover during the mornings. However, by mid-afternoon, soft surface conditions severely hampered the mobility and after the first week of effort, nighttime temperatures did not drop below freezing. The resultant thawing conditions produced numerous small but deep channels crossing several sites and made straight line transects impossible. By the second week of the field program, the frost level at all sites had dropped well below the ground surface. Ground conditions were often hummocky and very icy and wet, causing both excess wear on the radar equipment and transport vehicle, and presenting difficulties in maintaining consistent record quality as the antenna crossed areas of differing frozen and thawed moisture contents. 18 Under these less than ideal conditions, 4360 acres of peat bog were surveyed with the radar. Radar data were gathered for six of the eight field sites visited before deteriorating field conditions precluded further work due to standing water conditions. Use of the radar during the late winter season has been suggested as a remedy for several of the problems encountered, although winter itself presents new problems, such as decreased daylight, excessive snow depth and extreme cold temperatures. However, by early March, the number of daylight hours has increased enough to enable a full work day and snow cover at selected sites may flatten the bog surfaces so that vehicle and antenna ride could be much smoother, provided significant drifting is not present. Small brush that hampers antenna mobility in the snow free season would also be covered in later winter. A further advantage would be a consistently frozen soil from the surface down, thus eliminating a_ significant interpretation variable due to the presence of two frost lines in the thawing peat. The variability of snow depth above the ground surface would, of course, have to be accounted for during final interpretation. It is felt that any winter geophysical field program should be preceded by summer field work to establish ground- truth for data interpretation prior to initiating the geophysical program. 3.5 Sampling Program Summer Field Program During the summer field program, 121 samples from 30 sites throughout Alaska were collected, including ground-truth data from the radar transect areas. All samples were taken with a MacCauley peat auger designed specifically for sampling peat deposits. Field data sheets were completed at each site by the two person field crew describing the vegetation, topography, ground water pH, and peat strata. Samples were taken from the peat profile for each strata change and placed in plastic bags, tagged and described for desired physical or chemical analyses. During the first week of June, Susitna Valley peat samples were taken at selected sites on the previously surveyed radar transects. For the first time since winter, the sites were generally frost free and 65 samples were taken from 14 sample sites in 5 bogs. Sample depths ranged from 1.4 feet to 18.9 feet. These samples also served as ground-truth data for the ground penetrating radar profiles. During the second week of June, peat samples were taken from the Dillingham, Kodiak and King Salmon- Naknek areas. At each location, field personnel viewed most of the land accessible by vehicle and chose sample sites on the basis of access, USGS map data, ecosystem data and pertinent surficial geology data. An attempt was made to sample peat from those areas where different physical conditions existed in order to aid predictive model development. The field effort then moved to the Kenai Peninsula during the third week of June. Three sample sites were located in the eastern half of the Peninsula in the ice- scoured landscape of the Chugach Mountains. Two additional sites were sampled in the poorly drained lowlands of the western Kenai Peninsula. Finally, project staff traveled to Fairbanks to conduct investigations of the interior muskegs and to use the literature and human resources available at the University of Alaska. A visit to an active peat harvesting operation resulted in additional samples being taken from an existing commercial peat operation. Coordination with Other Agencies During the summer field season of 1980, both the Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) will be sampling organic soils and peat deposits throughout the state. Both agencies have agreed to cooperate in the peat inventory effort by providing peat samples and site descriptions from their field work. It is anticipated that data gathered from these additional surveys will aid in refining the predictive model for fuel peat quantity and quality occurrences in Alaska by increasing the model data base. Additional data from Mitkof Island have been analyzed and included in this report. 3.6 Analysis Program Following field acquisition, the peat samples were forwarded for analysis to the Coal Analysis Laboratory of the U.S. Bureau of Mines in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. Proximate analysis for volatile fraction, fixed carbon, ash content and water content were made for each sample site. Samples from each major deposit underwent ultimate analysis (ash, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur and percent moisture), and higher heating value or Btu content determinations. Additional samples were taken at selected sites for analysis at a commercial soils laboratory in Bellevue, Washington, These samples were analyzed for bulk density (Ibs/cu. yd.), organic matter (%), and cation exchange capacity (meq/ 100g). 3.7 Model Development Introduction Due to the immense land mass of Alaska, over 365,000,000 acres, and the relatively short duration of the initial inventory effort, a predictive model was developed in order to assess the occurrence, quantity and quality of fuel peat throughout Alaska. Extrapolation of data derived from detailed site studies was essential in deriving resource data from similar environments not subject to detailed examination. Map Derived Information Much information on state-wide sites was gained by a thorough study of existing maps and aerial photographs available in Anchorage. Prior to a site visit, map information relative to such physical features as permafrost, surficial geology, climate and ecosystem of each selected site was gathered and categorized (Appendix 2). A. Permafrost* Alaska is divided into three frost occurrence zones: continuous permafrost, dincontinuous permafrost, and an area of seasonal frost. Continuity of permafrost distribution is primarily dependent upon climato- logical history, surface physiography and the local ground water regime. In discontinuous permafrost areas, hilltops, ridges, stream banks and south facing slopes are commonly areas free of permafrost, whereas lowlands and north facing slopes more frequently are underlain by permafrost at shallower depths. Brown (1969) has shown that in many instances in the zone of discontinuous permafrost, the permafrost will not usually occur in peatlands except under the dry surface of isolated hummocks. The four descriptive regions of permafrost are outlined on Supplementary Map A. Appendix 3 contains a more detailed description of the physical parameters relative to permafrost and its influence on peat resource utilization. B. Surficial Geology The surficial geology of a peatland affects groundwater flow and therefore, soil pH. For the purpose of this study, six categories are used to describe the surficial geology of Alaskan peatlands: alluvium, aeolian, glacial till, lacustrine sediments, marine sediments and bedrock-rubble. Site information relative to these categories was derived from a 1964 U.S.G.S. map entitled, Surficial Geology of Alaska, compiled by Thor N.V. Karlstrom, et al. C. Climate Mean annual precipitation and mean annual snowfall are included in the model as an aid in interpretation of the hydrologic cycle of each site area. Another critical climatological variable in the development of the model was temperature. Low temperatures are found throughout Alaska with the mean annual temperature in most locations below or near freezing (32°F). Thawing and freezing indices are defined as the number of degree days per year above and below freezing temperature, respectively. “Permafrost is defined as, “that part of the lithosphere in which a naturally occuring temperature below 0°C (32°F) has existed continuously for two or more years”, (Ferriens, 1965). D. Ecosystem An ecosystem is made up of a community of plants and animals specific to that system’s physical and chemical parameters. As such, vegetation character- istics provided valuable information pertinent to the inventory of the Alaskan peat resources. Table 1 (Section 2.1) presents the distribution of major ecosystems in Alaska according to region. In general, shallow peats are expected in the moist and wet tundra, high brush and upland spruce/hardwood ecosystems. The deeper peats will most likely be found in lowland spruce/hardwood and low brush/muskeg ecosystems. The coastal Sitka Spruce/Western Hemlock system is found primarily in the Southeastern panhandle. Deep peats are well developed under some areas of this system. Bottomland spruce/poplar areas are found along stream valleys in the southern half of the state. This ecosystem is usually covered only witha thin organic mat. Site Inspection Information On-site inspection of various field sites produced vitally important information pertinent to Alaska peat quality and distribution. A. Physiography and Geomorphology As suggested earlier, the physiography and geomorphology of a site is intricately related to the local drainage and bedrock and surficial geology, but only on-site investigation will define the degree of interdependence of these factors within reasonable limits of reliability. Model categories developed for the inventory include: valley occupied by a stream, closed basin, plateau-like dome on gentle surface, ponds developed in moss peat and an extensive deposit of coalesced domes. An additional category of “forest floor” was added to describe two sites: KEN-2 on a forested hillside high above Primrose Creek, and KO-5 on a spruce/hemlock bluff on the coast of Kodiak Island. B. Vegetation Much research has been completed on vegetation- soil relationships in all Alaskan ecosystems. These relationships, however, can be used only as an elimination technique in the prediction of distribution of Alaskan bog soils, i.e., a particular vegetation type can indicate the absence of organic soils but it cannot predict or guarantee the presence and depth of a peat (B. Neiland, personal communication). For example, two areas with identical vegetation patterns may differ — one having only a thin organic surface layer, the other a deep peat deposit. This is particularly true in the Sphagnum/Black Spruce dominated wetlands found in interior and southcentral Alaska. The enormous geographical area of Alaska makes state- wide predictions even more difficult as the other factors in the development of the predictive mode 20 change from one area to another. As a typical example, in the interior, sedge meadow communities have a deeper peat layer than the tussock-dominated communities (Calmes, 1976), and in the southeastern part of the state, the deeper peats are expected under mature tree growth. C. Slope and Microtopography Local slope and microtopography affect on-site drainage and frost distribution. Flat, smooth topography is rarely found throughout a bog site, with both grasses and moss species contributing to the build up of tussocks and hummocks of up to two feet vertical height. The moisture regime differs for the hollows, sides and tops of these hummocks. Bog soils have also been described on north slopes of up to 50% steepness (Heilman, 1966). D. Fire History Fire history becomes a factor in an inventory of peat resources, especially in interior Alaska where most of the peatlands have been burned over within the past 200-250 years (Vierick, 1973). Some of these fires are “crown fires” and do not affect the surface organic accumulation. Others burn off the organic mat as reflected in the data taken from peat profiles by Dachnowski-Stokes during 1941, andin samples taken for this study in the Kenai Peninsula. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Ground Penetrating Radar Site Descriptions Mile 55 Kettles The survey site is located about twelve miles to the west of Wasilla and two miles to the south of the Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad. The aerial photograph (Figure 7) and transect map of the area (Figure 8) show a relatively compact bog, which in radar profiles reflects a typical kettle formation with a maximum depth of about 18 feet (Appendix 4, Figures 1-3). The depth contour map (Figure 9) shows the regularity of the kettle at the southern end of the bog. Nancy Lake West The site borders the west edge of Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad nothwest of Houston. The aerial photograph (Figure 10) and the transect map (Figure 11) show a large bog area divided by a small stream and containing a few raised vegetated islands. The radar profiles (Appendix 4, Figures 4-10) of the more contiguous eastern end of the bog indicate an overall moderate depth with a confined deeper well at one point (Figure 12). The average depth of the bog is about 7 feet. Figure 7. Kettle 2 ce Figure 8. Transect Map — Kettle 2 €2 dew snojuoD yideg yeag — Z aay “6 GunBIY 24 Figure 10. Nancy Lake East and West Transect Map — Nancy Lake East and West Figure 11. 