HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Nikolai AEA 15003 REF Grant Application
Biomass Alaska Energy Authority – AEA 15003
Renewable Energy Grant Application
H
CITY OF NIKOLAI
City of Nikolai
ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – AEA 15003 RENEWABLE ENERGY
GRANT APPLICATION
APPLICATION CONTENTS
AEA APPLICATION – SECTION 1 THROUGH 9
AUTHORIZED SIGNERS – SECTION 10
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION – SECTION 11
RESUMES
LETTERS OF SUPPORT
FUEL INVOICES
GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION
BIOMASS ENERGY NATIVE VILLAGE OF NIKOLAI
PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT OF WOODY BIOMASS ENERGY RESOURCES FOR
RURAL VILLAGES IN INTERIOR ALASKA:
KOYUKUK, NULATO, KALTAG, ANVIK, HOLY CROSS, HUGHES,
RUBY AND NIKOLAI
COST ESTIMATES
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 1 of 25 7/2/14
Application Forms and Instructions
This instruction page and the following grant application constitutes the Grant Application Form for
Round VIII of the Renewable Energy Fund Heat Projects only. If your application is for energy
projects that will not primarily produce heat, please use the standard application form (see RFA
section 1.5). An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA) and both application
forms are available online at: www.akenergyauthority.org/REFund8.html.
If you need technical assistance filling out this application, please contact Shawn Calfa, the
Alaska Energy Authority Grants Administrator at (907) 771-3031 or at scalfa@aidea.org.
If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms
for each project.
Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide
milestones and budget for each phase of the project.
In order to ensure that grants provide sufficient benefit to the public, AEA may limit
recommendations for grants to preliminary development phases in accordance with 3 ACC
107.605(1).
If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding
for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding
phases are completed and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in
reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your
submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed.
In the sections below, please enter responses in the spaces provided, often under the
section heading. You may add additional rows or space to the form to provide sufficient
space for the information, or attach additional sheets if needed.
REMINDER:
Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials
submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no
statutory exemptions apply.
All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final
recommendations are made to the legislature.
In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or proprietary
company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the Authority. If you
want information to be kept confidential the applicant must:
o Request the information be kept confidential.
o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their
application.
o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept confidential.
If the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a public record in
accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon request.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 2 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
City of Nikolai
Type of Entity: Local Government Fiscal Year End: June 30
Tax ID # 92-0046711
Tax Status: ☐ For-profit ☐ Non-profit ☒ Government (check one)
Date of last financial statement audit: unknown
Mailing Address: Physical Address:
PO Box 9145
Nikolai, Alaska 99691 Nikolai, Alaska 99691
Telephone: Fax: Email:
(907) 293-2113 (907) 293-2120 cityofnikolai@yahoo.com
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name: Eric Hanssen, P.E., LEED AP Title: Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Mailing Address:
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
Division of Environmental Health & Engineering
Rural Energy Program
3900 Ambassador Drive, Suite 301
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: Fax: Email:
(907) 729-3620 (907) 729-4090 echanssen@anthc.org
1.1.1 APPLICANT ALTERNATE POINTS OF CONTACT
Name Telephone: Fax: Email:
Suzanne Wolf – Energy Program (907) 729-4065 (907) 729-3571 swolf@anthc.org
Heather Dongoski – Grant Specialist (907) 729-3049 (907) 729-3049 hdongoski@anthc.org
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 3 of 25 7/2/14
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
☐ An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or
☐ An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or
☒ A local government, or
☐ A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities)
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (continued)
Please check as appropriate.
☒ 1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by the
applicant’s board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the
applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing
authority is necessary. (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow
procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement
(Section 3 of the RFA). (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as
identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/vREFund8.html. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted
and submitted with the application.) (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for
the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the project and who will
be the primary beneficiaries. (Indicate yes by checking the box)
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 4 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
This section is intended to be no more than a 2-3 page overview of your project.
2.1 Project Title – (Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project). Type in space below.
Nikolai Community Biomass Heating System
2.2 Project Location –
Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will
benefit from your project in the subsections below.
2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude, street address, or community name.
Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s
location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The
coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows:
61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information please contact
AEA at 907-771-3031.
63.01347,-154.375076
2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
Nikolai, Alaska
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
☐ Wind to Heat ☒ Biomass or Biofuels
☐ Hydro to Heat ☐ Solar Thermal
☐ Heat Recovery from Existing Sources ☐ Heat Pumps
☐ Other (Describe) ☐
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
☐ Reconnaissance ☒ Final Design and Permitting
☐ Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☒ Construction
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 5 of 25 7/2/14
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed heat project.
In 2012, with funding from Round IV of the AEA Renewable Energy Fund, the City of Nikolai
partnered with the Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) to conduct a biomass feasibility
study and wood resource assessment. Stemming from this feasibility work, the proposed project
will install a manually-fed cordwood boiler into a prefabricated building to heat the City of Nikolai’s
community building, city lodge, school, and city shop using circulating glycol heat transfer loops.
Modifications to end user building heating systems will be carried out as needed to ensure effective
utilization of biomass heat. The estimated heating oil reduction resulting from this biomass project
is projected to save the City and school district approximately 9,630 gallons of heating oil per year.
For more detailed information refer to the attached Nikolai Biomass Feasibility Assessment.
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this heat project, (such as
reduced fuel costs, lower energy costs, local jobs created, etc.)
Based on the attached Nikolai Biomass Feasibility Assessment, this project is expected to displace
9,630 gallons of heating oil per year, resulting in an annual savings to the community of $60,765.
This project will promote sustainability of the community by not only reducing dependence on fuel
oil for heating, but also by keeping the dollars spent on locally harvested wood in the local
economy. This project also provides the added benefit of creating jobs for local wood cutters and
biomass system operators in a rural community where employment is hard to come by.
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and
source of other contributions to the project.
The requested grant funding for the proposed biomass system is $698,904, including $95,100 for
design and $603,803 for construction. The total anticipated project cost is $705,893 including
ANTHC’s in-kind contribution for project and program management services. A detailed project
cost estimate is attached to this application.
In section 2.7.10 – Additional performance monitoring equipment expenses of $15,000 will be
covered under an Environmental Protection Agency project that ANTHC was awarded to install
remote monitoring systems in select rural communities.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 6 of 25 7/2/14
2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY
Summarize the grant request and the project’s total costs and benefits below.
Costs for the Current Phase Covered by this Grant
(Summary of funds requested)
2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application $ 698,904
2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $
2.7.3 In-kind match to be provided $ 6,989
2.7.4 Other grant funds to be provided $
2.7.5 Total Costs for Requested Phase of Project (sum of 2.7.1 through 2.7.4) $ 705,893
Other items for consideration
2.7.6 Other grant applications not yet approved $
2.7.7 Biomass or Biofuel Inventory on hand $
2.7.8 Energy efficiency improvements to buildings
to be heated (upgraded within the past 5 years or
committed prior to proposed project completion) $
Project Costs & Benefits
(Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully
operational project)
2.7.9 Total Project Cost
Summary from Cost Worksheet, Section 4.4.4, including
estimates through construction.
$705,893
2.7.10 Additional Performance Monitoring Equipment not
covered by the project but required for the Grant
Only applicable to construction phase projects
$ 15,000 (ANTHC Remote
Monitoring Prog. Funds)
2.7.11 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings)
The economic model used by AEA is available at
www.akenergyauthority.org/REFund8.html. This
economic model may be used by applicants but is not
required. Other economic models developed by the
applicant may be used, however the final benefit/cost
ratio used will be derived from the AEA model to
ensure a level playing field for all applicants.
$60,765 / year
2.7.12 Other Public Benefit
If you can calculate the benefit in terms of dollars please
provide that number here and explain how you
calculated that number in Section 5 below.
Cost of local biomass fuel is
assumed to equal project’s local
employment benefit, resulting in
a net zero effect
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 7 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a resume
and references for the manager(s). In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate
PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the
applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management
support. If the applicant anticipates project management assistance from AEA or another
government entity, state that in this section.
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) is a statewide non-profit health services
organization, formed by congress in 1997 to assume the roles and duties of the Indian Health
Service (IHS) in Alaska. ANTHC is the largest tribal self-governance entity in the United States,
with over 1,900 employees and an annual operating budget in excess of $475M. Approximately
31% of this funding is from a compact agreement with IHS. Approximately 25% of the operating
revenue originates from other federal and state grants and contracts. ANTHC has a 16-year history
of clean audits, conducted by an independent accounting firm in accordance with the Single Audit
Act.
The Division of Environmental Health & Engineering, Rural Energy Program:
ANTHC Rural Energy Initiative Senior Engineering Project Manager Eric Hanssen, P.E., LEED AP
has been with ANTHC since 2007 As part of ANTHC’s Rural Energy Initiative, he oversees project
development, design, and construction of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects for
remote communities across the entire state of Alaska. During his time with ANTHC, Eric has also
served as a Project Manager for rural water and wastewater infrastructure projects, as well as a
Health Facilities Engineer focused on hospital and clinic construction and renovation projects. Prior
to joining ANTHC, Eric served seven years as a civil engineer and officer for the US Air Force in
Alaska, Washington DC, Florida, and Iraq. He holds a BS in Environmental Engineering from the
US Air Force Academy in Colorado and a Master’s in Environmental Policy and Economics from
the University of Maryland, College Park.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 8 of 25 7/2/14
3.2 Project Schedule and Milestones
Please fill out the schedule below. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points in in your
project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please
clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases of your proposed project.
Please fill out form provided below. You may add additional rows as needed.