25 Figure 12. Nancy Lake West — Peat Depth Contour Map 26 Rogers Creek The site is located off the Parks Highway about three miles north of Willow, the site of the proposed new capital. The Alaska Railroad crosses the southwestern lobe of the bog. The aerial photograph (Figure 13) and the transect map (Figure 14) show good access to the southern arm of the bog, but do not reveal the general shallowness apparent in the radar profiles (Appendix 4, Figures 11-15) and the depth contour map (Figure 15.) The bog is generally less than five feet deep and, therefore, may be considered of marginal value for the production of fuel peat. Mile 196 West The site is located alongside the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad, to the north of Kashwitna. The main body of the bog is on the eastern side of the highway, but the survey was performed in the western arm of the bog, primarily because of especially difficult access problems. The aerial photograph (Figure 16) and the transect map (Figure 17) show a regularly rounded bog with a few isolated ponds. The radar profiles (Appendix 4, Figures 16-21) and the contour map (Figure 18) indicate two localized wells deeper then 7 feet and a moderate depth of peat of about a five foot thickness appears to be typical of the survey area. In spite of excellent access and proximity to utilization of the site, relatively shallow depth of the bog may make it marginal for fuel peat production. Nancy Lake East Access to this site was provided by a power line right-of-way located on the eastern side of the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad, near Nancy Lake. The location is actually more to the west than Nancy Lake West, because reference is made relative to the highway. The aerial photograph (Figure 10) and the transect map (Figure 11) show an interesting terrace- like topography. Even the least elevated level is about 50 feet higher than the highway and the Nancy Lake West bog. Radar transect 1 (Appendix 4, Figure 22) crosses all levels and shows an independent deposit of peat at each level. These deposits are further detailed in additional transects (Appendix 4, Figures 23-25) and in the peat depth contour map (Figure 19). The two lower levels feature depths in excess of 10 feet. Stephan Lake The site is located about five miles northwest of Knik on the Cook Inlet. Access is more difficult than found 27 at other Susitna Valley sites, requiring 4-wheel drive vehicles at a minimum. Overland access to this site is currently questionable on a year-around basis. Only the northern end of the bog (Figures 20-21) was surveyed briefly because the rapidly deteriorating access jeopardized the movement of the equipment. The only radar transect (Appendix 4, Figure 26) shows an average depth of about 7 feet. 4.2 Field Program Susitna Valley A. Analytical Results Results of chemical analyses for 85 samples taken in the Susitna Valley during the summer field season are presented in Appendix 5. The highest level of analysis used for the samples was an ultimate analysis plus heating value. Sample depths are expressed in feet and moisture contents as a percentage of the received sample weight. Percent hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, independent oxygen and ash are expressed on the basis of the moisture-free sample. Heating value is expressed in terms of Btu’s per dry pound of material. A proximate analysis was made for 35 of the Susitna Valley samples. Moisture content again is presented in these tables, as well as volatile matter, fixed carbon and ash as a percent of moisture-free sample. Results of a proximate analysis are also presented for samples included under ultimate analysis. Additional tests were conducted on the 22 remaining Susitna Valley samples at a soil testing laboratory located in the State of Washington. Values presented for these samples include soil water pH, dry bulk density on a Ibs/cu. yd. dry weight basis, and cation exchange capacity. Soil water pH values range from 4.3 to 5.6 and tend to increase slightly with depth for a given sample site. A wide scattering of bulk density values is reported, from 236 to 403 Ibs/cu. yd. dry weight, reflecting in part the varying ash content of the samples and the influence of location, depth or other geologic history. Each of the analytical tables includes a column for peat classification. A sample is defined and classified as peat only if it has 25% or less ash content. Soil Conservation Service symbols are used to denote peat types, Oi for fibric peats and Oe for hemic peats. The “O” is derived from the SCS method of designating organic soils. 5 5 8 c 3 2 3 z Figure 14. Transect Map — Rogers Creek Figure 15. Rogers Creek — Peat Depth Contour Map 30 Figure 16. Mile 196 West ce Figure 17. Transect Map — Mile 196 West Figure 20. Stephan Lake Val LTS pr pln \ oh vel eM Lb FANN . yh Itty Iyer ga hy hn hy fs ete, ‘A if , Ve / ' 1 ¥ t FE ! | | | | | | r Figure 21. Transect Map — Stephan Lake B. Bog Cross-Sections Cross-sections have been made along five of the Susitna Valley radar transects (Figures 22-26). These sections are based on the peat depth radar profiles presented in Appendix 4 and discussed above. Individual exploration locations at each site are shown with an indication of depth and resulting analytical values indicated are percent organic matter (O.M.), percent moisture (Mois.), heating value (Btu/Ib), bulk density (Ib/cu. yd.) and cation exchange capacity (CEC in meg/100g). Water table depth is shown for each site as well as the apparent stratigraphic break between fibric and hemic peat types. Study of the vertical profiles does not yield apparent trends in the physical character of the exploration sites. However, much of the data presented seem to be closely related to the percent of organic matter in a given peat column. Ash content does not appear to increase with depth or show obvious patterns which might be expected from examination of literature sources alone. Field notes consistently indicate narrow bands of silt or ash rich layers at all depths of Susitna peat profiles. Periodic flooding, fires or volcanic proximity are all potential causes of these impurities in the peat. Remote Sites A. King Salmon/Naknek The towns of King Salmon and Naknek are joined by a gravel road along the Naknek River off the east coast of Bristol Bay. The four sites examined were located adjacent to this road as the road provided the only ready access to the area (Figure 27). An aerial photograph of King Salmon Creek indicates the patterned ground and floodplains characteristic of this region (Figure 28). Three samples were taken from this area, two for proximate and one for a more general soils laboratory testing for soil water pH, moisture content, bulk density and cation exchange capacity. At the time of the site visit, June 10th, the organic soils were frozen in all locations to a depth of two feet, even on the banks of the small streams. At all exploration sites mineral soil was clearly visible in the peat matrix. Results and observations from the field visit and personal communication with local building contractors suggest that the organic soil of the King Salmon/Naknek area is very shallow and too high in mineral content to receive further consideration. B. Dillingham Dillingham is located at the confluence of the Wood and Nushagak Rivers in the northern part of Bristol Bay. Five sites were examined in the vicinity of Dillingham (Figure 29). An aerial photograph of sites D-2 and D-3 off the northeastern extension of the 37 airport runway shows the typical low wetland pattern of the area (Figure 30). Three ultimate, four proximate and four general soils analyses were performed from these sites. The sample with the highest heating value of the entire survey was taken at a depth of 13 feet at site D-2. Further, Dillingham samples yielded some of the lowest ash contents of the entire Alaska program. The influence of drainage on fuel peat quality becomes apparent with a comparison of sites D-2 and D-3, located within 100 yards of each other in the same peat province (Figure 30). D-3, however, was close to the banks of the primary drainage of the peatland. The heating values at similar depths for D-2 and D-3 were 9308 and 6200, respectively. Similarly, measured ash contents are 9.3% at D-2 and 35.1% at D-3. C. Kodiak Four samples were obtained from sites on the northeastern side of Kodiak Island (Figure 31). Due to an especially difficult access, all sample sites were located near the ocean. In the field, volcanic ash deposits were noted throughout the peat strata; in the Kodiak Island samples, similar chemical analyses of the samples show ash contents of 18 to 49 percent. Mineral soil was found at the sites within 7 feet of the ground surface. D. Kenai Peninsula East The eastern half of the Kenai Peninsula is covered by the ice-scoured landtype associated with the Kenai Mountains. The ice-scoured pattern can be seen in the aerial photograph southeast of site KEN-2 (Figure 33) on the west bank of the inflowing river. However, no laboratory results have yet been received from this area. Three sample sites were located along the Seward Highway (Figure 32). E. Kenai Peninsula West Two exploration sites are located in the lowland area of the western Kenai Peninsula (Figure 34). An aerial photograph of the land adjacent to the highway, 1.5 miles northeast of Soldotna, typifies meandering stream and black spruce lowlands of the region (Figure 35). The area surrounding KEN-4 was burned in 1947 in a fire that burned off the majority of surficial peat. A 1969 fire boundary borders the wetland of sample site KEN-5. F. Fairbanks A Fairbanks firm sells peat for local horticultural use (Figure 36). A front end loader is used to harvest the peat from a 12 foot deposit over a clay hardpan. Botha fibric and hemic peat are visible in the cut made by the equipment, with the dividing line appearing roughly at a depth of 4 feet. No chemical analysis results have been received to date for this site. 4334 NI Hid3d 375 750 1-2 N25 STATION 1-3 GROUND SURFACE O.M: 71 Mois:91 0.M:82% : Mois.:89% Or DEPTH OF PEAT BTU: 4714 OM: 51% Mois:87% 1500 1875 2250 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure 22. Bog Cross-Section Kettle 2 — Transect 1 BEGINNING OF SPRUCE ISLAND 2625 3000 3150 6e 4334 NI Hid30 STATION O.M.:83 % Mois:89% OM: 80% B.D: 236 CECH23 - 0.243% Mols.:80% t + i 375 750 25 1500 1725 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure 23. Bog Cross-Section Kettle 2 — Transect 3 1334 NI HidS0 10—— STATION 3-2 a GROUND SURFACE se eg M7: Mois:81 % DEPTH OF PEAT al 25-1275 375 750 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure 24. Bog Cross-Section Rogers Creek — Transect 3 Ly 41334 NI Hid3a 3 t a | T mI N 1-2 STATION 1-3 1-4 -5 1-6 1-7 a + =a DATA y GROUND SURFACE aT OF PEAT Vi Yh aa 750 i } i 25 1500 1875 DISTANCE IN FEET | 2250 Figure 25. Bog Cross-Section am t 2625 3000 Nancy Lake East — N.E. Transect 1 a1. 3375 -4— 3750 1-8 1-9 4125 4312.5 ey 1334 NI Hlda0 1s + itl 23 +++ 0 375 0.M.:79 % Mois:83% 0.M.:69% Mois. :81% 3-2 STATION GROUND SUR LN DEPTH OF PEAT 750 — 1125 TTT 1500 1875 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure 26. Bog Cross-Section Nancy Lake East — N.E. Transect 3 1 2250 2625 3000 3375 Sample Sites 3 z : 3 g X g z IN MILES SCALE Nk SCALE IN YARDS ms ——— ee 0 350 700 Figure 28. King Salmon Naknek Sample Sites Figure 29. Dillingham IN MILES SCALE Figure 30. Dillingham MAGNETIC 281 Gear Fs 7 Ree | «| ES Be Sponet * nar Cs ERVAT ; Seo, f ong Islan} BEE RY ATION eee O70 Legs anaing Bisty 2563] f ~ Ofd Womens Min & Mtn \e. Kashevaroft Re, ex ee VW ea! vy fe. fess Boyer ho ne 2 1 he Slope eak ro Sacral ail? Peak Figure 31. Kodiak: Sample Sites SCALE IN MILES 0. 