The Milestones noted below, are based on a typical construction season. If the project is awarded, before it is
executed, updated and realistic milestones will be completed by ANTHC and provided to AEA.
Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date
Conduct Kickoff Meeting 11/1/2015 11/1/2015
65% design w/cost estimate 11/1/2015 4/1/2016
Business Plan 1/1/2016 4/1/2016
Final Design documents 6/1/2016 6/1/2016
Pre-construction meeting 7/1/2016 7/1/2016
Construction 7/1/2016 9/1/2016
Commissioning 10/1/2016 11/1/2016
Final Inspection and follow-up 11/1/2016 12/1/2016
Project closeout 12/1/2016 12/1/2017
Project management throughout (ANTHC in-kind) 11/1/2016 12/1/2017
1.) Project Planning
2.) Construction
3.) Project Closeout
4.) Project Management and Match Activities
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 9 of 25 7/2/14
3.3 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, personnel or firms, equipment, and services you will use to
accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or
anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the
selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes
and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your
application.
The City of Nikolai will be partnering with ANTHC and the Interior Regional Housing Authority
(IRHA) to manage and carry out the proposed project. ANTHC has developed its design and
construction experience in the field of rural community biomass heating systems over the past
several years and has completed or is currently completing biomass projects in the communities of
Elim, Kobuk, Anvik, Hughes, and Koyukuk.
The project manager will be supported in the design of the project by Chong Park, ANTHC Lead
Mechanical Engineer, and Dave Reed, ANTHC Lead Electrical Engineer. To the extent possible,
local labor will be used during construction. ANTHC or IRHA will use its purchasing and contracting
resources for material procurement and delivery. IRHA, who has worked extensively with the
community of Nikolai and has an experienced staff of licensed construction tradespeople, has
indicated their interest in partnering with the community and ANTHC to construct the project once
design is complete. Resumes of potential alternate resources and key personnel are attached to
this application.
3.4 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. Please
provide an alternative contact person and their contact information.
Written project progress reports will be provided to the AEA project manager as required by the
grant. Meetings will be conducted by ANTHC, the Village, and AEA to discuss the status of the
project. Regular coordination meetings will be held between AEA and ANTHC regarding all
projects.
3.5 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
All biomass projects face the risk of improper operation and maintenance that could reduce heat
produced by the system and overall benefit to the community. Training and a detailed operations
plan are included in this project to develop local capacity for technical operations and maintenance,
as well as business management required to make this biomass energy project successful and
sustainable. In addition, a detailed biomass harvest plan will be developed as part of the project to
make certain that legal and regulatory aspects of resource harvesting are followed, and to ensure
sustainability of the local wood resources. In general, there are minimal technical risks involved
with the proposed plan to install a biomass boiler to provide heat to the end user buildings.
Installing the necessary heat exchangers, piping, pumps, and controls necessary for
implementation has been done many times before and proven effective for many years.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 10 of 25 7/2/14
3.6 Project Accountant(s)
Tell us who will be performing the accounting of this Project for the Grantee and include contact
information, a resume and references for the project accountant(s). In the electronic submittal,
please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web
posting of this application. If the applicant does not have a project accountant indicate how you
intend to solicit project accounting support.
The City of Nikolai will use the accounting resources of ANTHC. ANTHC’s Division of
Environmental Health accounting department is led by the Construction Controller, Diane Chris.
The Construction Finance Department is comprised of 10 staff that handle all DEHE’s accounting
functions. A Senior Accountant has been designated to support any ANTHC Grant awards
including AEA financial reporting. Key Staff resumes are included in this application.
ANTHC has a 16-year history of clean audits, conducted by an independent accounting firm in
accordance with the Single Audit Act.
3.7 Financial Accounting System
Discuss the accounting system that will be used to account for project costs and who will be the
primary user of the accounting system.
The project finances will be kept in Spectrum construction job cost accounting software used by
ANTHC. The software accounts expenditures by phase code and cost types. Purchasing,
contracting, and accounting are the primary users of the system with the information always
available to the project team.
3.8 Financial Management Controls
Discuss the controls that will be utilized to ensure that only costs that are reasonable, ordinary and
necessary will be allocated to this project. Also discuss the controls in place that will ensure that
no expenses for overhead, or any other unallowable costs will be requested for reimbursement
from the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program.
The City of Nikolai will enter into a cooperative project agreement (CPA) with ANTHC to implement
the project as well as financial management. ANTHC’s cost controls have been implemented to
comply with OMB cost control principles and requirements of all state and federal grants. ANTHC
has a 16-year history of clean audits, conducted by an independent accounting firm in accordance
with the Single Audit Act. ANTHC will provide records and accounting records available to state
and federal auditors on request.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 11 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake
with grant funds.
If some work has already been completed on the project and the funding request is for an
advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are
satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available, in the market, to be served by your project. For pre-construction applications, describe
the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please
provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as
attachments to this application.
In 2012, with funding from AEA, Nikolai partnered with IRHA and the Tanana Chiefs Conference
(TCC) Forestry Office to complete Woody Biomass Energy Resource Assessments for several
Interior communities, including Nikolai. Using LandFire imagery data, GIS, and relational database
software, TCC has produced a preliminary assessment of the biomass energy resources within a
25-mile radius surrounding Nikolai. (See next section for additional detail).
As part of the proposed project, a detailed Biomass Harvesting Plan will be developed via
professional forester services, direct community involvement and coordination with the local
ANCSA village corporation, MTNT Ltd., and other major landowners surrounding Nikolai
As mentioned previously, this project will promote sustainability of the community by not only
reducing dependence on fuel oil for heating, but also by creating local jobs and by keeping monies
spent on energy in the local economy.
The only realistic alternative to utilizing the biomass boiler system is to continue to burn fuel oil to
provide the heat required by the various end-user buildings. Heat recovery from the power plant
was evaluated by ANTHC and was determined to be non-viable because the power plant does not
produce enough heat to accommodate all the project buildings.
4.1.1 For Biomass Project only
Identify any wood inventory questions, such as:
Ownership/Accessibility. Who owns the land and are their limitations and restrictions to
accessing the biomass resource?
Inventory data. How much biomass is available on an annual basis and what types (species)
are there, if known? Please attach any forest inventory reports
The primary landowners in the Nikolai area are the State of Alaska, Doyon Ltd., Bureau of Land
Management, and MTNT native village corporation. Native allotments are also present in the area
but would not be considered for harvest for this project. Each landowner has an annual allowable
cut that indicates the maximum amount of wood, in cords, that can be harvested without
significantly affecting the environmental stability of the region. The amount of wood considered for
this project is far below the annual allowable cut for each entity.
According to the attached October, 2012 “Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for
Rural Villages in Interior Alaska” by the TCC Forestry Program, the annual allowable harvest within
a 25-mile radius of Nikolai is 223,732 tons or approximately 179,523 cords per year. With this
project’s proposed wood resource requirement of 81 cords per year, the preliminary assessment
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 12 of 25 7/2/14
indicates that local biomass can be sustainably harvested from as close as 1-2 miles from Nikolai.
The woody biomass resource in the vicinity of Nikolai consists primarily of White Spruce and Birch,
which are suitable for the proposed cordwood heating system.
For additional biomass resource details, please refer to the attached October, 2012 “Assessment
of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska.”
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Heating Energy System
Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the
number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
The community building, city lodge, school, and city shop use oil fired boilers with #1 heating oil for
the majority of their heating needs. Unit heaters are present to fulfill space heating requirements.
The community building has two 156 MBH Armstrong forced air furnaces. The city lodge also uses
a forced air furnace that is old and likely in need of replacement. The school uses two Burnham
v9a fuel oil boilers. The city shop is not currently heated.
4.2.2 Existing Heating Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
The community building, city lodge, school, and city shop use #1 heating oil for all of their heating
energy needs. This fuel is purchased by the City and school district and used for heating
throughout the year. Implementing a biomass boiler system will reduce or eliminate the need for
heating oil, leaving the existing fuel storage capacity available as a backup heating source. The
existing fuel supply will be used on an as-needed basis during emergencies, system maintenance,
or demand peaks.
4.2.3 Existing Heating Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
Heating oil must be barged in during summer months. The expected impact of this project will be to
reduce the overall heating oil use by approximately 9,630 gallons annually. While this reduction will
not change the price of fuel oil in Nikolai, it will significantly reduce the community’s consumption of
oil, replacing that consumption with locally harvested wood.
Through overall reduction in operating costs for the city facilities, this project also has the potential
to for as well as allow more funding to be available for School District and City programs that are
important to residents of Nikolai (e.g., improved funding for education programs, and reduced fees
for washeteria customers).
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 13 of 25 7/2/14
4.3 Proposed System
Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address
potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues.
4.3.1 System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
Optimum installed capacity
Anticipated capacity factor
Anticipated annual generation
Anticipated barriers
Basic integration concept
Delivery methods
Using cordwood as fuel, the biomass boiler system will transfer heat via circulating glycol loops to
heat the existing hydronic heating systems of the end-user buildings.
Although the proposed biomass system is estimated to fulfill roughly 80% of the heating
requirement for the end user buildings, it is imperative that the heating systems in each end user
building remain operational at all times.
The biomass boiler has an integral water jacket that is heated by the cordwood boiler. The hot
water is piped through a heat exchanger that transfers the water heat to an intermediate loop filled
with glycol. The intermediate loop is circulated through arctic pipe between the biomass boiler
heat exchanger and a heat exchanger located within each end-user building, transferring the heat
to the given locations before cycling back to the biomass boiler building. The biomass system will
have two independent loops with one loop for the school and one loop for the remaining buildings.
This allows the school loop to be shut down during summer. It also allows for the loops to be
managed appropriately during high demand periods.
END-USER BUILDING TIE-IN
End-user building tie-ins typically consist of brazed plate heat exchangers with motorized bypass
valves to prevent back feeding heat to the biomass boiler. The circulating system will pass through
the biomass system heat exchanger prior to entering the fuel-oil boilers. The glycol is preheated
by the biomass heat and upon entering the fuel oil boilers at a higher temperature allows the boiler
controls to keep the boilers running for a shorter period of time in order to maintain the system.
Where required, a heat injection pump will be used to avoid introducing excessive pressure drop in
the building heating system. The anticipated delivered biomass heat supply temperature is
between 130-180F. When there is insufficient biomass heat to meet the building heating load, the
building heating system will fire and add heat. Off-the-shelf controls will lock out the biomass boiler
system when there is insufficient heat available.
Typical indoor piping will be type L copper tube with solder joints. Isolation valves will be solder
end bronze ball valves or flanged butterfly valves. All piping will be insulated with a minimum of 1-
inch insulation with an all-service jacket. Flexibility will be provided where required for thermal
expansion and differential movement. Air vents, thermometers, pressure gauges, drain valves,
and pressure relief valves will also be provided.
The facility will also receive a BTU meter to provide totalized and instantaneous production of
biomass heat.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 14 of 25 7/2/14
4.3.2 Land Ownership
Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project
or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
There are no apparent conflicts with rights-of-ways for the arctic piping between the biomass boiler
building and the end user building, as the route is entirely within existing road rights-of-ways and
on City and school property.
4.3.3 Permits
Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues.
List of applicable permits
Anticipated permitting timeline
Identify and discuss potential barriers
No permits are anticipated for this biomass boiler project. If during the course of the project, it is
determined that permits are required, ANTHC will ensure they are obtained and followed.
4.3.4 Environmental
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be
addressed:
Threatened or endangered species
Habitat issues
Wetlands and other protected areas
Archaeological and historical resources
Land development constraints
Telecommunications interference
Aviation considerations
Visual, aesthetics impacts
Identify and discuss other potential barriers
ANTHC will consider all potential environmental concerns associated with this project. ANTHC has
extensive experience using the comprehensive Indian Health Service (IHS) environmental review
procedures for conducting environmental analysis of all health and sanitation facilities projects in
all stages of development, as outlined in the IHS Environmental Review Manual issued in January
2007.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 15 of 25 7/2/14
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and
any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the
source of their cost data. For example: Applicant’s records or analysis, industry standards,
consultant or manufacturer’s estimates.
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of
the project. Cost information should include the following:
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
Requested grant funding
Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind
Identification of other funding sources
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
The total anticipated project cost is $705,893, including ANTHC’s in-kind contribution. A detailed
construction cost estimate is attached to this application. The requested grant funding is $698,904
with the remaining $6,989 being donated by ANTHC in the form of project and program
management services.
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
Include anticipated O&M costs for any new facilities constructed and how these would be funded
by the applicant.
(Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet
ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of recording the impacts of AEA projects on the
communities they serve.)
O&M costs of biomass boiler systems are primarily driven by the need for an operator to load and
fire the boiler day-to-day during the heating season—up to every 3-4 hours during times of highest
heating demand. This likely means that the operator will be required to work more hours.
Maintenance of the biomass boiler system is also critical to its success, and will require periodic
additional labor for cleaning, adding and testing of boiler water, and replacement of parts as
needed. Excluding fuel wood purchases, the total O&M costs for the proposed biomass system
are estimated to be $8,182 per year (see attached O&M Cost Estimate).
4.4.3 Heating Purchase/Sale
The heat purchase/sale information should include the following:
Identification of potential energy buyer(s)/customer(s)
Potential heat purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
The Iditarod School District will provided payment to City of Nikolai, who will be the owner and
operator of the biomass boiler system once completed. The School District will pay $300 per cord
for the overall quantity of wood used to heat the school building. This will be determined by
metering the quantity of biomass heat (in Btu’s) received by the School building over a period of
time.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 16 of 25 7/2/14
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in
evaluating the project.
Please fill out the form provided below and provide most recent heating fuel invoice that supports
the amount identified in “Project Benefits” subpart b below.
Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability.
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomass fuel)
According to the attached October, 2012 “Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for
Rural Villages in Interior Alaska” by the TCC Forestry Program, the annual allowable harvest within
a 25-mile radius of Nikolai is 223,732 tons or approximately 179,523 cords per year.
Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 2 forced air furnaces (City Buildings), 2 oil-
fired boilers (School)
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 156 MBH (City forced air furnaces); 362 MBH
(school boilers)
iii. Generator/boilers/other type Two Armstrong forced air furnaces, two Burnham
V9A fuel oil boilers
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 8 years
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 80%
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $300 (existing boiler/furnace maintenance)
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $200 (existing boiler/furnace maintenance)
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Electricity [kWh]
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal]
Other
iii. Peak Load
iv. Average Load
v. Minimum Load
vi. Efficiency
vii. Future trends
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric
Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 17 of 25 7/2/14
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] 11,900 gallons
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
(Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels)
a) Proposed renewable capacity (Wind,
Hydro, Biomass, other) [kW or MMBtu/hr]
Biomass 350,000 Btu/hr (Garn WHS-2000)
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh]
ii. Heat [MMBtu] 1,290 MMBtu / year
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons, dry tons] 81 cords
iv. Other 2,270 gal (continued fuel oil usage)
Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $603,804
b) Development cost $95,100
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $8,182
d) Annual fuel cost $24,300 (cordwood @ $300/cord)
Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity
ii. Heat 9,630 gallons / year
iii. Transportation
b) Current price of displaced fuel $60,765 /year
c) Other economic benefits Local jobs for wood harvesters and biomass operator
d) Alaska public benefits Enhanced forest fire risk mitigation through removal of dead
standing fuel
Heat Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for heat purchase/sale $300 / cord
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 18 of 25 7/2/14
Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio
Payback (years) 11.5 years
4.4.5 Impact on Rates
Please address the following items related to the proposed location of the heating project. If more
than one building will be impacted, please address this information for each building.
Building name
Nikolai community center, school city lodge, and city shop
Type or primary usage of the building
City-managed public services, health clinic, education
Location
Nikolai
Hours of operation
8 per day, 7 days per week
Single structure or multiple units
Multiple
Total square footage
Unknown
Electrical consumption per year
Unknown
Heating oil/fuel consumption per year
11,900 gallons of #1 heating oil per year.
Average number of occupants
30-40
Has an energy audit been performed? When? Please provide a copy of the energy audit, if
applicable.
No
Have building thermal energy efficiency upgrades been completed?
o If applicable, please provide evidence of efficiency improvements including cost and
anticipated savings associated with upgrades.
No.
o Estimated annual heating fuel savings
If the building is not yet constructed please provide evidence of the value of planned
building envelope efficiency investments beyond typical construction practices. Include
anticipated savings associated with efficiency investments if available.
N/A
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 19 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and
how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project.
The benefits information should include the following:
Potential annual fuel displacement (gallons and dollars) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project. In order for the applicant to receive credit for heating fuel
displaced the applicant must provide the most recent invoice for heating fuel purchased.
Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Heat Purchase Agreement price, RCA
tariff, or cost based rate)
Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits)
Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy
subsidies or programs that might be available)
Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
The potential fuel displacement is 9,630 gallons of the 11,900 gallons of fuel to be used by the
community building, city lodge, school, and city shop. The cost of the fuel is $6.31 per gallon (see
attached invoice). The annual cost of fuel displaced for the water treatment plant therefore equals
$60,765.
Collection of wood is an important task that can create income and keep city money within the
community. To operate the biomass boiler, the city will have to purchase cords of wood from local
harvesters, which is anticipated to sell at $300 per cord. This money is not exported to outside
entities and stays within the community as a result.
There are no other known incentives or revenue streams that will result from this project. The
benefits to the community of this project include a reduction in the amount of fuel required by the
community, and a direct benefit to each community member due to the lower cost to produce,
store, and deliver water.
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
Discuss the operation of the completed project so that it will be sustainable.
Include at a minimum:
Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
How the maintenance and operations of the completed project will be financed for the life of the
project
Identification of operational issues that could arise.
A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing
systems that may be require to continue operation
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits
This project increases the sustainability of the buildings by reducing its operating cost over the life
of the project. The minimal maintenance and operating cost can be funded out of its revenue
stream and out of its savings over the 25-year life of the project.
A detailed biomass harvest plan will be completed as part of this project to detail how to proceed
with the collection of wood in order to best keep the resource protected for a sustainable project.
Following the harvest plan will make sure that the collection of wood does not become more
difficult by eliminating the option of collecting from the closest resources and moving further away.
In addition, and Biomass Operations Plan will be developed to outline responsibilities and business
structure required to operate the biomass system in a sustainable manner. This operations plan
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 20 of 25 7/2/14
will be completed as part of the proposed project. The City of Nikolai is committed to meeting all
reporting requirements over the entire length of the reporting period.
SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with
work once your grant is approved.
Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants
that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to
meet the requirements of previous grants.
A detailed Biomass Energy Feasibility Assessment has been completed and is attached to this
application. In addition, a biomass resource assessment has been completed and is attached. The
intent is to proceed with this project as soon as practical once design and construction funding is
available.
ANTHC has developed its design and construction experience in the field of rural community
biomass heating systems over the past several years and has completed or is currently completing
biomass projects in the communities of Elim, Kobuk, Anvik, Hughes, and Koyukuk.