5 10 47 Figure 32. Kenai Peninsula East: Sample Sites SCALE IN MILES SSeS 48 0 5 10 2 Figure 33. Kenai Peninsula East 49 vo B38 : al 9 Ce a [yg rae > 0 Sprice Ju [Mink cverk rs) es) OS 9 A Gob) / Qo 2 2 YL Forest >a ff — > coter2— 9 ythele Lake Caf a ~ Lake?,/ Q 37 4 ee ha (“Lakes in kh § alos af wSalamatof Lake _ Mp pinto) pL? a LL Phe Vy OU Be Ox Lh ot on St Bah ss 7g) TST er. u 5 pris Salamatof | Salamato Miltary Pr RESERVATION ct as 1 eo . a ey Elephants; 00 L ~, Lake We < ‘GAS sure 4 BD sseixGngntn : i 2 Paks 2 aoe ye, Naptowne all aia \Speianaing Ot \ Salmo Rock dywarten \ fey, Btaaaserec\ Figure 34. Kenai Peninsula West: Sample Sites SCALE IN MILES Sse 0 5 10 SCALE IN. FEET SSS 350 700 Figure 35. Kenai Peninsula West Sterling Highway, 1.5 miles N.E. of Soldotna SCALE IN MILES ys Figure 36. Fairbanks 52 4.3 Fuel Peat Probability Provinces Fuel Peat Model — Analytical Data Each study site was characterized within the framework of the physical and analytical modeling Properties described in Section 3.7. Each column in the model development tables (Appendix 2) is headed by a site number which can be located on the enclosed site maps. Shown at the base of each column is an average of the analytical data received for peat samples taken at each site. The heating value of the peat samples is expressed as Btu/Ib of moisture free peat. Moisture content is expressed as a percentage of the moisture weight relative to the as received sample weight. The heating values of the samples submitted for analysis ranged from a low of 3702 Btu/Ib for Mile 196 site (MO-5-3) to 9308 Btu/Ib for Dillingham D-2. The variance reflects the wide diversity of energy values to be expected in Alaska and also indicates the need to carefully sample potential energy development sites. High ash contents (57% for MO-5-3) of some of the samples may be traced to some samples being taken from near the zone of peat/mineral soil transition. These high ash values result in especially low heating values. The average heating value of all samples taken is 6710 Btu/Ib; the median is 7225 Btu/Ib. Higher values are expected from samples taken nearer the surface of a given fuel peat deposit than from those taken nearer than the peat/mineral soil interface. Moisture contents for the study sites average 80%, with a high of 89% (MO-5-3) and a low for all augered sites of 55% (MO-3-25). No consistent trend was seen for moisture content variation with depth. This probably is a reflection of climatological influence on water table position at any given time and the variation of peat type and percent organic matter through a profile. The ash content of the peat samples, as reflected in the heating values, covers a broad range from a low of 9% (D-2) to 84% (RC-7-25). Again, the unusually high values often reflect samples taken near or in the transition to the mineral subsoil. At some sites, however, strata of mineral soil were found scattered through the peat column. In Kodiak and the Bristol Bay Region these pockets suggested volcanic origin. At interior locations and in the Susitna Valley, wind deposited loess or water deposited mineral contamination could add substantially to the mineral fraction present in the organic soil. Province Delineation A. Model Application After detailed study of the data as presented in the model development tables (Appendix 2), general trends of fuel peat occurrence in Alaska became evident. It is well known that peat becomes established in areas of high moisture. In Alaska the position of the water table is a reflection of the influence of the local geology on ground water conditions derived from either current or historic climatological events. This geological influence in non-permafrost areas is shown in the presence of fine grained alluvial or lacustrine sediments found most frequently underlying peatlands. In the Southeastern panhandle, however, the high water table conducive to peat development is found either on marine terraces or as groundwater perched on near-surface bedrock. Essentially, all areas of Alaska can provide the moisture necessary for peat development. The coastal climate is wet and cool temperatures reduce evaporation rates. In the drier interior and northern climates the further reduction in average annual temperature indicates that much of the annual precipitation is tied up in snow form and introduced to a peatland primarily in the spring meltwater. The most common peatland ecosystem in Alaska is the lowland spruce/hardwood ecosystem. Organic soils and surficial peats are found in the 7 systems listed in the model development tables. It becomes apparent during data analysis that much more field work needs to be done before vegetation and ecosystem types can be used reliably to predict depth or quality characteristics of Alaskan fuel peat deposits. Surficial peats are found in about one-third of the acreage of the state; however, study results predict that fuel grade peats cover a significantly smaller area. Contrary to indications found in the literature, the deep peats found in infilled depressions (Mile 55 Kettles) did not yield high fuel values. This was primarily due to high ash content noted in the sites examined in detail. It is suspected that a significant amount of mineral soil was introduced into the peat at these sites by the position of the bog as a sink for drainage water from adjacent hills. In contrast, the high heating value and low ash of the D-2 peat is located in the center of a treeless area of flat topography with a well defined stream along the wetland margin draining both the peatland and the surrounding, higher land. Peats have been described on hillsides as steep as 50% (Heilman, 1966). These are usually characterized by shallow peat deposits and are not expected to be of fuel grade. No field study sites were located on gradients greater than 10%. Moss hummocks and grass tussocks develop in areas of shallow water table and become more mat- like with increasing wetness. Deep peats were not found in any of the study areas that had moss hummocks. Fuel Peat Probability Provinces Based on model development and literature derived descriptions of peat occurrences in Alaska (Supplementery Map A), a large scale (1:2,500,000) map of Alaska has been prepared delineating fuel peat probability provinces (Supplementary Map B). The key to this map is two tiered: each province is coded by a letter and a number. The letters represent the amount of land area in that province covered by an organic soil, classified as high (A), medium (B) and low (C). The U.S. Department of Energy has set minimum requirements for fuel peat of five feet depth and 8300 Btu/Ib dry weight. The numbers 1, 2 and 3 indicate the decreasing probability that the organic soil in a province meets these requirements. This two tiered system adds a necessary refinement to fuel peat prediction on a state-wide basis. For example, the soils on the islands at the end of the Aleutian Chain are primarily organic, but the peat’s shallow depth and high ash content derived from recent vulcanism restrict its use for fuel peat, thereby placing the islands in the province A3. Toward the other extreme, the ice scoured land types of the eastern Kenai Peninsula has very few peatlands, but the existent peat has a high probability of meeting fuel peat criteria. This province is therefore denoted as C2. A review of the fuel peat map makes it possible to determine areas that may deserve priority during subsequent, more detailed inventory efforts. Categories C3, C2, B3 and A3 fall into this area of lower priority. C3 defines the glaciated mountain areas of the state that support little soil of any kind. Some organic soils may be found in B3 but they will be either shallow, undecomposed or too high in ash content to meet fuel grade criteria. Peat deposits in a C2 area will be small in volume and widely scattered, and may well require more energy to develop than they could offer. A3 areas, such as the Aleutians, have the moisture needed to accumulate organic soil, but this soil will not meet fuel peat requirements for depth. The total acreage of these four non-fuel peat categories is 235 million acres. In addition to the Aleutians, this grouping includes the eastern side of Bristol Bay, a large section of interior Alaska in the smaller mountain ranges that border major river valleys, the lowland parts of the Seward Peninsula, the eastern coast of Norton Sound and the broad belt of the Brooks Range across the northern part of the state. The three intermediate categories of C1, B2 and A2 deserve further attention in terms of predictive model development and area specific analysis before fuel peat development is proposed. Better definition of peat depth and ash content in this area of 125 million acres can be gained through additional field work and further study of the peat development model. Included in this group are most of the Southeastern panhandle, the broad valleys of the Copper and Tanana Rivers, the Dillingham area of Bristol Bay, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, the upper Kuskokwim Valley, the upper Yukon River and the north slope. Broad marine shelves in Southeastern Alaska and lowlands in the Southwestern section of the Kenai Peninsula and the Susitna Valley have been determined to be the high probability fuel peat areas in Alaska. These areas are designated A1 and B1 on Supplementary Map B. Total acreage for these areas is 5.5 million acres. The northwestern part of the Kenai Peninsula has been heavily burned in a series of fires since 1890, therefore, peat depths are shallower than in the area outside of the burned areas. The field data shows that all areas in the Susitna Valley will not yield high grade fuel peat. This demonstrates the need for thoughtful interpretation of the probability map. The field survey sites were chosen as representative of different physical conditions that were expected to affect peat development. Location of fuel peat in the A1 and B1 areas demands more than random selection of a potential fuel peat development site. The data presented in this report will serve as an aid in the prediction of fuel peat occurrences, quantity, and quality in Alaska. 5. CONCLUDING STATEMENT This data and background report were prepared to present the results of initial efforts to inventory the occurrences of fuel grade peat in Alaska. Due to the immense size of the state, over 365 million acres, and the magnitude of the area covered by potentially useful peat, in excess of 100 million acres, this first effort was necessarily less refined in terms of detailed site specific analyses. However, the information gathered, and presented herein, is sufficient to indicate that Alaska does indeed contain a considerable fuel peat resource. Additionally, much of the currently available technology is directly applicable to the utilization of fuel grade peat in Alaska. The economic reality of fuel peat utilization in Alaska will, however, depend heavily on the results of subsequent study efforts. Several options are available for examination relative to the continued exploration of Alaskan fuel peat utilization. Some of these options are: 1. Refine the state-wide predictive model through more detailed site specific analyses. 2. Preselect only the highest potential occurrence and utilization areas as indicated in the results of this inventory for very detailed on-site analyses. 3. Bring current technology to bear on peat utilization wherever possible in bush Alaska using the existing data base. 4. Bring current technology to bear on the problem of peat utilization in Alaska’s urban areas using the existing data base. A combination of two or more of these options would enhance the development of the Alaskan resource. Further refinement of the data presented herein would be required to assess the associated technological, economic, and environmental factors to ensure the soundness of such development. APPENDIX 1 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Table of Contents Peat Classification Site types Development of peatlands Peat in Alaska Soil surveys Water surveys Specific studies Alaska resource maps Peat — Chemical Properties and Laboratory Analyses U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs Maine Michigan Minnesota a. General reports and summaries b. Specific inventories North Carolina South Carolina Non-U.S. Peat Programs Geophysical Survey Equipment and Techniques Alternative Fuels General — biomass, fuel cells, SNG Peat a. Harvesting b. Production c. Gasification d. Economics Remote Sensing; Mapping Techniques Reclamation Agricultural Forestry Environmental Issues and Impact 55 A. Peat Classification Classification of Peat and Peatlands Kivinen, E., L. Heikurainen and P. Pakarinen. 1979. Proc. International Symp. Int. Peat Society, Helsinki, 367 pp., Supplement 55 pp. Papers on classification of peats, peatland site types and peatland complex types. Peat quality and fertility of site types are discussed as well as the dynamics of peatlands. Finally, the question of conservation vs. the development and use of peatlands is discussed in general terms. References and bibliography for each of 39 papers. Environmental Effects and Preliminary Technological Assessment See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Minnesota Peat Program — Legislative Status Report See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Peat Prospectus See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Peat Resource Estimation — Project Summary See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Peat Utilization and the Red Lake Indian Reservation See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Peat See Section G (Alternative Fuels). General Theory of Inflammable Fossil Fuel Genesis Rakovsky, V., L. Pigulevskaja and E. Lukoshko. 1972. Proc. 4th International Peat Congress, V. 4, pp. 67-76. General theory of gas, oil and solid fuels developed from discussion of biogeochemical environment and chemical diagenesis of organisms which become fuel deposits. Inventory of Peat Resourses — SW St. Louis County See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Peat Resources of North Carolina — Quarterly Progress Rpt. See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Vegetation Analysis of Selected Baltrami, Koochiching and St. Louis County Peatlands by Remote Sensing Methods See Section H (Remote Sensing, Mapping Technique). Peat Cameron, Cornelia C. 1973. In United States Mineral Resources, U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 820, pp. 505- 513. Overview of peat as a resource. Classification and review of foreign and domestic peat industry. Good discussion of peat genesis and controlling fibers. References. Singleton, Richard H. 1977. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook, pp. 1-10. U.S. production and use of moss peat in 1977. Foreign trade, prices and specifications. Brief mention of fuel peat includes table of world agriculture and fuel peat production by country. Mineral Facts and Problems Mickelsen, Donald P. 1975. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667, pp. 769-780. Discussion and numerous tables of world and U.S. peat production, distribution and operations. Peat technology, current research and economic factors also considered. The Preparation and Use of Peat as a Fuel Davis, Charles A. 1909. U.S.G.S. Annual Report, pp. 101-132. Excellent general discussion of fuel peats: formation, distribution, methods of assessing deposit quality and quantity, production and harvesting techniques, and combustion processes. Cost figures very outdated but information on factors to consider and relative costs still pertinent. Discussion of Alaska throughout. B. Peat in Alaska USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys Exploratory Soil Survey of Alaska, 1979. Anchorage Area, 1979 Capital Relocation Site, 1978 Homer-Ninilchik, 1971 Kenai-Kasilof, 1962 Matanuska Valley, 1968 NE Kodiak Island, 1960 Salcha-Big Delta, 1973 Susitna Valley, 1973 Detailed descriptions of soil series and specific soil types for each area. Maps (1:31,680) accompany each report. Inventory: Watershed and Soils Michaelson, Neil E. May, 1974. Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Comm. Resource Planning Team. Arctic Region Northwest Region Southeast Region Southwest Region Yukon Region Watershed, soil permafrost and bibliography for each sub-region. Soil limitation chart for each region. types and descriptions, erosion discussion and use Peat Resources in Alaska Dachnowski-Stokes, A.P. 1941. USDA Tech. Bull. No. 769, 84 pp. Excellent summary of general features of peat deposits. Review of Alaska resources by geographical district. Outdated information on commercial utilization and harvesting methods. Properties and Distribution of Two Characteristic Peat Environments in Alaska Sellman, P.V. 1968. Proc. 3rd Int. Peat Congress, CREEL Reprint, pp. 157-162. Two peat types are described: slope and raised peat type in Southeast Alaska and flat peat type in Central Alaska. Quantitative data on the physical properties of organic material from two samples is given. Characteristics of Some Grassland, Marsh and Other Plant Communities in Western Alaska Hanson, H.C. 1951. Ecol. Monogr. 21:317-378. Kodiak, Knik hayflats, Kotzebue lowlands, upland marsh and meadow communities and upland bogs described for organic soils. Information on surface vegetation and bog stratigraphy. Vegetation and Soil Profiles in Some Solifluction and Mound Areas in Alaska Hanson, H.C. 1950. Ecology 31:606-630. Profile descriptions of peats and mineral soil in different areas of Alaska. Solifluction areas produce alternating peat and silt in profile. Field sites primarily in sedge areas. Ecosystems of the Proposed Lake Clark National Park, Alaska Racine, C.H. and S.B. Young, 1978. Contrib. Center Northern Studies, 16. Organic soils listed for three vegetation classes: black spruce/moss mat, poorly drained; white spruce/sphagnum, well drained; wet meadow. Factors Influencing Discontinuous Permafrost Brown, R.J.E. 1969. In The Periglacial Environment: Past and Present, T.L. Pewe, ed. Mcgill-Queens Univ. Press, Montreal, pp. 11-53 Composition and Genesis of the Organic Soils of Amchitka Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska Everett, K.R. 1971. Arctic and Alpine Research 3:1-16. Soils analysis and description from Amchitka Island. Very high ash content from volcanic activity. Fibric and hemic peats to 2 meters. Vegetation-Soil Relationships Along a Spruce Forest Transect in Interior Alaska Dyrness, C.T. and D.F. Grigal, 1979. Can. J. Bot. 57:2644-2656 Soils primarily silt loam on loess parent material. Washington Creek Fire Ecology Experimental Area is described by vegetation-slope zones. Organics <0.5 meters. Landscape Relationships of Soils and Vegetation in the Forest-Tundra Ecotone, Upper Firth River Valley, Alaska-Canada Drew, J.V. and R.E. Shanks. 1965. Ecol. Monogr. 35:285-306 Four soil systems contain organics: spruce woodland terrace, spruce forest terrace, peaty 57 \ high center polygons and bog meadow- strangmor. Patterns controlled by land surface age, soil drainage, snow cover, soil reaction and microrelief. Vegetation Pattern of Bottomland Bogs in the Fairbanks Area, Alaska Calmes, M.A. 1976. University of Alaska, M.S. Thesis. 104 pp. The Forest Bog Complex of Southeast Alaska Neiland, B.J. 1971. Vegetation 22:1-64. Change in Distribution and Availability of N, With Forest Succession on North Slopes in Interior Alaska. Heilman, P.E. 1966. Ecology 47:327-374. Vegetation of the Prince William Sound Region, Alaska, with a Brief Excursion into Post-Pleistocene Climatic History. Cooper, WS. 1942. Ecol. Monogr. 12:1-22. Two types of tundra are described: empetrum heath and carex bog. Bog soils are found in Columbia Bay, College Fiord and Blackstone Bay. Phenomenon of steep-sided bog pools described. Wildfire in the Taiga of Alaska Vierick, L.A. 1973. J. Quat. Res. 3:465-495. Some Raised Bogs of Southeastern Alaska with Notes on Flat Bogs and Muskegs Rigg, G.B. 1937. Amer. J. Bot. 24:194-198. Detailed description of raised bogs near Juneau, Ketchikan and Admiralty Island. Different peat layers are profiled and discussed in relation to surface characteristics. Comparison of bog, muskeg and forest made on five points: contours, trees, undershrubs, herbs and sphagnum. Relation of Vegetation to Some Soils in Southeastern Alaska Stevens, M.E. 1965. In C.T. Youngberg, ed. Forest Soil Relationships in North America. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp. 177-188. Kina, Maybeso and Peratovitch soils may be distinguished by depth of organic accumulation and surface vegetation. Brief discussion of characteristics of the three soils. The Prepapration of Peat as a Fuel See Section A (Peat Classification). Surficial Geology of Alaska Karlstrom, Thor N.V. et.a/. 1964. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 1-357. Permafrost Map of Alaska Ferrians, Oscar J. Jr. 1965. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map |-445. Major Ecosystems of Alaska Joint Fed.-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska. 1973. United States Geological Survey. C. Peat Chemical Laboratory Analyses Classification of Peat and Peatlands See Section A (Peat Classification). Analysis of Minnesota Peat for Possible Industrial Chemical Use Fuchsman, Charles H. 1978. Minn. Dept. Nat. Resources Peat Program, Progress Rpt. No. 5, Sec. |. Methods of chemical analyses and results for % bitumens, % ash, and % phosphorus are presented. Minnesota Peat Program Progress Report No. 6 See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Properties and Peat Prospectus See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Properties and Distribution of Two Characteristic Peat Environments in Alaska See Section B (Peat in Alaska). Peat Resources of North Carolina — Quarterly Progress Rpt. See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). The Use of Peat for District Heating See Section G (Alternative Fuels). » General Theory of Inflammable Fossil Fuel Genesis See Section A (Peat Classification). D. U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs Peat Prospectus U.S. Department of Energy. July 1979. A comprehensive technical information document on various aspects of energy applications of peat. Peat See Section G (Alternative Fuels). Maine’s Peat Resource Evaluation Program: Project Summary Davis, Joel and Walter Anderson. 1979. 12 pp. General description of inventory program by study tasks: (1) economic geology, (2) hydrology, (3) geochemistry and trace elements and (4) regeneration, climate and ecosystem. Peat Resource Estimation in Michigan Merra, Principal Investigators. March 1978. Task breakdown for year 1. Environmental Effects and Preliminary Technological Assessment Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission and Minesota Dept. of Nat. Resources. December, 1976. Peat Program, Final Report of Phase I. 58 Discussion of technology transfer program. Mapping and inventory of peat environments in Minnesota. Scenarios with different technologies of large scale development. Policy evaluation. Energy Policy and Conservation Report Minnesota Energy Agency, 1978. 3 pp. Technological development, impacts, costs and supply of peat as a non-renewable resource. Analysis of Minnesota Peat for Possible Industrial Chemical Use See Section C (Peat — Chemical Properties and Laboratory Analyses). Minnesota Peat Program Progress Report No. 6 Minnesota Dept. of Nat. Resources, April, 1979. 33 pp. Water resources and animal use of peatlands. Agricultural reclamation research results from soils laboratory and greenhouse studies and field studies at Wilderness Valley farms. Short progress reports on forestry reclamation, remote sensing and chemical analyses of peatlands. Minnesota Peat Program — Legislative Status Report Minnesota Dept. Nat. Resources, April, 1979. 148 pp. (1) Peatland environment, (2) Socioeconomics, (3) Peat utilization options, (4) Reclamation, (5) Peatland policy, (6) Public relations, (7) Related activities. Minnesota Peat Program — Policy Report Minnesota Dept. Nat. Resources, April, 1979, 38 pp. Brief description of project purpose, previous inventory, estimated costs, radar use and lab analyses. Presentation of peat classification system used in project. Peat Utilization and the Red Lake Indian Reservation Walter Butler Co. for Minn. Dept. Nat. Resources. 1978. 192 pp. Types and uses of peat in district. Short discussion of harvesting methods. Impact of use on water, land, air and natural resources. Glossary. Good Bibliography. Inventory of Peat Resources — Southwest St. Louis County Olson, D.J., T.J. Malterer, D.R. Mellem, B. Leuelling and E.J. Tome. 1979. Minn. Dept. Nat. Resources. Evolution and geologic setting of peat deposits. Map of area. Methods and results of inventory. Peat Resources of North Carolina — Quarterly Progress Rpt. Otte, Lee J. and Roy L. Ingram. 1979. 43 pp. Brief description of each peat deposit: topo- graphy, drainage, vegetation, peat distribution and composition and chemical analyses. Peat Resource Estimation in South Carolina — First Quarterly Rot. Energy Research Institute, October, 1979. 25 pp. Description of accomplishments to date for four tasks: (1) review existing data and prioritize areas to be surveyed, (2) identify sampling procedures and strategy, (3) procurement of equipment and supplies and (4) field surveys and maps. State agencies and legislation relevant to peat mining. New Look at an Ancient Energy Source See Section G (Alternative Fuels). E. Non-U.S. Peat Programs A Report on European Peat Technology Minnesota Dept. of Nat. Resources, May, 1976, 48 pp. Information gathered from a technical study trip arranged by Midwest Research Institute. Methods of harvesting, energy production and peatland reclamation in Finland, Soviet Union, Ireland and Scotland are presented. Photographs. Classification of Peat and Peatlands See Section A (Peat Classification). Peat Moss: A Natural Absorbent for Oil Spills D'Hennezel, F. and B. Coupal. 1972. Canadian Inst. Mining Metals Bulletin, 65(717):51-3. Laboratory and field experiments show that peat moss is an effective oil absorbent for beach raking and containment of oil slicks on water. Finnish Energy Planning Emphasizes Cogeneration Eskola, Erkki. 1976. Energy International, 16(2):24-26. Combined production of energy in Finland. Concludes that industrial back pressure power is most profitable. Other powers considered: district heat, nuclear condensation and coal condensation. F. Geophysical Survey — Equipment and Techniques Geophysics in the Study of Permafrost Scott, W.J., P.V. Sellmann and J.A. Hunter. 1978. 3rd Int. Conf. of Permafrost, Edmonton. 23 pp. Review of permafrost geophysical techniques: electrical, electromagnetic, seismo-acoustic and others. Emphasis on North American literature and experience. Extensive bibliography. Inspection of Concrete Runway Aprons at Nas, Brunswick, Maine Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc., Final Rpt., Dec. 7, 1979, 13 pp. The use of ground-penetrating radar to locate voids under runway concrete. Methodology of radar use, survey description and data 59 interpretation. Sample chart of radar recordings which shows voids. G. Alternative Fuels Utility Fuel Cells for Biomass Fuel Lindstrom, O., et al. 1978. SAE 13th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conf., V. 2, pp. 1178- 1184. Description of fuel cell system and catalyst research and development. Methane Delivery System: A Major Energy Asset Luntley, Eugene H. and B.L. Liebler. SAE 13th Intersociety Energy Cong., V. 2, pp. 1412-1419. Conventional and non-conventional methane supplies: availability, process and economics. Section on peat as a source of synthetic natural gas. Role of Synthetics in Future U.S. Gas Supply Schora, Frank C. 1978. Pipeline Industry 49:3, 5 pp. Production processes for synthetic natural gas. Peat as a potential fuel source. Energy: Plan to Use Peat as Fuel Stirs Concern in Minnesota Boffey, Phillip M. 1975. Science 190:1066-1070. General overview of peat as a fuel resource in Minnesota. Peat for Fuel: Development Pushed by Big Corporate Farm in Carolina Carter, Luther J. 1977. Science 199(6):33-4 Good, brief historical overview of First Colony Farm in Carolina and Minnegasco efforts in Minnesota. New Look at an Ancient Energy Source Gorham, Eville and Douglas C. Pratt. 