ANTHC maintained a robust operating budget for all four divisions. ANTHC operates dozens of
programs and projects. ANTHC receives funding from numerous well-recognized sources; this
demonstrates their capacity to manage this grant. Funders include the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Indian Health Service,
Denali Commission, Centers for Disease Control, Department of Energy, Department of Health &
Human Services, Department of Commerce, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Mayo
Clinic, National Native American AIDS Prevention Center, Rasmuson and Robert Wood Johnson
Foundations, State of Alaska, University of Washington, and others.
SECTION 8 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
Discuss local support and opposition, known or anticipated, for the project. Include letters of
support or other documentation of local support from the community that would benefit from this
project. The Documentation of support must be dated within one year of the RFA date of July 2,
2014.
The City of Nikolai is submitting the grant application. The Iditarod School District, who operates
the Nikolai School will receive substantial benefits in terms of fuel saving from the proposed
project, and is highly supportive of this request (see attached letter of support). ANTHC is
providing project management services as a match for the project, as well as a letter of support. In
addition, IRHA has been working with the City of Nikolai for several years on development of a
community biomass heating system, and has demonstrated their region-level support and focus on
enhancing the sustainability of Nikolai’s and other Interior communities’ biomass systems (see
attached letter of support). There is no known opposition to this project.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 21 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much you are seeking in grant funds. Include any investments to date and funding
sources, how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as
an applicant.
9.1 Funding sources and Financial Commitment
Provide a narrative summary regarding funding source and your financial commitment to the
project
The cost estimates presented in the table below represent the anticipated costs of the proposed
system, taking into account recent design and construction costs of similar projects. Large
financial risks are associated with construction work in rural Alaska. Expenses for potential
changes in site conditions, unknown or unforeseen issues, and logistics have been incorporated
into these costs. ANTHC’s match may actually work out to be much higher than shown, as this
work may be performed at ANTHC’s billing rate and may exceed the hours anticipated.
Any excess time/value of the project management in-kind match does not replace other financial
cost elements of this project. The anticipated dates of completion are projected based on the
likelihood of funding, other ongoing work in the city, and coordination with other statewide design
and construction activities.
9.2 Cost Estimate for Metering Equipment
Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment, and its
related use to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the
Request for Applications.
Metering and monitoring equipment for this biomass project are estimated to be $15,000. A KEP
BTU meter will be installed equipped with a Monnit pulse counter. This data is to be fed through a
cellular internet connection to the central Monnit server and the ANTHC web site. This is will be
funded out of ANTHC’s current remote monitoring program and is not included in the project
budget.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 22 of 25 7/2/14
Applications MUST include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in
section 2.3.2 of this application, (I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III. Final
Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction and Commissioning). Please use the tables provided
below to detail your proposed project’s budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your
project.
If you have any question regarding how to prepare these tables or if you need assistance preparing
the application please feel free to contact AEA at 907-771-3031 or by emailing the Grants
Administrator, Shawn Calfa, at scalfa@aidea.org.
DESIGN PHASE
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion
Date
RE- Fund
Grant
Funds
Grantee
Matching
Source of
Matching Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
(List milestones based on
phase and type of project. See
Milestone list below. )
Project Management Throughout $0 $951
In-kind 1%
ANTHC
project/program
management
$951
Conduct Kickoff Meeting 11/1/2015 $1,100 $1,100
65% design w/cost estimate 4/1/2016 $38,000 $38,000
Biomass Harvesting Plan 6/1/2016 $15,000 $15,000
Biomass Operations Plan 6/1/2016 $12,000 $12,000
Final Design documents 6/1/2016 $29,000 $29,000
TOTALS $95,100 $951 $96,051
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $0
Travel & Per Diem $0
Equipment
Materials & Supplies
Contractual Services * $95,100 $951 $96,051
Construction Services
Other
TOTALS $95,100 $951 $96,051
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 23 of 25 7/2/14
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion
Date
RE- Fund
Grant
Funds
Grantee
Matching
Source of
Matching Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
(List milestones based on
phase and type of project. See
Milestone list below. )
Project Management Throughout $6,038
In-kind ANTHC
project/program
management
$6,038
Pre-construction meeting 7/1/2016 $3,500 $3,500
Construction 9/1/2016 $558,804 $558,804
Commissioning 11/1/2016 $25,000 $25,000
Final Inspection and follow-up 12/1/2016 $15,000 $15,000
Project Closeout 12/2/2017 $1,500 $1,500
$603,804 $6,038 $609,842
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits
Travel & Per Diem $0
Equipment
Materials & Supplies $0
Contractual Services * $603,804 $6,038 $609,842
Construction Services
Other
TOTALS $603,804 $6,038 $609,842
City of Nikolai
LETTERS OF SUPPORT
Tanana Chiefs
Conference
Tribal Empowerment through Health, Employment, Economic Development and Family Services
122 1st Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
907-452-8251
www.tananachiefs.org
September 9th 2014
Alaska Energy Authority
Renewable Energy Fund Committee
813 W. Northern Lights Blvd
Anchorage, AK 99503
Re: Letter of Support for Nicholai to the Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Dear Alaska Energy Authority
The Tanana Chiefs Conference is writing this letter to express its full support to Nicholai Tribal Council’s
application to the Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) Renewable Energy Fund (REF) for a biomass heating
project in their community.
Tanana Chiefs Conference appreciates the work of the AEA on funding these projects and supporting
rural communities as they work to transition from community reliance on outside energy sources to self‐
reliance on local resources. TCC supports all of our tribal government’s efforts to reduce dependence on
imported fuel oil, provide economic development in the community and make each village a more
sustainable place to live.
TCC has been actively involved in working with ANTHC, Interior Regional Housing Authority and other
project partners on developing, implementing and supporting biomass projects across the interior of
Alaska. TCC enthusiastically supports Nicholai’s efforts to pursue the construction of a biomass system in
their community and we commit that our rural energy department will provide staff time and travel to
support them with the implementation of this project if funded. We would appreciate AEA’s careful
consideration of this application.
Sincerely,
David Pelunis‐Messier
Rural Energy Coordinator
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st Ave Suite 600
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Dave.pm@tananachiefs.org
City of Nikolai
FUEL INVOICES
City of Nikolai
GOVERNERING BODY
RESOLUTION
0
Biomass Energy
Native Village of Nikolai
D a l s o n E n e r g y I n c .
3 0 8 G S t . S t e 3 0 3
A n c h o r a g e , A l a s k a 9 9 5 0 1
907-2 7 7 -7900
4 / 9 / 2 0 1 2
Preliminary Feasibility
Assessment
This preliminary feasibility assessment considers the
potential for heating municipal buildings in Nikolai with
wood.
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 1
Table of Contents
Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 2
City: City of Nikolai .................................................................................................................................... 3
Tribe: Nikolai Village, federally-recognized .............................................................................................. 3
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................................ 0
Wood fuel supply in Nikolai .................................................................................................................... 1
Biomass Energy Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................. 3
Biomass Harvest Plan ................................................................................................................................ 3
Operations Plan......................................................................................................................................... 4
Community Facilities Information .......................................................................................................... 5
City Buildings ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Community Building ......................................................................................................................... 5
City Lodge ........................................................................................................................................... 5
City Shop ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Kuskokwim School, Yukon-Koyukuk School District ...................................................................... 6
Nikolai Edzeno Village Council Office ............................................................................................... 6
Recommended technology and fuel requirements ............................................................................... 7
Economic feasibility ................................................................................................................................... 9
Initial investment ................................................................................................................................... 9
School ................................................................................................................................................... 9
Kuskokwim School .............................................................................................................................. 10
District ................................................................................................................................................. 11
Operating Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 12
Operating Costs & Annual Savings ................................................................................................... 13
Financial metrics .................................................................................................................................. 15
Simple payback period .................................................................................................................... 15
Present Value .................................................................................................................................... 15
Net Present Value............................................................................................................................. 16
Internal Rate of Return .................................................................................................................... 16
Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for School ................................................................................... 16
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 18
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 2
Supplement: Community Wood Heating Basics ......................................................................................... 20
Wood fuel as a heating option .................................................................................................................... 20
The nature of wood fuels ........................................................................................................................ 20
The basics of wood-fueled heating ........................................................................................................ 21
Available wood heating technology ...................................................................................................... 24
Cordwood Boilers ................................................................................................................................ 24
Bulk Fuel Boilers .................................................................................................................................. 24
District heat loops ................................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 1: Aerial view of Nikolai, Alaska ................................................................................................. 1
Figure 2: Map of Land Ownership Surrounding Nikolai, AK. ........................................................................ 2
Figure 3: Timber Inventory, 1987 ................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 4: Illustration of Unmanaged Wood Harvesting Efforts .................................................................... 3
Figure 5: Illustration of Planned Wood Harvest by Harvest Area and Time Period. .................................... 4
Figure 6: Unloading Fuel Oil from a plane in Nikolai. ......................................................................... 5
Figure 1: Cordwood ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2: Ground wood chips used for mulch. ............................................................................................ 20
Figure 3: Wood briquettes, as a substitute for cordwood. Cross sections of these briquettes make
“wafers” which can be automatically handled in biomass boiler systems. ................................................ 20
Figure 4: Wood pellets ................................................................................................................................ 20
Project Summary
Dalson Energy was contracted by the Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) and
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) to do a Pre-Feasibility Study (Pre-FS) for a Biomass
Heating System for the Native Village of Nikolai.
The IRHA/TCC Scope of Work stated that a study should be done to assess the pre-
feasibility biomass heating for candidate facilities.
Dalson Energy biomass specialists Thomas Deerfield and Jason Hoke visited the
community on October 20, 2011 for the initial assessment. Deerfield and Hoke made
their assessment based on available data, interviews with local stakeholders and
authorities, observations, and research and review of previous studies done in Nikolai.
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 3
This report was prepared by Thomas Deerfield, Wynne Auld, Jason Hoke, Louise
Deerfield, Tom Miles and Clare Doig.
Contact and interviews with the following individuals in Nikolai assisted in some of the
information gathering. Their contact information is as follows:
City: City of Nikolai
P.O. Box 9145
Nikolai, AK 99691-0045
Phone 907-293-2113
Fax 907-293-2120
E-mail cityofnikolai@yahoo.com
Winchell Ticknor, City Clerk
Tribe: Nikolai Village, federally-
recognized
P.O. Box 9105
Nikolai, AK 99691
Phone 907-293-2311
Fax 907-293-2481
E-mail agnes.tony@tananachiefs.org
Nick Alexia Sr, 1st Chief
nickalexia@hotmail.com
(907) 293-2212
Beverly Gregory, Tribal Administrator
Beverly.gregory@tananachiefs.org
(907) 293-2311
0
Summary of Findings
Currently, many of Nikolai’s municipal buildings are excellent prospects for biomass
heating. Containerized HELE (high-efficiency low-emission) cordwood boilers are
suggested as an expedient way to develop biomass heating plants in Nikolai. The two
identified projects are (1) the Kuskokwim School, and (2) a small District heating system
with the Kuskokwim School as its hub, also serving the Community Hall building,
Lodge, and City Shop.
The project’s success is critically dependent on a Biomass Harvest Plan and an Operations
Plan. These two project plans are discussed in this Pre-Feasibility Analysis. The
Consultant strongly recommends developing these Plans prior to project development.
Although the small District is more financially attractive, it is also more challenging in
terms of both infrastructure and operations. Therefore, the Consultants recommend first
installing the School’s system; ultimately, a 350,000 BTU boiler could serve both the
School and the associated District upon build out.
Boiler
Size
(BTU/hr)
Capital
Cost
Annual
Operations
Cost, Yr. 1
Annual
Cash
Savings,
Yr. 1
Simple
Payback,
Yrs.
NPV IRR
School 350,000 $298,000 $32,000 $20,800 14.3 $336,700 5%
District 350,000 $478,000 $42,800 $41,500 11.5 $671,000 7%
The Consultants also recommend undertaking weatherization on the Tribal Council
office. This recommendation is derived directly from feedback from Tribal Council staff.
The next step is to present the findings of this pre-feasibility study to IRHA and TCC.
As service providers to the Village of Nikolai, they will help determine the next steps
forward.
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 1
Figure 1: Aerial view of Nikolai, Alaska
Wood fuel supply in Nikolai
In 1987 Tanana Chiefs Conference completed a timber inventory of the ANCSA Native
village lands around Nikolai. The village corporation, MTNT, Limited, owns
approximately 69,120 acres, of which approximately 20,300 acres are forested, holding
an estimated 46.254 million cubic feet of saw timber and pole timber. Much of this
material could be considered woody biomass suitable for wood fueled heating systems.
Doyon, Limited, the regional corporation, is the other major landowner in the region, as
indicated by Figure 2: Map of Land Ownership Surrounding Nikolai, Alaska.
While these inventory figures
indicate a substantial timber
resource, sites supporting tree
growth are widely distributed
and may be difficult to access
because of the area
characteristics and the lack of
existing roads. The Village is
located along a major river
system with expansive low
elevation wetlands, resulting
in widely distributed higher
elevation sites that support
tree growth. These factors
impact the economics of fuel
availability, which in turn impacts the size and fuel demand for a wood fueled heating
system in the community. Additional considerations include 1) the landowner’s
contractual agreement for harvest and compensation for the resource, 2) public
acceptance of larger scale timber harvest than has been experienced in recent history,
and 3) total project (from timber harvest to operation of the heating system) economic
feasibility.
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 2
Figure 2: Map of Land Ownership Surrounding Nikolai, AK.
Figure 3: Timber Inventory, 1987
Results of Tanana Chiefs Conference timber inventories:
Nikolai (1987)Acres Cubic Feet Board Feet
(thousands)
Saw Timber Types: (10.5"+ d.b.h.)
White Spruce 3,246 10,903,000 35,745
Cottonwood 227 688,000 1,996
Mixed White Spruce/Hardwood 5,813 15,047,000 47,149
Subtotal 9,286 26,638,000 84,890
Pole timber Types: (4.5" - 10.5" d.b.h.)
White Spruce 563 2,487,000 7,732
Cottonwood 523 11,659,000 22,796
Hardwood 6,700 2,216,000 3,256
Mixed White Spruce/Hardwood 705 1,499,000 4,470
Black Spruce 2,562 1,755,000 2,841
Subtotal 11,053 19,616,000 41,095
Total 20,339 46,254,000 125,985
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 3
The timber inventory was conducted thirty-five years prior to this report, so in addition
to potential growth, other changes to the forest such as wildfire and insect infestations
may have caused changes to the availability or suitability of the timber resources for
harvest for a particular purpose. It will be critically important for updated inventory
information and maps to be developed as a base for harvest planning.
Biomass Energy Operations and Maintenance
Biomass Harvest Plan
Wood cutting is a subsistence activity in almost all interior villages adjacent to forest
land. This subsistence resource must be carefully managed or biomass energy projects
may be detrimental to the Community.
If biomass harvests are unmanaged, the natural tendency is to harvest the most
accessible wood supply first, as illustrated below. The effect is increased scarcity and
rising harvest cost, and, consequently, biomass fuel costs, for both the project and
household woodcutters. This puts community members’ energy security and the
project’s success at risk.
The project’s success depends on a well-developed and executed Harvest Plan. The
Harvest Plan accounts for the biomass harvests over the project lifetime, at least 20
years. It may also designate areas for Personal Use (household wood cutting). The
Harvest Plan also describes who is responsible for executing the Harvest Plan, and how
access will be managed. Please see figure below.
Figure 4: Illustration of Unmanaged Wood Harvesting Efforts
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 4
The first step in harvest planning will be to secure the permission and cooperation of
the affected landowner(s). This may include the community council, the ANCSA
village corporation, Native allotment owners, the regional corporation, and even in
some instances the State, Bureau of Land Management, or US Fish & Wildlife Service.
Because the project’s success is critically dependent on a Biomass Harvest Plan, the
Consultant strongly recommends developing this Plan prior to project development.
Operations Plan
In many Villages biomass boiler projects will depend on collaboration among a variety
of entities, including contract wood cutters, the boiler technician, building owners and
operators, forest landowners, and various governmental entities.
A strategy for collecting biomass, paying wood suppliers, allocating costs among heat
users, and operating and maintaining the boiler and heat distribution system is crucial
to the project’s success. Persons responsible for each task must be identified.
Because the project’s success is critically dependent on an Operations Plan, the
Consultant strongly recommends developing this Plan prior to project development.
Figure 5: Illustration of Planned Wood Harvest by Harvest Area and Time Period.
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 5
Community Facilities Information
The institutional heating opportunities considered for this report were the Kuskokwim
School, City Council building, Lodge, and City Shop. These buildings are located within
an area approximately 5 acres. The Tribal Council building was also considered but,
because of very low heat load, an existing forced air system, and no access to other
candidate buildings, was not evaluated further.
City Buildings
Currently the City hosts 3 buildings
which were considered in this study. A
list of City buildings, and heating system
descriptions, follow:
Community Building
Lodge
Shop
Community Building
The Community Building holds the
Clinic, Post Office, City Offices, Library,
and Washateria. The complex uses two
(2) 156 MBH Armstrong forced air
furnaces (model number L5B168DC20-
1). The Community Building burns about 3,000 gallons of oil per year. This includes fuel
oil consumption of the domestic hot water tank.
City Lodge
The City Lodge uses a forced-air fuel oil furnace to heat five guest rooms. The furnace is
old and will likely have to be replaced in the near future; however, it operates reliably.
The Lodge is heated year-round. Over the last 12 months, the Lodge used
approximately 1,400 gallons of fuel oil. This includes fuel oil consumption of the
domestic hot water tank.
City Shop
The City Shop currently has no electricity or heat. However, the City is trying to obtain
utility service to the Shop. It is approximately 1,400 square feet.
Figure 6: Unloading Fuel Oil from a plane in Nikolai.
Photo Credit: Alaska Division of Community and Regional
Affairs
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 6
Kuskokwim School, Yukon-Koyukuk School District
Nikolai’s “Top of the Kuskokwim” is part of the Iditarod Area School District. The
School is a K-12 facility and has 20 students. The School is the largest fuel oil consumer
in the village. Currently the School uses two (2) Burnham v9a fuel oil boilers, each with
a maximum capacity of 4.2 gallons per hour. Except on the very coldest days, only one
boiler operates. The boilers were purchased new about five years ago. The Schoo is
outfitted with a hydronic heating system, which distributes heat from the boilers using
a water-glycol mixture. The School uses about 7,500 gallons of Fuel Oil #1 per year.
The School is comprised of two buildings, the main school building and a gymnasium.
Together, the two buildings are about 9,600 square feet.
Building Name Tribal
Council
Office
Community
Building
City Lodge Kuskokwim
School
City Shop
Annual Gallons (Fuel Oil #1) 1,000 3,000 1,400 7,500 Not heated
Building Usage Year-round Year-round Year-round August -
May
Year-round
Heat Transfer Mechanism Forced air Forced air Forced air Hydronic
boiler
n/a
Heating infrastructure need
replacement?
No No Yes No n/a
Nikolai Edzeno Village Council Office
The Tribal Office is a former house which has been converted to an office building. The
building is outfitted with a new forced-air fuel oil furnace, which burns less than 1,000
gallons of fuel oil per year. The forced air system is supplemented by three (3) electric
space heaters and occasional wood heat. The two-story building has a woodstove
positioned on the first story and an exhaust pipe distributing some heat up through the
second story.