1978. Ag. World 4(6):1-4. General article on pros and cons of peat energy. Insert on First Colony Farms. Use of Peat for Energy Farnham, R. 1978. In Increased Energy from Biomass: 1985 Possibilities and Problems. Proc. Pacific NW Bioconversion Workshop, pp. 61-2. Workshop deals primarily with farm residue and wood waste applications. General summary of peat as fuel source. The Use of Peat for District Heating Lunny, Frank. June, 1977. Energy Digest 6(2):20-21. Characteristics of turf fuel. Description of a boiler for turf firing. Special storage and handling needs. Gas From Peat — A Good Source of Heat Punwani, D.V. and A.M. Rader. 1978. Hydrocarbon Processing 57:4(107-113). Experimental tests of peat gasification. Discussion of optimum conditions for hydrogasification and char gasification. Utilizing Peat as a Fuel — Feasibility Study Ekono, Inc. 1978. For Minn. Dept. Nat. Resource, 28 pp. + 14 app. Economic analysis for plant conversion of 4 potential industrial peat users in Minnesota. Direct Combustion of Peat for Electric Power Generation Leppa, Kalevi. 1979. For the Executive Conf. on Management Assessment of Peat as an Energy Resource. Addresses handling and combustion problems, equipment and design parameters, and the costs of peat-fired generating plants. Classification of Peat and Peatlands See Section A (Peat Classification). Peat Bodle, William W., D.V. Punwani and M.C. Mensinger. 1978. Chemtech 8(9):559-563. Peat formation and classification. World peat resources. Methods of harvest and production. Recent developments. Peat Prospectus See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Peat Resources in Alaska See Section B (Peat in Alaska). Environmental Effects and Preliminary Technological Assessment See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Energy Policy and Conservation Report See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Minnesota Peat Program — Legislative Status Report See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Peat Utilization and the Red Lake Indian Reservation See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Energy Crops for Ireland Lalor, Eamon. 1977. Sunworld, No. 3, pp. 19-21. Proposal for Irish program to grow and utilize energy crops. Discussion of photosynthetic efficiencies and the conversion of energy crops and organic wastes to heat. Institute of Gas Technology: 1979 Annual Report Chicago, Illinois. 37 pp. Emphasis on synfuels production and gasification studies. Also, discusses fuel cells, electro chemical programs, solar energy and hydrogen production. Gas Developments Corporation: 1978 Annual Report Chicago, Illinois, 10 pp. Report of programs and consulting services. More sell than information. Gascope: Institute of Gas Technology Spring, 1978, No. 42. 1. Hydroretorting process 2. The gas option — cost analysis of coal gasification vs. electricity generation Peat: Second Largest U.S. Fossil Fuel Resource Institute of Gas Technology, Winter 1977-78, No. 41, p. 2-4. Report of IGT peat gasification research design and results Peat for Power Othmer, Donald F. 1978. Combustion 50(2):44-47. Wet air oxidation (WAO) unit described for peat fuel. Cost comparision of WAO unit with a coal field boiler unit. Basic Gasification Studies for Development of Biomass Medium-Btu Gasification Processes Rensfelt, E., et a/. 1978. Institute of Gas Technology Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Wastes, p. 465-494. Pyrolysis and gasification laboratory experiments at atmospheric pressure with biomass and peat. Comparison of kinetic data for 6 reactants. Energy and Economic Comparisons of Native and Imported Peat Fluck, Richard C. and Lawrence N. Shaw. 1976. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 89:309-311. Costs and the direct and indirect energy requirements to deliver Canadian peat to Florida nurseries are compared with the costs and energy required by 2 systems to deliver and pasteurize Florida peat to the nurseryman. Liquefaction of Coal and Related Materials Oelert, Hans-Henning and Rolf Siekmann. 1976. Fuel. Vol. 55, pp. 39-42. Conversion of coal, lignite, peat and recent biogenic materials into heavy fuel oils or chemical feedstocks. Experiments use molecular hydrogen in the liquefaction step. Results include conversion, yield, elemental analysis, H/C and O/C ratios. SNG Production from Peat Punwani, D.V., 1977. 9th Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, pp. 255-274. State-of-the-art of peat gasification and status of the ERDA/Minnegasco peat gasification program initiated in July 1976. Synthetic Natural Gas from Peat Punwani, D.V., et a/., 1978. A.G.A. Monthly 60(2):pp.20- 24. SNG production better alternative that peat used as direct fuel source. ERDA/Minnegasco program for peat gasification in laboratory and process development unit scale equipment. Experiment results and Schematic gasifier design. The Mining of Peat — A Canadian Energy Resource Montreal Engineering Company, Ltd. 1978. REview of the physical and chemical nature of fuel peat, the climatic conditions conducive to conventional mining techniques and the various methods and equipment currently employed for the different stages of mining, transport, and storage of peat. Suggests certain variations on these techniques which would be suitable for use in Canada. Develops preliminary mining plans for two specific fuel peat deposits in New Brunswick and Quebec and calculates mining costs for traditional techniques. Finally, reviews the current technology for hydraulic mining and mechanical dewatering and reports the results of recent tests. The Preparation of Peat as a Fuel See Secton A (Peat Classification). Muskeg Engineering Handbook MacFarlane, Ivan C., ed. 1979. University of Toronto Press by Muskeg Subcommittee of the NRC, Assoc. Comm. on Geotechnical Research Engineering significance of muskeg. Peat structure, Radforth classification, airphoto interpretation. Engineering concerns. Many photos, charts, diagrams. Excellent for anyone considering construction or field work in muskeg areas. H. Remote Sensing, Mapping Techniques Vegetation Analysis of Selected Beltrami, Koochiching and St. Louis County Peatlands by Remote Sensing Methods Hagen, R. and M. Meyer. 1978. Minnesota Dept. Nat. Resources Progress Rpt. No. 5, Sec. H. Air mapping methods and classification of vegetation from photos. Classification of Peat and Peatlands See Section A (Peat Classification). Environmental Effects and Preliminary Technological Assessment See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Minnesota Peat Program Progress Report No. 6 See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Inventory of Peat Resources — SW St. Louis County See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). 61 |. Reclamation Agricultural Reclamation of Peatlands Farnham, Rouse S. 1978. Minn. Dept. Nat. Resources Progress Rpt. No. 5, Sec. F. Description of bed preparation of grass plots in mined area. Importance of proper site preparation stressed. The Influence of Lime and Nitrogen Fertilization on the Yield and Nitrogen Uptake of Napier Grass on Malaysian Peat Soil Chew, WY., K.T. Joseph and K. Ramli. 1975. MARDI Research Bull. 4:2(43-50). Experimental evidence on effect of lime in increasing the availability of nitrogen to the grass crop. Minnesota Peat Program — Legislative Status Report See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Minnesota Peat Program Progress Report No. 6 See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). New Look at an Ancient Energy Source See Section G (Alternative Fuels). Peat Prospectus See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). J. Environmental Issues and Impact Preliminary Evaluation of Environmental Issues on the Use of Peat as an Energy Source King, R. et. al, UOP/SDC, McLean, Virginia, March 14, 1980. Presents an overview of peat development. Then identifies the environmental issues of peat development and examines these issues in 10 geographic regions of the U.S. where peat could be developed. Hydrological Factors of Peat Harvesting Brooks, K.N., College of Forestry, University of Minnesota, 1978, 36 pp. Describes the hydrologic characteristics of ombrotrophic and minerotrophic natural peatlands in terms of water yield and water quality. Six methods of peat harvesting and their hydrologic impacts on the water resources are discussed. Environmental Effects and Preliminary Technological Assessment See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). Peat Prospectus See Section D (U.S. Peat Evaluation Programs). APPENDIX 2 MODEL DEVELOPMENT Susitna Valley Remote Sites Alaskan Cities and Villages 62 Model Development SUSITNA VALLEY Permafrost Continuous (near surface) Discontinuous Seasonal Frost Surficial Geology Glacial Till, Drift, Moraine Lacustrine Sediments Marine Sediments Alluvium Aeolian Bedrock/Rubble Climatic Data Mean Annual Temp (°F) Thawing index (x100) Freezing index (x100) Mean Ann. Precipitation (Inches) Mean Ann. Snowfall (Inches) S888 Ecosystem Coastal Hemlock/Spruce Moist & Wet Tundra High Brush Upland Spruce/Hardwood Lowland Spruce/Hardwood Low Brush/Muskeg Bottomland Spruce/Poplar Physlography and Geomorphology Valley Occupied by Stream Closed Basin Plateaulike Dome on Gentle Surface Ponds Developed in Moss Peat Coalesced Domes over Large Deposit Forest Floor Vegetation Hemlock/spruce/shrubs Open-Sphagnum Sphagnum/Scattered Spruce Thicket Heath/Scrub Heath Grass Slope and Microtopography Flat, Smooth Rolling Hummocks Hillside (slope %) Analytical Data (average through peat profile) BTU (x100) Moisture Content (%) Ash Content (%) Known Fire History Model Development REMOTE SITES Permafrost Continuous (near surface) Discontinuous Seasonal Frost Surficlal Geology Glacial Till, Drift, Moraine Lacustrine Sediments Marine Sediments Alluvium Aeolian Bedrock/Rubble Climatic Data Mean Annual Temp (°F) Thawing index (x100) Freezing index (x100) Mean Ann. Precipitation (Inches) Mean Ann. Snowfall (Inches) Ecosystem Coastal Hemlock/Spruce Moist & Wet Tundra High Brush Upland Spruce/Hardwood Lowland Spruce/Hardwood Low Brush/Muskeg Bottomland Spruce/Poplar Physlography and Geomorphology Valley Occupied by Stream Closed Basin Plateaulike Dome on Gentle Surface Ponds Developed in Moss Peat Coalesced Domes over Large Deposit Forest Floor Vegetation Hemlock/spruce/shrubs Open-Sphagnum Sphagnum/Scattered Spruce Thicket Heath/Scrub Heath Grass Slope and Microtopography Flat, Smooth Rolling Hummocks Hillside (slope %) Analytical Data (average through peat profile) BTU (x100) Moisture Content (%) Ash Content (%) Known Fire History Model Development € e S/ax/eo/8&/s o/ F/ x / F/ @ 2 ALASKAN CITIES AND VILLAGES £/)€/ F/ €/ &/ 8/¥/ &/ §/ 8/ E/E S/S ESS SL E/ SS EL SL ES EL S/F Permatrost Continuous (near surface) Discontinuous * * * * * * * * * Seasonal Frost * * * * * | Surficlal Geology Glacial Till, Drift, Moraine * * Lacustrine Sediments * * Marine Sediments * * * Alluvium * * * * * * Aeolian * * Bedrock/Rubble * * * Climatic Data Mean Annual Temp (°F) 32} 30} 25] 23] 33] 25] 28] 32) 40] 25] 28] 41 Thawing index (x100) 26} 25; 25] 30} 30] 30} 30) 25! 30} 30} 30] 40 Freezing index (x100) 22/ 35} 55] 53) 15] 57} 45! 20] <1] 55] 35) 2 Mean Ann. Precipitation (Inches) 24) 19] 14] 11] 24] 12] 11] 20] 60] 12] 16} 80 Mean Ann. Snowfall (Inches) 70} 55] 50} 50/100} 50} 50} 50] 55] 50] 50/100 APPENDIX 3 PERMAFROST CONSIDERATIONS The majority, 85 million acres, of Alaska’s peatland lies well within areas where permafrost is present in some degree. Additionally, a significant portion of the population very likely to utilize peat as a fuel source also resides within the permafrost areas of the state. The utilizaiton of peat resources in permafrost areas need not be precluded by the presence of frozen soil conditions; however, certain physical factors will have a strong influence on the economically successful and environmentally acceptable harvest and utilization of peat from permafrost zones. The intent of this Appendix is to present only a brief summary of some of the pertinent physical considerations relative to peat harvesting in permafrost. The legal and social implication are left to other reporters. Any disturbance, natural or man-made, to the existing thermal regime in a permafrost zone will result in a change in physical conditons. It is the degree of that change which influences its economic or environmental acceptability. Additionally, change may be accommodated through mitigation measures that are designed to minimize the effect of the altered physical conditions. Evaluaton of the degree of change to be expected as a result of peat harvesting activities in permafrost Zones is dependent upon the following basic physical parameters: Freezing index (and freezing season duration). Thawing index (and thawing season duration). Average annual ambient air temperature. Precipitation (in form and amount). Surface and ground water drainage conditions. Soil variables: (1) Dry density (2) Water content (3) Thermal conductivity (4) Grain size distribution (5) Surface cover It is seen that most of the variables presented above are thermal in nature. All also have a decided influence on the mechanical behaviors of frozen soils. For example, freezing and thawing of soils will cause density and water content changes; frost penetration into fine grained soils will cause moisture migration, thus changing density and water content; and thawing will result in drainage of coarse grained soils, thus once again precipitating changes in density and water content. These changes in density and water content of soils are directly reflected in such mechanical behavior variables as permeability, shear strength, compressive strength and consolidation or thaw “MOODY settlement characteristics. These behavior variables in turn influence costs relative to surface and subsurface drainage, sizing equipment for excavation purposes and mitigation of surface subsidence effects.