The Office is deeply in need of an energy efficiency upgrade. People working there
expressed strong physical discomfort during cold weather periods, especially when the
wind blows. The Client mentioned draft and poor windows specifically. The Consultant
passed this information on to the IRHA, which stated that Nikolai was slated for
weatherization in 2014.
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 7
Additionally, Chief Nick Alexia Sr. expressed a strong interest in reduced electric utility
costs through solar panels, other renewables, and efficiencies on behalf of the
Community. While wood heating is sufficient for the households, electricity costs
remain a heavy burden. The Consultant inquired with IRHA1 regarding renewable
electric assistance opportunities, and passed pertinent information back to Chief Alexia.
Recommended technology and fuel requirements
The recommended system design is a pre-fabricated, modular, containerized wood
biomass boiler unit. These types of systems are produced by GARN, TARM USA and
others. The GarnPac has about 350,000 BTU output and is currently being employed in
Thorne Bay. This type of system design is recommended because it is reliable, uses an
accessible fuel, cordwood, and it is a modular unit and therefore has lower installation
cost and financing advantages. The Consultant recommends adding providers of these
units, Garn/Dectra, TARM, Greenwood, and similar system manufacturers, to the list
of potential equipment providers.
To complete this prefeasibility analysis, the Consultant has chosen a representational
boiler, the GarnPac containerized unit. A district loop with one (1) GarnPac boilers (or
equivalent systems) could service the Kuskokwim School, or a small district including
the School, City Lodge, and City Shop (“District”). Fuel Oil would be retained to meet
peak demand and as back up in every project building.
Other communities operating HELE cordwood boilers of a similar size, such as Dot
Lake and Ionia, report 2 cordwood stokings per day and 0.125 – 0.5 FTE2 (Full-time
equivalent employee) per boiler.
1 Email exchange and phone call with Jennifer Maguire, IRHA. May 14, 2012.
2 Nicholls, David. 2009. Wood energy in Alaska—case study evaluations of selected facilities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-
GTR-793. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 33 p.
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 8
Initial project development costs for a wood heating system costs may include:
Capital costs: boiler, hydronic pipe and other hardware, wood storage shelter,
fuel-handling equipment, shipping costs.
Engineering: storage design, plumbing integration, fuel-handling infrastructure.3
Permitting: no permits required. In lieu of permits, all regulations must be met.
Installation: Site work, installation, and integration into existing system.
Fuel storage: storage building, firewood chutes, or preparation of existing
storage room.
System building: (if required).
Ongoing operational costs may include:
Financing: Principal and interest payments from project debt, or profits from
project equity investment. In Village projects, financing costs likely do not apply.
Wood fuel purchases.
Amortization costs: capital equipment and other infrastructure.4 When projects
are grant financed, amortization does not apply.
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) labor.
3 Not all projects require engineering design.
4 Cash and accrual basis are two different accounting methods for project investment. Accrual accounting
amortizes project investment over the project lifetime (“lifecycle costs”). This method results in monies to
reinvest in new equipment at the end of its lifetime. Cash basis is simply on the dollars spent to operate,
maintain, and finance the project.
Assumptions:
16.2 MMBTU/ Cord White Spruce
0.1250 MMBTU per gallon Oil #1
Annual
Gallons
Annual
MMBTU
Annual
Cords* for
Biomass/
Oil system
Annual Fuel Oil
gallons for Biomass/
Oil system
Kuskokwim School 7,500 938 48 1,093
District 11,900 1,488 81 2,270
Community Center 3,000 375
City Lodge 1,400 175
City Shop 930**116
* Based on Dalson Energy Heating Degree Day data model
** Assumed 40 watts/m2 applied to shop space. Space is
currently unheated and currently uses 0 gallons of fuel oil.
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 9
Fossil fuel purchases and labor.5
Economic feasibility
Initial investment
School
The Kuskokwim School has an estimated Capitalization Cost of $298,000.
The District, including Kuskokwim School, Community Center, Lodge, and Shop has an
estimated Capitalization Cost of $478,000.
See charts below for cost estimates and sources. Full feasibility analysis and/or bids
would provide more detailed numbers.
8 The existing oil heat infrastructure will be retained for supplement heat and back-up. Therefore, the
fossil fuel system has ongoing O&M costs, albeit lower than if used as the primary heat source.
10
Kuskokwim School
Kuskokwim School
System Size (estimated net BTU/ hr)350,000
Capitalization costs Footnote
Capital equipment
GarnPac FOB Minnesota, qty. (1) 100,000$ A A Dectra Corp estimate
Freight to Nikolai 15,000$ B B Crowley & Lynden Transport estimates, 4/17/12
Boiler Integration 50,000$ C C Dalson Energy estimate
subtotal 165,000$
Commissioning and training 4,000$ D D Alaskan Heat Technologies estimate
Project Management and Design
Engineering/ design 50,000$ E E Dalson Energy estimate
Permitting 2,000$ F F Dalson Energy estimate
Project Management 50,000$ G G Dalson Energy estimate
sub-total 271,000$
Contingency (10%)27,100$
Total 298,100$
Footnotes
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 11
District
District
System Size (estimated net BTU/ hr)350,000
Capitalization costs Footnote
Capital equipment
GarnPac FOB Minnesota 100,000$ A A Dectra Corp estimate
Freight to Nikolai 15,000$ B B Crowley & Lynden Transport estimates 4/17/12
Boiler Integration 50,000$ C C Dalson Energy estimate
District loop main 94,405$ D D RET Screen analysis
Water to Air exchangers 45,000$
subtotal 304,405$
Commissioning and training 4,000$ E E Alaskan Heat Technologies estimate
Project Management and Design
Engineering/ design 75,000$ F F Dalson Energy estimate
Permitting 2,000$ G G Dalson Energy estimate
Project Management 50,000$ H H Dalson Energy estimate
sub-total 435,405$
Contingency (10%)43,541$
Total 478,946$
Footnotes
12
Operating Assumptions
The following assumptions are embedded in all financial analyses in this assessment. They include crucial project variables, such as the
price of fuel oil, wood fuel, and labor operating costs. See chart below.
Assumptions for project buildings Kuskokwim School District Footnotes Footnotes
Total MMBTU per year 938 1,338 A A Estimates of annual fuel gallon useage, from year 2011
% load served by wood fuel 84%90 B B Dalson Energy HDD analysis
% load served by fuel oil 15%9 C C Dalson Energy HDD analysis
Total Cordwood per year (cords)48 74 D D Dalson Energy HDD analysis
Total Fuel Oil #1 per year (gal)1,098 997 E E Dalson Energy HDD analysis
Price per cord 250$ 250$ F F City provided
Price per gallon 7$ 7$ G G City provided
Biomass labor hours per year 600 780 H H
Oil labor hours per year 45 45 I I Dalson Energy estimate
Price per hour of labor 18 18 J J City provided
Biomass preventative maintenance supplies cost 66$ 66$ K K
Oil nozzles and filters 250$ 250$ L L Dalson Energy estimate
Biomass boilers (lifetime operating hours)60,000 60,000 M M Dalson Energy estimate
Biomass boilers (operating hours per year)3,000 3,900
Biomass refractories (lifetime operating hours)45,000 45,000 N N
Oil boiler (lifetime operationg hours)60,000 60,000 O O Dalson Energy estimate
Electricity ($/kWh)0.84$ 0.84$ P P Estimated $0.63/kWh
Electricity Consumption (biomass system)1,800 2,600 Q Q
Amount financed
Term
Rate
Estimated 1 kWe consumption per hour for boiler fan when
operating. Estimated 1800 hours uptime for School;
Estimated 2600 hours uptime for District.
Subject to full feasibility study
Estimated 3 hours per day, 300 days per year per boiler.
Consistent with Dot Lake and Ionia Ecovillage cordwood
boiler labor requirements.
Information from Alaskan Heat Technologies. Chemicals max
at $250/ yr. Gasket kit at $75. Refractory replaced every 15
years at $500 -- $1,000.
Based on Information from Alaskan Heat Technologies. Entire
refractory replacement after 15 years of operation
13
Operating Costs & Annual Savings
The following analyses estimate the operating costs and annual savings from installing biomass heating districts at the
Kuskokwim School and District. These financial summaries do not include any financing costs but they do include
amortization of project equipment, known as lifecycle costs. Lifecycle costs are accrued over the project lifetime and,
when the equipment has fulfilled its useful life, monies are available to purchase the next system. Accrual-based
accounting is standard practice.
Special attention should be given to designing an investment and operating structure that suits the system owners and
operators. Third party financing, ownership, and O&M (Operations and Maintenance) services may be available. The
selected technology provider should provide the training services to equip any daily operator with the knowledge and
skills to safely and reliably operate the biomass system.
Savings are calculated on both a cash and accrual basis.
Biomass
Oil 52,500 Wood fuel 12,000$
Labor 810$ Labor 10,800$
Supplies 250$ Preventative maintenance supplies 66$
Lifecycle 1,500$ Electricity 1,512$
Lifecycle 14,905$
Financing subject to feasibility
Fuel Oil (supplement)
Oil 7,686$
Labor 405$
Supplies 250$
Lifecycle 225$
Total Annual O&M Costs (accural basis)55,060$ Total Annual O&M Costs (accural basis)47,849$ 7,211$ Accrual
Total Annual O&M Costs (cash basis) 53,560$ Total Annual O&M Costs (cash basis) 32,719$ 20,841$ Cash
O&M Costs Fuel Oil O&M Costs: Biomass + Fuel Oil (supplement)
Kuskokwim School
Annual Savings
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 14
Biomass
Oil 83,300 Wood fuel 18,500$
Labor 810$ Labor 14,040$
Supplies 250$ Supplies 66$
Lifecycle 2,750$ Electricity 2,184$
Lifecycle 31,131$
Financing subject to feasibility
Fuel Oil (supplement)
Oil 6,979$
Labor 810$
Supplies 250$
Lifecycle 24,750$
Total Annual O&M Costs (accural basis)87,110$ Total Annual O&M Costs (accural basis)98,711$ (11,601)$ Accrual
Total Annual O&M Costs (cash basis) 84,360$ Total Annual O&M Costs (cash basis) 42,829$ 41,531$ Cash
O&M Costs Fuel Oil O&M Costs: Biomass + Fuel Oil (supplement)
District
Annual Savings
15
Financial metrics
The following financial analyses are entirely reliant on the preceding assumptions and
O&M models. These same models can be refined to reflect more sophisticated financial
profiles if additional study is warranted.
Simple payback period
Present Value
The prefeasibility Scope of Work does not allow building a full economic model with
escalation rates of fuel, labor, and supplies cost. Present value analysis is completed on
the basis of the savings demonstrated in this section.
Kuskokwim School District
Initial Investment 298,100$ 478,946$
Cash savings, Year 1 20,841$ 41,531$
Simple Payback (Years)14.3 11.5
SIMPLE PAYBACK
5.50%
10
Initial investment 298,100$ Initial investment 478,946$
20,841$ 41,531$
Kuskokwim School District
Interest Rate per Month 0.46%0.46%
Number of Payments in project lifetime 120 120
Payment per month (2,484)$ (3,991)$
Future Value (cash value of new project)20,841$ 41,531$
Payments at end of period = 0 0 0
Present Value $216,861 $343,773
Equation Values
Future value (cash value of new project)
Assumptions
Present Value
Kuskokwim School
Interest Rate
Term (years)
Future value (cash value of new project)
District
16
Net Present Value
The prefeasibility Scope of Work does not allow building a full economic model with escalation rates of fuel, labor, and supplies cost.
Net present value analysis is completed on the basis of the savings demonstrated in Year 1, generally inflating at 1.5% per year.
Internal Rate of Return
The prefeasibility Scope of Work does not allow building a full economic model with escalation rates of fuel, labor, and supplies cost.
IRR analysis is completed on the basis of the savings demonstrated in this section.
Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for School
3.50%
1.50%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NPV
Kuskokwim School 20,841$ 21,153$ 21,471$ 21,793$ 22,120$ 22,451$ 22,788$ 23,130$ 23,477$ 23,829$ 24,187$ 24,549$ 24,918$ 25,291$ 25,671$ 26,056$ 26,447$ 26,843$ 27,246$ 27,655$ $336,700
District 41,531$ 42,154$ 42,786$ 43,428$ 44,079$ 44,740$ 45,412$ 46,093$ 46,784$ 47,486$ 48,198$ 48,921$ 49,655$ 50,400$ 51,156$ 51,923$ 52,702$ 53,492$ 54,295$ 55,109$ $670,964
Net Present
Value
Discount Rate
General Inflation Rate
1.50%
Year 0 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 IRR
Kuskokwim School (298,100)$ 20,841$ 21,153$ 21,793$ 22,120$ 22,451$ 22,788$ 23,130$ 23,477$ 23,829$ 24,187$ 24,549$ 24,918$ 25,291$ 25,671$ 26,056$ 26,447$ 26,843$ 27,246$ 27,655$ 5%
District (478,946)$ 41,531$ 42,154$ 43,428$ 44,079$ 44,740$ 45,412$ 46,093$ 46,784$ 47,486$ 48,198$ 48,921$ 49,655$ 50,400$ 51,156$ 51,923$ 52,702$ 53,492$ 54,295$ 55,109$ 7%
Internal Rate of Return General Inflation Rate
District:Yukon Koyukuk
School: Kuskokwim School
Project: Biomass Boiler
Project No. NA
Study Period:20
Discount Rate: 3.50%
Life Cycle Costs of Project Alternatives
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 17
Alternative #1 (low)Alternative #2 (high)
Initial Investment Cost 271,000$ 298,100$
O&M and Repair Cost 691,942$ 682,328$
Replacement Cost 50,257$ 75,385$
Residual Value 25,128$ 15,077$
Total Life Cycle Cost 1,038,327$ 1,070,890$
GSF of Project 29,916 29,916
Initial Cost/ GSF 9.06$ 9.96$
LCC/ GSF 34.71$ 35.80$
YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Discount Rate 3.50%
Gen'l Inflation for O&M 1.50%
NPV
O&M $691,942 42,829$ 43,472$ 44,124$ 44,786$ 45,457$ 46,139$ 46,831$ 47,534$ 48,247$ 48,971$ 49,705$ 50,451$ 51,207$ 51,976$ 52,755$ 53,547$ 54,350$ 55,165$ 55,992$ 56,832$
Replacement $50,257 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000
Residual $25,128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000
Discount Rate 3.50%
Gen'l Inflation for O&M 1.50%
NPV
O&M $682,328 42,829$ 42,829$ 43,472$ 44,124$ 44,786$ 45,457$ 46,139$ 46,831$ 47,534$ 48,247$ 48,971$ 49,705$ 50,451$ 51,207$ 51,976$ 52,755$ 53,547$ 54,350$ 55,165$ 55,992$
Replacement $75,385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000
Residual $15,077 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000
Alt. 1
Alt 2
18
Conclusion
The village of Nikolai has significant opportunities for biomass heating, owing to the high cost of fuel
oil, accessible cordwood supply, and existing institutional heat loads that could be adequately served
by one or more biomass boilers.
Cordwood is an accessible and sustainable biomass supply in the Village so long as a Biomass
Harvest Plan is appropriately developed and executed. Because the project’s success is critically
dependent on a Biomass Harvest Plan, the Consultant strongly recommends developing this Plan prior
to project development. Additionally, because the project’s success is critically dependent on an
Operations Plan, the Consultant strongly recommends developing this Plan prior to project
development.
All projects examined in this pre-feasibility report show positive NPV and cash savings, which
suggests that development may be warranted. A small district heating facility serving the School,
Community Center, Lodge, and Shop is the most financially attractive project; however, the School is
most easily adaptable to the biomass system and serves as the single largest heat load. Because the
same boiler size could serve the district as could serve the School, the Consultant recommends first
developing the School project. The School District could iron out Harvest and Operations Plans on
the smaller project first.
Some work will have to be done to adapt the load centers with the hydronic heat loop, and these
adaptations have not been fully assessed. Additionally, hot water boilers will need to be connected to
the District Heat loop.
There remain other significant energy opportunities in Nikolai, notably weatherization of the Tribal
Building and solar energy or electric efficiency initiatives across the Community.
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 19
Consultant/Authors of this report:
Dalson Energy is a Renewable Energy Consulting and Technology Research firm based in
Anchorage. Dalson staff and partners have decades of experience in construction project
management, project development consulting and renewable energy technology research. Dalson
teams with licensed engineers, architects and designers in Alaska, Canada and Lower 48.
Dalson Energy has worked with Alaska Energy Authority, Alaska Center for Energy & Power,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Washington State CTED (Community Trade & Economic
Development) and California Energy Commission on biomass energy technology research.
Dalson’s President, Thomas Deerfield, has been involved in biomass energy RD&D since 2001,
winning grants and managing projects with NREL (National Renewable Energy Labs), USFS (US
Forest Service), and CEC (California Energy Commission).
Thomas managed the field-testing of biomass CHP systems, including the first grid-connected
biomass gasification CHP system in the US. (2007). Thomas coordinated the design and creation of
the first prototype Biomass “Boiler in a Box” in Alaska, in 2010. That Garn -based system is now
deployed in Elim, in the Bering Sea region.
Thomas founded Shasta Energy Group (SEG), a 501c3 nonprofit, and managed wind energy research,
biomass energy feasibility studies, energy efficiency for buildings, and hydronic heating system
research design and development (RD&D). He also initiated a rural economic development think
tank and has engaged his writing skills to assist many other renewable energy project initiatives.
Wynne Auld is a Biomass Energy Specialist with Dalson Energy. She focuses on assessing and
developing woody biomass energy projects. Over the past few years, she has supported the business
development of integrated biomass energy campuses in Oregon and Idaho, especially related to their
energy initiatives. Her efforts have included marketing Campus biomass heating products to major
wholesalers and retail buyers, and planning and developing Campus sort yards and small-scale CHP.
Wynne also specializes in assisting commercial and municipal building managers in assessing the
feasibility of biomass heating, and implementing their projects. She works to ensure vibrant rural
communities through sustainable natural resource utilization.
20
Supplement: Community Wood Heating Basics
Wood fuel as a heating option
When processed, handled, and combusted appropriately, wood fuels are
among the most cost-effective and reliable sources of heating fuel for
communities adjacent to forestland.
Compared to other heating energy fuels, wood fuels are characterized by
lower energy density and higher associated transportation and handling
costs. This low bulk density results in a shorter viable haul distance for
wood fuels compared to fossil fuels. However, this “limit” also creates an
advantage for local communities to utilize locally-sourced wood fuels, while
simultaneously retaining local energy dollars and excercising local resource
management.
Most Interior villages are particularly vulnerable to high energy prices
because the region has over 13,500 heating degree days6 (HDD) per year –
160% of Anchorage’s HDDs, or 380% of Seattle’s HDDs. For many
communities, wood-fueled heating lowers fuel costs. For example,
cordwood sourced at $250 per cord is just 25% of the cost per MMBTU as
fuel oil #1 sourced at $7 per gallon. Besides the financial savings, local
communities benefit from the multiplier effect of circulating fuel money in
the community longer, more stable energy prices, job creation, and more
active forest management.