* A basic equation used in the first estimates of frost or thaw penetration in frozen or thawed soils is: 48 Kl X=mQ _ eq. (1) where: depth of frost or thaw penetration thermal conductivity dependent on the grain size, density and water content air freezing or thawing index a surface cover factor latent heat of fusion of the soil at initial density and water content conditions a function of ambient air tempera- ture conditions and soil specific heat capacity at initial density and water content conditions. It can be seen from this rather simple equation that there is a strong integral relationship between the thermal and mechanical properties of soils. The clearest understanding of the relative importance of each variable is essential to the analysis and presentation of both physical and economic reality. There are indeed many more complex techniques for analyzing phase change and the consequent physical changes in frozen or thawed soils; however, this simple equation is sufficient to make the point that experienced professional judgement is required to avoid significant errors of omission. An additional point relevant to harvesting and processing costs is that harvesting of frozen peat will require more physical energy and, therefore, cost to achieve disaggregation. Additionally, the added cost of harvesting frozen material may well pale in the light of the added costs associated with providing the latent heat of fusion as well as the latent heat of vaporization necessary to the thawing and drying process, especially at remote sites. Wout *Temperature changes alone will also influence the mechanical behavior of frozen soils; however, the gross changes that occur as a result of phase composition change are much more significant from both the physical and economic viewpoint. 66 Harvest areas in permafrost zones might typically include the following conditions: 1. Warm, discontinuous permafrost. 2. Short, but warm summer season. 3. Peat depth equal to ten feet. 4. Underlying mineral soil consisting of fine grained ice rich silt of low dry density. The two primary considerations are: (1) what are the physical limitations on harvest, and (2) how much of the deposit is available for harvest. Harvesting of frozen peat can occur throughout the year provided sufficiently large equipment is available to economically disaggregate and stockpile the frozen material. However, the harvest site should be kept clear of snow so as not to risk the addition of unwanted, excess moisture to product stockpile prior to processing. Snow will tend to stay frozen in the stockpile throughout the summer season due to the relatively low thermal conductivity of the peat material. It will not be possible to excavate all of the organic material without incurring significant thawing of the underlying mineral soil. Therefore, a buffer layer having a thickness in excess of the calculated “X” value from equation (1) for thaw penetration will be necessary to prevent thawing of the permafrost. Further, such a layer will at least in part be required to establish restoration. This rather simple scenario presents only a cursory view of the interdependence of thermal and physical Parameters. Other conditions that would warrant attention are special equipment requirements, drainage and site access. It is expected that more complex on-site conditions would be identified on a more site-specific basis. This basic example is considered sufficient only to highlight the need for a diversity of detailed project considerations. Again, these considerations probably would not preclude development but an error of omission could destroy the economic integrity of any given peat resource development. Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 1 Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 2 Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 3 Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 4 Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 5 Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 6 Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 7 Nancy Lake East — Transect 1 Nancy Lake East — Transect 2 Nancy Lake East — Transect 3 Nancy Lake East — Transect 4 APPENDIX 4 PEAT RADAR PROFILES Figure No. Title A-1 Kettle 2 — Transect 1 A-2 Kettle 2 — Transect 2 A-3 Kettle 2 — Transect 3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 Rogers Creek — Transect 1 A-12a Rogers Creek — Transect 2 A-12b Rogers Creek — Transect 3 A-13a Rogers Creek — Transect 4 A-13b Rogers Creek — Transect 5 A-14 Rogers Creek — Transect 6 A-15 Rogers Creek — Transect 7 A-16 Mile 196 West — Transect 1 A-17 Mile 196 West — Transect 2 A-18 Mile 196 West — Transect 3 A-19 Mile 196 West — Transect 4 A-20 Mile 196 West — Transect 5 A-21 Mile 196 West — Transect 6 A-22 A-23 A-24 A-25 A-26 Stephan Lake — Transect 1 67 STATION 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 GROUND SURFACE DEPTH OF PEAT BEGINNING OF SPRUCE ISLAND 1aa4 NI Hid30 15 —- 20 25 ot —t —{- |__|} 0 375 750 N25 1500 1875 2250 2625 3000 3150 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-1. Kettle 2 — Transect 1 1334 NI Hidad lo 15—- 20 25. STATION + GROUND SURFACE A DEPTH OF “——— peat 375 750 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-2. Kettle 2 — Transect 2 125 2-2 1500 1334 NI Hid30 STATION 3-1 3-2 3-3 gn GROUND SURFACE Pee an =~, 5 Nwrns--- -~ , li / on. DEPTH OF PEAT 10 oo / XN / J 15 Stratigraphic change of unknown character. 20 t 0 375 750 N25 1500 1725 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-3. Kettle 2 — Transect 3 ol STATION 1-1 1-2 GROUND SURFACE DEPTH OF i Stratigraphic change of unknown character. 4334 NI Hid30 il 6 ff 0 375 750 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-4. Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 1 4334 NI Hid3G STATION 21 2-2 2-3 GROUND SURFACE i DEPTH OF PEAT 0 375 750 N25 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-5. Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 2 DEPTH OF PEAT 5 ———. OO 41334 NI Hidad LZ 20 -+- STATION 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 T GROUND SURFACE _- + t 4 t t t t t t t t t t t T 375 750 N25 1500 1875 2250 2625 3000 3375 3750 4125 4500 4875 5250 $512.5 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-6. Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 3 43344 NI JONVLSIG t is DEPTH OF PEAT STATION Stratigraphic change of unknown character. DEPTH OF rw t 750 "25 1500 Figure A-7. — | : i 1875 2250 2625 3000 DISTANCE IN FEET Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 4 t 3375 {|—__— 3750 —— 4125 4334 NI Hld30 25 STATION DEPTH OF PEAT GROUND SURFACE NO RADAR PROFILE Stratigraphic change of unknown character. 375 750 spot - 25 1500 1875 2250 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-8. Nancy Lake — N.W. Transect 5 2625 vl 1334 NI Hidad STATION 6-2 6-3 GROUND SURFACE IMU NO RADAR PROFILE DEPTH OF PEAT Stratigraphic change of unknown character. F | 375 750 25 1500 1875 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-9. Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 6 | 2250 { 2550 SZ 7-1 7-2 STATION 7-3 7-4 GROUND SURFACE—_) NO RADAR PROFILE DEPTH OF PEAT 10—-— 4334 NI Hld3G 375 750 N25 Figure A-10. T 1500 1875 2250 2625 DISTANCE IN FEET Nancy Lake West — N.W. Transect 7 3000 3375 3790 92 STATION Teel its2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 129 1-10 t- GROUND Beaune DEPTH OF PEAT 10 4334 NI Hld3d Stratigraphic change of unknown character. 20 25 0 375 750 1125 1500 1875 2250 2625 3000 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-11. Rogers Creek — Transect 1 STATION 2-1 2-2 0 GROUND SURFACE wn . 4334 NI Hid3q, a DEPTH OF PEAT 4334 NI Hld30 $ Nannon 0 450 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-12a. Rogers Creek — Transect 2 STATION 3-2 3-3 15. GROUND | aa DEPTH OF PEAT ' [+ 375 750 25 (1275 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-12b. Rogers Creek — Transect 3 82 41334 NI Hld3dG 104- STATION 4-2 | | GROUND apa, DEPTH OF PEAT 1Sq- 375 Figure A-13a. + 750 1125 DISTANCE IN FEET Rogers Creek — Transect 4 1500 ~ 1688 41334 NI HidadG 104- Ss DEPTH OF PEAT TATION GROUND SURFACE as, 1s4—- t 375 DISTA 750 125 NCE IN FEET Figure A-13b. Rogers Creek — Transect 5 1388 62 4334 NI Hidad 6-1 375 750 STATION GROUND SURFACE DEPTH OF PEAT Stratigraphic change of unknown character. — ++ 125 1500 1875 2250 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-14. Rogers Creek — Transect 6 2625 3000 6-2 vo 1334 NI Hidad STATION 7A in ri + ° GROUND SURFACE ' 5+ DEPTH OF PEAT 104- Stratigraphic change of unknown character. 1s | H | | | 20-} } } | | { | | f { i 0 375 750 2s 1500 1875 2250 2625 3000 3375 3750 3900 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-15. Rogers Creek — Transect 7 ls 4334 NI H1d3a is 20-+- ° 375 1-2 750 nas STATION 1-3 4 t oi t GROUND SURFACE DEPTH OF PEAT Stratigraphic change of unknown character. { | | + } | t t t T 1500 1875 2250 2625 3000 3375 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-16. Mile 196 West — Transect 1 3750 4125 Vs 4500 4950 es 2-1 STATION 9 GROUND SURFACE DEPTH OF PEAT 4334 NI Hld30 : es 0 375 450 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-17. Mile 196 West — Transect 2 41434 NI Hid3qd w Ss STATION 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 + t t t GROUND SURFACE DEPTH OF PEAT Stratigraphic change of unknown character. | j { t t t t t t t t t+ t ° 375 750 nas 1500 1875 2250 2625 3000 3375 3750 4125 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-18. Mile 196 West — Transect 3 vo 41334 NI Hld3G 4 STATION ae 4-3 4-4 } n i T GROUND SURFACE I) DEPTH OF PEAT 104- Stratigraphic change of unknown character. ee em 1s4- | 1 i | | r i i Ar t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 375 750 N25 1500 1875 2250 2625 3000 3375 3750 4050 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-19. Mile 196 West — Transect 4 s8 1334 NI Hidad 10 15 20 5-2 GROUND SURFACE ‘DEPTH OF PEAT Stratigraphic change of unknown character. 375 4 750 25 STATION 5-3 5-4 NO DATA AVAILABLE 1500 1875 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-20. Mile 196 West — Transect 5 5-5 2250 5-6 2625 2700 1334 NI Hidad 10 15. 20 STATION 6-2 Stratigraphic change of unknown character. GROUND aor DEPTH OF PEAT ! 375 750 sor 25 Figure A-21. a 1500 1875 DISTANCE IN FEET Mile 196 West — Transect 6 2250 2625 2925 28 41334 NI Hid30 1-2 STATION 1-3 I-4 I-5 1-6 1-7 -8 1-9 ° { —p— 2 ee ee | —- ee -———— GROUND ine ~ s- a DEPTH OF PEAT J ae r io +- is 20 -- 25 4 t t t t t- — t } }+-————_}———__+—+ ° 375 750 1125 1500 1875 2250 2625 3000 3375 3750 4125 4312.5 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-22. Nancy Lake East — N.E. Transect 1 ole} 41334 NI H1daG STATION GROUND SURFACE J DEPTH OF CoG 10 =— 20 + 2-2 25 q 0 375 750 25 1500 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-23. Nancy Lake East — N.E. Transect 2 1875 68 STATION 3-1 3-2 3-3 7 GROUND SURFACE 5 DEPTH OF PEAT 10 oO m vU 4 =x 2 7 m q 15 20 25 + 0 375 750 125 1500 1875 2250 2625 3000 3375 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-24. Nancy Lake East — N.E. Transect 3 1334 NI Hilda 4-1 STATION 4-2 | "7 20 -+- 25 GROUND SURFACE _) ma OF PEAT a —/. 375 I- 750 25 1500 1875 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-25. Nancy Lake East — N.E. Transect 4 2250 2625 2850 16 STATION 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 ot } L GROUND EIU 5 y / -~ o , ori | m 3 Se = 0 DEPTH OF PEAT z =\ 1) m q 15 | | | | | 20 T t t t | t t + 0 375 750 1500 1875 2250 2625 3000 3375 3750 DISTANCE IN FEET Figure A-26. Stephan Lake — Transect 1 c APPENDIX 5 Analytical Tables - Susitna Valley TABLE 1 Site Number: K2-3-2 Site Name: Kettle #2, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Dwarf birch, grasses, dwarf bramble Mineral Soil: Gray silt Depth to Water Table: 0.2 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/5/80 TABLE 2 Site Number: K2-1-3 Site Name: Kettle #2, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Scattered black spruce; dwarf birch, dwarf bramble, Labrador tea, heath spp. Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: 0.8 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/5/80 Heating Heating Sample = Moisture Oxygen Ash Value _Classifi- Sample Moisture Oxygen Ash Value Classifi- Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C (%) N(%) $S (%) (%) (%) (BTU/b) cation Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C (%) N(%) S$ (%) (%) (%) (BTU/b) cation 5.0- 6.3 89.0 5.5 46.1 1.3 0.2 29.5 17.6 7675 Oi 9.8-12.9 86.8 3.8 28.0 22 08 16.0 49.3 4714 17.5-18.9 82.2 3.9 29.6 19 0.6 15.5 48.6 5152 TABLE 3 TABLE 4 Site Number: K1-5 Site Number: K1-6 Site Name: Kettle #1, Susitna Valley Site Name: Kettle #1, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Black Spruce, 40%; dwarf birch, alder shrubs; Vegetation: Black spruce, dwarf birch, alder spp., Sphagnum spp. Sphagnum spp. Mineral Soil: Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: 0.5 feet Depth to Water Table: 0.5 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki Date: 5/80 Date: 5/80 Heating Heating Sample = Moisture Oxygen Ash Value Classifi- Sample Moisture Oxygen Ash Value Classifl- Depth (ft.) Content (°%) H (%) C (%) N(%) $(%) (%) (%) (BTU/Ib) cation Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C (%) N(%) S(%) (%) _(%) (BTU/Ib) cation 3.8-4.3 75.3 4.2 37.2 1.0 1.8 16.4 39.3 6199 1.4-2.0 86.6 48 44.2 1.4 0.1 27.8 21.7 7648 4.3-4.8 81.9 46 428 1.2 1.7 278 8219 7244 23-29 86.4 46 429 1.2 0.1 29.0 222 7342 4.8-5.4 83.5 42 39.4 1.0 0.1 279 27.3 6891 5.4-5.7 83.1 48 44.8 1.0 1.7 26.8 21.0 7512 €6 TABLE 5 Site Number: NW-7-4 Site Name: Nancy Lake West, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Black spruce to 10 feet; dwarf birch, dwarf bramble, Labrador tea, heath spp. Mineral Soil: Clay hardpan TABLE 6 Site Number: NW-2-25 Site Name: Nancy Lake West Susitna Valley Vegetation: Scattered black spruce; Cinquefoil, grass spp., heath spp. Mineral Soil: Clay hardpan Depth to Water Table: 0.2 feet Depth to Water Table: Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/6/80 Date: 6/6/80 Heating Heating Sample Moisture Oxygen Ash Value _Classifi- Sample Moisture Oxygen Ash Value Classifi- Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C (%) N(%) S (%) (%) (%) (BTU/b) cation Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C (%) N(%) S (%) (%) (%) (BTU/b) cation 4.6-5.4 86.1 43 36.9 1.4 0.2 24.5 32.8 6205 3.3-4.3 83.1 48 41.3 2.0 0.2 25.3 26.4 7002 TABLE 7 TABLE 8 Site Number: RC-7-25 Site Number: MO-1-3 Site Name: Rogers Creek, Susitna Valley Site Name: Mile 196 West, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Sedge meadow, flat topography Vegetation: Black spruce, 10% willow and alder shrubs in higher areas; sedge and moss hummocks, 80%. Mineral Soil: Mineral Soil: Yellow sandy silt Depth to Water Table: Ground Surface Depth to Water Table: Ground Surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki Date: 5/80 Date: 5/80 Heating Heating Sample Moisture Oxygen Ash Value _Classifi- Sample = Moisture Oxygen Ash Value _Classifi- Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C(%) N(%) S (%) (%) (%) (BTU/b) cation Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C (%) N (%) S (%) (%) (%) (BTU/b) cation 0.8-1.4 51.0 5.1 47.4 24 0.5 28.0 16.7 8036 Oi 1.0-1.4 62.9 1.7 13.0 07 1.4 89 74.2 2130 1.42.1 85.7 49 44.8 23 0.3 25.0 22.7 7677 Oi 1.8-2.1 74.9 21 17.5 08 1.3 9.4 69.0 2879 1.7-2.7 84.8 45 42.3 0.3 0.3 24.9 27.7 7036 2.1-2.6 81.7 3.3 30.7 1.4 0.2 20.8 43.6 5251 2.2-3.0 85.4 47 435 214 0.1 27.1 22.6 7592 Oi 26-29 78.5 29 25.1 1A. 0.2 11.8 58.9 4257 2.43.3 85.0 45 41.2 20 0.3 26.0 26.1 7119 TABLE 9 TABLE 10 Site Number: MO-5-3 Site Number: RC-3-2 Site Name: Mile 196 West, Susitna Valley Site Name: Rogers Creek Bog, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Birch, willow, 90%; sedge and moss spp. 10% Vegetation: Cinquefoil, dwarf birch, 80%; sedges; open water Mineral Soil: Mineral Soil: Rock at bottom of core Depth to Water Table: 0.5 feet Depth to Water Table: Ground surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 5/4/80 Date: 6/5/80 Heating Heating Sample = Moisture Oxygen Ash Value _—Classifi- Sample Moisture Oxygen Ash Value _Classifi- Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C (%) N (%) S$ (%) (%) (%) (BTU/b) cation Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C(%) N(%) S (%) (%) (%) (BTU/b) cation 48- 5.8 89.2 5.0 41.5 1.4 0.2 26.3 25.5 3.1-4.1 81.4 48 41.3 21 0.4 22.9 28.5 7225 8.8-11.7 80.1 32 238 12 0.4 147 56.7 3702 TABLE 11 TABLE 12 Site Number: RC-1-3 Site Number: NLE-3-15 Site Name: Rogers Creek Bog, Susitna Valley Site Name: Nancy Lake East, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Vegetation: Dwarf birch; grass spp. 70% Mineral Soil: Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: Depth to Water Table: Ground surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 5/80 Date: 6/4/80 Heating Heating Sample = Moisture Oxygen Ash Value Classifi- Sample Moisture Oxygen Ash Value Classifi- Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) © (%) N(%) $(%) — (%) — (%) (BTU/Ib) cation Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C (%) N(%) $(%) (%) — (%) (BTU/Ib) cation 23 87.0 48 426 16 0.2 25.8 25.0 7542 Oi 5.4-7.0 84.8 60 504 28 0.6 26.1 14.0 8821 Oe TABLE 13 TABLE 14 Site Number: MO-4-4 Site Number: NLE-1-2 Site Name: Mile 196 West, Susitna Valley Site Name: Nancy Lake East, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Scattered black spruce; dwarf birch, scrub spruce 25%; herbs, moss spp. 70% Vegetation: Sphagnum moss spp., sedge Mineral Soil: Clay hardpan at 5.1 feet Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: 0.5 feet Depth to Water Table: Ground surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/4/80 Date: 6/4/80 Heating Heating Sample = Moisture Oxygen Ash Value Classifi- Sample = Moisture Oxygen Ash Value Classifi- Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C (%) N(%) S(%) — (%) — (%) (BTU/Ib) cation Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C (%) N(%) S(%) (%) — (%) (BTU/Ib) cation 4.0-4.9 83.6 49 44.2 2.4 0.4 25.9 22.2 7473 Oe 6.3-7.0 88.3 5.4 48.5 11 0.2 31.3 13.4 8070 Oe TABLE 15 Site Number: NLE-4-25 Site Name: Nancy Lake East, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Dwarf birch, grass, Cinquefoil Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: Ground surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/4/80 Heating Sample Moisture Oxygen Ash Value —_Classifi- Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C(%) N(%) S (%) (%) (%) (BTU/Ib) cation 6.5-10.0 88.7 58 509 21 0.4 294 11.4 8430 Oi TABLE 16 Site Number: K2-1-3 Site Name: Kettle #2, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Scattered black spruce; dwarf birch, dwarf bramble, Labrador tea, heath spp. Mineral Soil: TABLE 17 Site Number: NW-5-25 Site Name: Nancy Lake West, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Scattered black spruce; Cinquefoil; grasses, heath Mineral Soil: Clay hardpan Depth to Water Table: 0.8 feet Depth to Water Table: Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/5/80 Date: 6/6/80 Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Depth (ft.) Content (%) Matter (%) | Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification Depth (ft.) Content (%) Matter (%) | Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification 5.7-6.5 90.8 53.1 18.2 28.7 1.8-2.3 81.4 52.2 18.8 29.0 8.0-8.9 89.3 58.6 23.0 18.4 Oi 2.7-2.9 79.1 51.5 18.2 30.3 3.0-4.7 78.7 36.4 13.8 49.8 TABLE 18 TABLE 19 Site Number: RC-7-15 Site Number: K2-3-2 Site Name: Rogers Creek Bog, Susitna Valley Site Name: Kettle #2, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Dwarf birch 50%; Sphagnum spp., grass, 80%; open water 10% Vegetation: Dwarf birch, grasses, dwarf bramble Mineral Soil: Mineral Soil: Gray silt Depth to Water Table: Ground surface Depth to Water Table: 0.2 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/5/80 Date: 6/5/80 Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Depth (ft.) Content (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification Depth (ft.) Content (%) Matter (%) | Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification 2.0-2.9 79.2 46.8 14.9 38.3 1.2- 2.2 88.2 60.3 23.1 16.6 Oi 3.8 48 88.8 61.3 22.2 16.5 Oi . 7.3 7.7 87.7 62.7 25.4 11.9 Oe 94 9.9 66.3 18.1 81 73.8 9.9-10.9 85.5 51.9 20.9 27.2 12.0-12.7 68.9 27.1 71 65.8 13.6-15.2 79.9 32.9 9.9 57.2 16.2-17.7 82.3 31.6 9.0 59.4 TABLE 20 Site Number: NW-7-4 Site Name: Nancy Lake West, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Black spruce to 10 feet height; dwarf birch, dwarf bramble, Labrador tea, heath spp. Mineral Soil: Clay hardpan TABLE 21 Site Number: NW-2-25 Site Name: Nancy Lake West, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Scattered black spruce, Cincquefoil, grass spp., heath spp. Mineral Soil: Clay hardpan Depth to Water Table: 0.2 feet Depth to Water Table: Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/6/80 Date: 6/6/80 Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Depth (ft.) Content (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification Depth (ft.) Content (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Ash (%) _Classification 2.6-3.4 87.2 60.2 20.3 19.5 Oi 2.6-3.4 82.5 58.0 18.2 23.8 Oi 43-46 72.2 22.0 67 71.3 4.3-5.0 69.9 26.6 9.0 64.4 5.7-6.6 75.6 34.3 W41 54.6 6.5-6.9 778 35.9 13.9 50.2 o NX TABLE 22 TABLE 23 Site Number: MO-4-4 Site Number: MO-5-3 Site Name: Mile 196 West, Susitna Valley Site Name: Mile 196 West, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Scattered black spruce; dwarf birch, scrub spruce 25%; herbs, moss spp. 70% Vegetation: Birch, willow, 90%; sedge and moss spp. 10% Mineral Soil: Clay hardpan at 5.1 feet Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: 0.5 feet Depth to Water Table: 0.5 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/4/80 Date: 6/4/80 Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Depth (ft) | Content (%) Matter (%) © Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification Depth (ft) | Content (%) Matter (%) | Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification 2.8-3.4 83.1 41.3 13.9 44.8 40- 45 88.0 53.5 19.3 27.2 3.8-4.5 84.3 52.1 20.1 27.8 11.5-12.5 84.7 50.5 20.9 28.6 TABLE 24 Site Number: NLE-3-15 Site Name: Nancy Lake East, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Dwarf birch; grasses 70% Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: Ground surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/4/80 TABLE 25 Site Number: MO-3-25 Site Name: Mile 196 West, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Dwarf birch 60%; sedge 10%, moss 10% Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: 0.3 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/4/80 Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Depth (ft) Content (%) Matter (%) | Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification Depth (ft) Content (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification 3.0-3.7 80.7 51.1 17.9 31.0 1.4-2.2 54.7 13.7 21 84.2 7.0-8.3 85.6 60.7 25.3 14.0 Oe 2.2-2.8 80.0 32.7 10.2 57.1 8.2-8.8 83.3 56.6 22.7 20.7 Oe TABLE 26 TABLE 27 Site Number: NLE-1-2 Site Number: NLE-4-25 Site Name: Nancy lake East, Susitna Valley Site Name: Nancy Lake East, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Sphagnum moss spp., sedge Vegetation: Dwarf birch, grass, Cinquefoil Mineral Soil: Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: Ground Surface Depth to Water Table: Ground Surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/4/80 Date: 6/4/80 Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Depth (ft.) _ Content (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification Depth (ft.) Content (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Ash (%) _Classification 1.5-2.5 80.8 49.1 18.4 32.5 3.2-4.3 82.3 50.5 20.4 29.1 3.0-3.5 82.8 52.6 19.0 28.4 10.8-11.8 83.4 51.2 21.6 27.2 4.0-4.5 85.2 55.0 20.8 24.2 Oe §.3-6.3 79.7 60.3 24.6 15.1 Oe TABLE 28 Site Number: K2-3-2 Site Name: Kettle #2, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Dwarf birch, grass spp., dwarf bramble. Mineral Soil: Gray silt Depth to Water Table: 0.2 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/5/80 TABLE 29 Site Number: K2-1-3 Site Name: Kettle #2, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Scattered black spruce; dwarf birch, dwarf bramble, Labrador tea, heath spp. Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: 0.8 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/5/80 Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification 6.0- 7.0 46 236 Oe 3.0-3.7 49 Oi 10.9-11.3 49 Oe 4.7-5.7 5.1 346 Oi TABLE 30 TABLE 31 Site Number: NW-7-4 Site Number: NW-2-25 Site Name: Nancy Lake West, Susitna Valley Site Name: Nancy Lake West, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Black spruce to 10 feet; dwarf birch, dwarf bramble, Labrador tea, heath spp. Vegetation: Scattered black spruce; Cinquefoil, grass spp., heath spp. Mineral Soil: Clay hardpan Mineral Soil: Clay hardpan Depth to Water Table: 0.2 feet Depth to Water Table: Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/6/80 Date: 6/6/80 Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification 3.5-4.2 5.2 344 Oi 3.0-3.6 5.2 307 Oi 5.0-5.7 5.3 326 Oi ool TABLE 32 Site Number: RC-1-2 Site Name: Rogers Creek Bog, Susitna Valley TABLE 33 Site Number: RC-1-3 Site Name: Rogers Creek Bog, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Black spruce, scattered; dwarf birch, grasses Vegetation: Mineral Soil: Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: 0.3 feet Depth to Water Table: Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki Date: 5/23/80 Date: 5/23/80 Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification 1.2-2.6 5.2 334 Oi 0.3-1.2 43 313 Oi 1.2-2.3 45 291 Oi TABLE 34 TABLE 35 Site Number: MO-5-3 Site Number: RC-6-15 Site Name: Mile 196 West, Susitna Valley Site Name: Rogers Creek, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Birch, willow, 90%; sedge and moss spp. 10% Vegetation: Dwarf birch, sphagnum spp. 50%, grass 40%, Ledum spp. 5% Mineral Soil: Mineral Soil: Gravel Depth to Water Table: 0.5 feet Depth to Water Table: Ground Surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 5/4/80 Date: 6/5/80 Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification 2.2-2.8 5.6 Oi 1.7-2.2 5.2 Oi 6.0-6.9 5.1 Oi LOL TABLE 36 Site Number: MO-1-3 Site Name: Mile 196 West, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Black spruce, 10%, willow and alder shrubs in higher areas; sedge and moss hummockks, 80% Mineral Soil: Yellow sandy silt Depth to Water Table: Ground Surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki TABLE 37 Site Number: NLE-3-15 Site Name: Nancy Lake East, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Dwarf birch, grass spp. 70% Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: Ground Surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 5/80 Date: 6/4/80 Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification 0.5-1.8 5.1 316 Oi 3.5-4.2 5.0 Oi 4.8-5.5 5.0 403 Oe TABLE 38 TABLE 39 Site Number: MO-4-4 Site Number: NLED-1-2 Site Name: Mile 196, Susitna Valley Site Name: Nancy Lake East, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Scattered black spruce; dwarf birch, scrub spruce 25%; herbs, moss spp. 70% Vegetation: Sphagnum moss spp., sedge. Mineral Soil: Clay hardpan at 5.1 feet Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: 0.5 feet Depth to Water Table: Ground surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/4/80 Date: 6/4/80 Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification 2.0-2.5 5.3 Oi 1.4-1.8 5.1 Oi 2.5-3.0 5.2 Oi 45-53 5.3 395 Oe Note: An ash layer was found in the bottom 0.1 foot of the sample Zol TABLE 40 Site Number: NLE-4-25 Site Name: Nancy Lake East, Susitna Valley Vegetation: Dwarf birch, grass, Cinquefoil Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: Ground Surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/4/80 Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification 2.7-3.7 5.5 Oi 4.3-5.2 5.5 385 Oi Analytical Tables - Remote Sites TABLE 41 TABLE 42 Site Number: D-2 Site Number: D-3 Site Name: Dillingham Site Name: Dillingham Vegetation: Scattered black spruce; dwarf birch 20%; grass spp. 60%; Sphagnum spp. 40% Vegetation: Sphagnum spp. 95% Mineral Soil: Mineral Soil: Clay Depth to Water Table: Depth to Water Table: Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/11/80 Date: 6/11/80 Heating Heating Sample = Moisture Oxygen Ash Value _Classifi- Sample Moisture Oxygen Ash Value —_Classifi- Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C(%) N(%) S(%) (%) —_(%) (BTU/b) cation Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C (%) N(%) S(%) (%) — (%) (BTU/Ib) cation 13.0-13.8 86.5 60 53.1 1.9 0.5 29.2 9.3 9308 Oi 11.5-13.3 82.9 47 367 12 0.3 22.0 35.1 6200 e0l TABLE 43 Site Number: D-4 Site Name: Dillingham Vegetation: Willow, black spruce on stream bank; dwarf birch, Ledum spp.; Sphagnum 60% Mineral Soil: Silty clay Depth to Water Table: 2.0 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley TABLE 44 Site Number: KO-4 Site Name: Kodiak Vegetation: Sitka spruce and Western hemlock to 60 feet; grass spp. 20%, buckbean, Sphagnum spp. Mineral Soil: Gray silt Depth to Water Table: Ground surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/11/80 Date: 6/12/80 Heating Heating Sample Moisture Oxygen Ash Value _Classifi- Sample Moisture Oxygen Ash Value Classifi- Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C (%) N(%) S(%) (%) —(%) (BTU/b) cation Depth (ft.) Content (%) H (%) C(%) N(%) S(%) (%) —(%) (BTU/b) cation 3.2-4.1 81.2 5.4 42.8 18 0.3 24.5 25.2 7563 3.1-4.3 82.0 3.9 30.0 16 08 17.8 46.0 8855 TABLE 45 TABLE 46 Site Number: KS-2 Site Number. KS-3 Site Name: King Salmon Site Name: King Salmon Vegetation: Dwarf birch, Epilobium, sedge spp. Vegetation: White spruce, poplar, birch; willow birch shrubs; grasses Mineral Soil: Gray silty clay Mineral Soil: Sand, clean Depth to Water Table: 0.9 feet Depth to Water Table: Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki Date: 6/10/80 Date: 6/10/80 Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Depth (ft.) | Content (%) ‘Matter (%) Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification Depth (ft) | Content (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification 0.25-0.9 80.6 39.8 10.6 49.6 0.5-2.0 45.6 17.6 3.3 79.1 vOl TABLE 47 TABLE 48 Site Number. D-2 Site Number: D-3 Site Name: Dillingham Site Name: Dillingham Vegetation: Scattered black spruce; dwarf birch 20%; grass spp. 60%; Sphagnum spp. 40% Vegetation: Sphagnum spp. 95% Mineral Soil: Mineral Soil: Clay Depth to Water Table: Depth to Water Table: Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/11/80 Date: 6/11/80 Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Depth (ft.) Content (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification __ Depth (ft) Content (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification 6.0-8.7 94.2 70.5 23.5 6.0 Oi 9.2-11.5 81.4 59.4 22.8 17.8 Oi TABLE 49 TABLE 50 Site Number: D-4 Site Number: KO-2 Site Name: Dillingham Vegetation: Willow, black spruce on stream bank; dwarf birch, Ledum spp.; Sphagnum 60% Mineral Soil: Silty clay Depth to Water Table: 2.0 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Site Name: Kodiak Vegetation: Scattered spruce, willow spp. grass spp. 50%, Sphagnum spp. 50% Mineral Soil: Gravel Depth to Water Table: Ground surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/11/80 Date: 6/12/80 Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Depth (ft) Content (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification Depth (ft) Content (%) Matter (%) Carbon (%) Ash (%) —_ Classification 1.9-3.2 85.0 617 21.3 170 Oi 1.0-28 79.8 51.3 18.1 30.6 3.2-3.7 80.3 56.5 20.9 22.6 Oe SOL TABLE 51 Site Number: KO-3 Site Name: Kodiak Vegetation: Willow shrubs; grass spp. 90%, Sphagnum 3%, open water Mineral Soil: Gravel Depth to Water Table: 0.25 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Site Number: KO-4 Site Name: Kodiak TABLE 52 Vegetation: Sitka spruce and Western hemlock to 60 feet; grass spp. 20%, buckbean, Sphagnum spp. Mineral Soil: Gray silt Depth to Water Table: Ground surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/12/80 Date: 6/12/80 Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed ‘Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Depth (ft) Content (%) Matter (%) | Carbon (%) Ash (%) Classification Depth (ft) Content (%) Matter (%) Carbon (°%) Ash (%) Classification 3.2-4.1 81.8 38.5 17.4 44.1 5.7-6.7 84.7 39.0 11.7 49.3 TABLE 53 TABLE 54 Site Number: KS-2 Site Number. D2 Site Name: King Salmon Site Name: Dillingham Vegetation: Dwarf birch, Epilobium, sedge spp. Vegetation: Scattered black spruce; dwarf birch 20%; grass spp, 60%; Sphagnum spp. 40% Mineral Soil: Gray silty clay Mineral Soil: Depth to Water Table: 0.9 feet Depth to Water Table: Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/10/80 Date: 6/11/80 Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification 0.0-0.3 5.2 79 Oi 12.3-13.0 5.1 Oi 901 TABLE 55 Site Number: D-3 Site Name: Dillingham Vegetation: Sphagnum spp. 95% Mineral Soil: Clay TABLE 56 Site Number: D-4 Site Name: Dillingham Vegetation: Willow, black spruce on stream bank; dwarf birch, Ledum spp. Sphagnum 60% Mineral Soil: Silty clay Depth to Water Table: Depth to Water Table: 2.0 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Date: 6/11/80 Date: 6/11/80 Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification 8.3-9.2 5.1 Oi 1.5-2.1 5.1 Oi 3.9-4.6 5.2 Oe TABLE 57 TABLE 58 Site Number: KO-4 Site Name: Kodiak Vegetation: Sitka spruce and Western hemlock to 60 feet; hrass spp. 20%; buckbean, Sphagnum spp. Mineral Soil: Gray silt Depth to Water Table: Ground surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and G. Betley Site Number: KEN-1 Site Name: Kenai Peninsula West Vegetation: White and black spruce; dwarf birch, willow; Ledum spp. Sphagnum spp. Mineral Soil: Gravel Depth to Water Table: 0.4 feet Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and B. McCabe Date: 6/12/80 Date: 6/18/80 Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification 2.4-3.1 5.3 712 Oi 0.0-2.0 5.2 288 Oi 20L TABLE 59 Site Number: KEN-3 Site Name: Kenai Peninsula West Vegetation: Scattered black spruce hummocks; dwarf birch; Ledum spp., bog rosemary; Site Number: KEN-5 Site Name: Kenai Peninsula West TABLE 60 m spp. Vegetation: Black spruce to 20 feet, birch to 8 feet; Equisetum spp.; grass spp. Mineral Soil: Mineral Soil: Sandy silt Depth to Water Table: Depth to Water Table: Ground surface Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and B. McCabe Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki and B. McCabe Date: 6/12/80 Date: 6/12/80 Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification 0.3-1.9 49 264 Oi 3.4-4.7 5.2 431 Oi TABLE 61 Site Number: AKP-2 Site Name: Fairbanks, College Peat Co. Vegetation: Black spruce, alder spp.; grass spp., Sphagnum spp. Mineral Soil: Gray clay Depth to Water Table: Described and Sampled By: J. Zimicki Date: 6/23/80 Sample Depth (ft.) pH Bulk Density Classification 45 5.1 75 Oi as {OS GO Ue Be cnr Amundsen ous 2 a ee es ( ) ae G E : Ete as i 4 wwii pecs iV ge pa? » vant SUPPLEMENTARY MAP B ALASKA SCALE 1. 2,500,000 1 INCH= APPROXIMATELY 40 MILES 50 100 150 MILES 50 0 : “ =— —¥ BEAU FO R TF = te ie © he gu yem> R \ 7 =F eT Megs (om 0 FUEL PEAT PROBABILITY PROVINCES AREA COVERED BY ORGANIC SOIL ORGANIC SOIL THAT MEETS DOE FUEL PEAT REQUIREMENTS A - HIGH 1- HIGH B - MEDIUM 2- MEDIUM c - LOW 3- LOW Lake Todaténten ‘Grainger \wy if ' a ssi Ln 4 ive. ae ir ) ~, qari Aw @ aba ANA 1 oe atanuske * Matanuska ay Gag LLIAM Soroa Pc ¥ & A ta ~ eo uF & rd Re Soh aag oe os Bee Inhigen? PID & VES) : % a3 Oo As ES & Pen P "eg A, Wak 2, 1 ee 0 byage hg eT ‘ : Se Ly LITERATURE-DERIVED FUEL PEAT ESTIMATION 'O' indicates sampled areas '*' indicates sites derived from literature review 00 Susitna Valley OP Fairbanks - College Peat Co. 0Q Kodiak OR King Salmon - Naknek OS Dillingham OT Kenai Peninsula - East OU Kenai Peninsula - West OV Mitkof Island *#\ Amchitka Island (K. Everett, 1971) Fibric and hemic peats to 6.5 feet thick Sapric peat on slopes High ash content Vegetation: crowberry, sedge, grass, moss, lichen *B Wonder Lake (H. C, Hanson, 1950) Surface layer of light brown slightly decomposed sphagnum 10" in depressions; 2.5" in hummocks Peat below depressions to frozen ground at 20 inches Peat below hummocks to frozen ground at 26 inches *C Kotzebue (H. C. Hanson, 1950 and 1951) Borders of brackish ponds: peat to 21 inches over fine silt sedge hummocks: silt 2"-4"; 4"-14" peat over gravel filled pond: peat to 15" over silt sedge-lichen: silt, no peat tussocks (15"): 3" organic soil *D Craigie Creek, Talkeetna (H. C. Hanson, 1950) gentle slope at 3100 feet elevation hummocky terracing 6"-12" tall under ridges: 35" peat with little silt *E Prince William Sound (Cooper, 1942) empetrum heath: relatively dry, less than 1 foot organics carex bog: maximum 4 feet peat, in depressions with poor drainage *F Upper Firth River (Drew and Shanks, 1965) spruce woodland terrace: 6" organics, mass peat spruce forest terrace: 4" surficial peat Peaty high center polygons: 21" peat, fibrous, in shaded valleys and bottom of north-facing slopes bog meadow, strangmor: 17" moss and sedge peat *G Kodiak (H. C. Hanson, 1951) Middle Bay: litter 2", recent silt, 17" ash then peat at 20" to 32" depth Near shore: very thin organics; 0.5-2 feet ash from 1912 Katmai eruption; some vegetative remains from pre-eruption *H = Knik Hayflats (H. C. Hanson, 1951) silt and peat alternating to 16" *] Healy (H. C. Hanson, 1951) 9" peat in sedge meadow abrupt boundary with silt *J Washington Creek (Dyrness and Grigal, 1979) in Yukon-Tanana uplands parent material: loess soils primarily silt loam, organics less than 0.5 meters *K Lake Clark (Racine and Young, 1978) white spruce/sphagnum: well-drained; organics 60+cm black spruce/sphagnum: poorly-drained; organics 35+cm before frozen *L Juneau (Rigg, 1937) raised sphagnum bog peat to 18 feet; sedge, wood and moss peats *M Pillar Bay, Ketchikan (Rigg, 1937) raised bog: sphagnum surface layer 14" maximum total peat depth 8 feet rests on bedrock highest area is deepest peat flat bog: derived in a lake; peat 8-14 feet *N Admiralty Island (Rigg, 1937) sphagnum 10" - 16" mineral soil at 10 to 16 feet raised bog Permafrost Regions 1 Seasonal Frost II Discontinuous Permafrost III Thick Discontinuous Permafrost I¥ Continuous Permafrost 0 or no number No Fuel Peat Expected 1 Shallow Peats ( 5 feet) 2 Deeper Peats ( 5 feet) we De & Oe A L A Ss K A Pa 0 8 ese ‘Sons oun aaniigorieaneee oat area SCALE 1:5,000,000 SUPPLEMENTARY MAP A een ae