In all the Interior villages studied, the community’s wood supply and
demand are isolated from outside markets. Instead, the firewood market is
influenced by land ownership, existing forest management and ecological
conditions, local demand and supply, and the State of Alaska Energy
Assistance program.
The nature of wood fuels
Wood fuels are specified by moisture content, granulometry, energy density,
ash content, dirt and rocks, and fines and coarse particles. Each of these
characteristics affects the wood fuel’s handling characteristics, storage
requirements, and combustion process. Fuels are considered higher quality
6 Heating degree days are a metric designed to reflect the amount of energy needed to heat the
interior of a building. It is derived from measurements of outside temperature.
Figure 8: Ground wood chips
used for mulch.
Figure 7: Cordwood
Figure 10: Wood pellets
Figure 9: Wood briquettes, as a
substitute for cordwood. Cross
sections of these briquettes make
“wafers” which can be automatically
handled in biomass boiler systems.
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 21
if they have lower moisture, ash, dirt, and rock contents; consistent granulometry; and higher energy
density.
Many types of fuel quality can be used in wood heating projects so long as the infrastructure
specifications match the fuel content characteristics. Typically, lower quality fuel will be the lowest
cost fuel, but it will require more expensive storage, handling, and combustion infrastructure, as well
as additional maintenance.
Projects in interior Alaska must be designed around the availability of wood fuels. Some fuels can be
manufactured on site, such as cordwood, woodchips, and briquettes. The economic feasibility of
manufacturing on site can be determined by a financial assessment of the project; generally speaking,
larger projects offer more flexibility in terms of owning and operating harvesting and manufacturing
equipment, such as a wood chipper, than smaller projects.
It is unlikely that interior communities will be able to manufacture pellets, from both a financial,
operational, and fuel sourcing perspective. However, some interior communities may be able to
manufacture bricks or firelogs made from pressed wood material. These products can substitute for
cordwood in woodstoves and boilers, while reducing supply pressure on larger diameter trees than
are generally preferred for cordwood. At their simplest, brick presses are operated by hand, but
require chipped, dry fuel.
The basics of wood-fueled heating
Biomass heating systems fit into two typical categories: first, stoves and fireplaces that heat space
directly through convection and radiation by burning cordwood or pellets; second, hydronic systems
where the boiler burns cordwood, woodchips or pellets to heat liquid that is distributed to radiant
piping, radiators or heat exchangers. The heated liquid is distributed out to users, then returned to
the heat source for re-heating.
Hydronic systems are appropriate for serving individual buildings, or multiple buildings with
insulated piping called heat loops. Systems that serve multiple buildings are called district heating
loops. District heating is common in Europe, where larger boilers sometimes serve entire villages.
Biomass boilers are dependent on the compatibility of the chosen fuel, handling system, and
combustion system. General categories for typically available biomass fuel systems follow:
Batch load solid chunk boiler
Semi-automated or fully-automated chipped or ground biomass boilers
Fully-automated densified-fuel boiler, using pellets, bricks, or pucks
The system application is typically determined by size of heat load, available wood fuels, and
available maintenance personnel. General categories for heat load and wood fuel follow:
Loads < 1 MMBTU often use cordwood or pellet boilers
Loads > 1MMBTU often use pellet or woodchip boilers
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 22
Loads > 10MMTU often use hog-fuel (mixed ground wood)
Each wood fuel type has different handling requirements and is associated with different emission
profiles. For example, industrial systems greater than 10 MMBTU often require additional particulate
and emission controls because of the combustion properties of hog-fuel.
One category of system that is particularly appropriate for remote rural communities is cordwood
boilers. Cordwood boilers are batch-loaded with seasoned cordwood. A significant advantage to
cordwood is that very little infrastructure is needed to manufacture or handle the heating fuel. At its
most basic, cordwood can be “manufactured” with a chainsaw (or handsaw) and an ax, and residents
of rural communities are often accustomed to harvesting wood to heat their homes and shops.
Harvesting in most Interior villages is accomplished with ATV’s, river skiffs, sleds and dog teams,
and snow machines. Since cordwood systems are batch loaded by hand, they do not require
expensive automated material handling systems. Covered storage is required; such storage may be as
simple as an existing shed or a vented shipping container, rather than newly constructed storage
structures.
Challenges to cordwood include higher labor costs associated with manual loading. Some LEHE (low
efficiency, high emission) technologies such as Outdoor Wood Boilers (OWBs) have been criticized
for their high emissions and excessive wood consumption.
Cordwood systems are typically less than 1 MMBTU. However, if needed, some types of cordwood
boilers can be “cascaded,” meaning multiple boilers can meet heat demand as a single unit. However,
above a certain heat load, automated material handling and larger combustion systems become
viable.
Woodchip systems can be automated and thereby less labor intensive. However, woodchip systems
have significantly higher capital costs than both cordwood and pellet systems. Additionally, a
reliable stream of woodchips typically depends on a regionally active forest products manufacturing
base in the area, and active forest management. In most Interior communities, institutional heating
with woody biomass does not justify the purchase of log trucks, harvesting, handling, and
manufacturing equipment.
Pellet systems are the most automated systems, and have lower capital equipment costs than
woodchip systems. Lower costs are due to the smaller size of required infrastructure and simplified
handling and storage infrastructure. However, pellet fuel and other densified fuels tend to be more
expensive than other wood fuels, and require reliable access to pellet fuels.
For any system, the mass of feedstock required annually is determined by three parameters:
1) Building heat load
2) Net BTU content of the fuel
3) Efficiency of the boiler system
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 23
Building heat loads are determined by square footage, orientation and usage, as well as energy
efficiency factors such as insulation, moisture barriers and air leakage. Usage is particularly
important because it influences peak demand. For example, a community center which is used only a
few times per month for events, and otherwise kept at a storage temperature of 55 d. F, would have a
much different usage profile than a City Office which is fully occupied during the work day and
occasionally during evenings and weekends.
Building heat load analysis, including the building usage profile, is a particularly important part of
boiler right-sizing. A full feasibility analysis would conduct analyses that optimize the return on
investment (ROI) of systems. Typically, optimizing a biomass project’s ROI depends on a
supplementary heating system, such as an oil fired system, to meet peak demand and prevent short-
cycling of the biomass boiler. Full feasibility analyses may not be necessary for small projects,
especially for those employing cordwood boilers.
Biomass boiler efficiencies vary from 60% to 80%, depending on the manufacturer and the field
conditions of the equipment. The efficiency is strongly influenced by the BTU value and MC
(moisture content) of the fuel. Wood fuels with greater than 50% MC generally result in lower
efficiency systems, because some energy is used to drive off moisture from the fuel during the
combustion process. The reduction in energy output is mathematically equal; 50% MC generally
means 50% reduction in potential BTU value.
Like other combustion-based energy systems, woody biomass boilers produce emissions in the
combustion process. Compared to fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and fuel oil), wood fuel emissions
are low in nitrogen oxides (NOx); carbon monoxide (CO, a product of incomplete combustion); sulfur
dioxide (SO2); and mercury (Hg). Because these compounds are all products of the forest and CO
would release naturally during the process of decay or wildfire, they generally do not concern
regulatory agencies. For emission control agencies, the real interest is particulate matter (PM)
emissions, which affect the air quality of human communities. Some wood systems are extremely
sophisticated, producing less than 0.06 lb/ MMBTU of PM.
Effective methods of PM control have been developed to remove most of the particles from the
exhaust air of wood combustion facilities. These include introduction of pre-heated secondary air,
highly controlled combustion, and PM collection devices.
Biomass boiler systems typically integrate a hot water storage tank, or buffer tank. The storage tank
prevents short cycling for automated boilers and improves efficiency and performance of batch-fired
systems, by allowing project buildings to draw on the boiler’s hot water long after the combustion
process. The GarnPac boiler design incorporates hot water storage into the boiler jacket itself, storing
approximately 2,200 gallons of hot water. Other boilers are typically installed with a separate hot
water storage tank.
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 24
Available wood heating technology
This section will focus generally on manufacturers of the types of technology discussed previously.
Cordwood Boilers
High Efficiency Low Emission (HELE) cordwood boilers are designed to burn cordwood fuel cleanly
and efficiently.
Cordwood used at the site will ideally be seasoned to 25% MC (moisture content) and meet the
dimensions specified by the chosen boiler. The actual amount of cordwood used would depend on
the buildings’ heat load profile, and the utilization of a fuel oil system as back up.
The following table lists three HELE cordwood boiler suppliers, all of which have units operating in
Alaska. Greenwood and TarmUSA, Inc. have a number of residential units operating in Alaska, and
several GARN boilers, manufactured by Dectra Corporation, are used in Tanana, Kasilof, Dot Lake,
Thorne Bay and other locations to heat homes, Washaterias, and Community Buildings.
HELE Cordwood Boiler Suppliers
Vendor Btu/hr ratings Supplier
Tarm 100,000 to 198,000 Tarm USA
www.tarmusa.com
Greenwood 100,000 to 300,000 Greenwood
www.greenwoodusa.com
GARN 250,000 to 700,000 Dectra Corp.
www.dectra.net/garn
Note: These lists are representational of available systems, and are not inclusive
of all options.
Bulk Fuel Boilers
The term “bulk fuel” refers to systems that utilize wood chips, pellets, pucks, or other loose
manufactured fuel. Numerous suppliers of these boilers exist. Since this report focuses on village-
scale heating, the following chart outlines manufacturers of chip and pellet fuel boilers < 1 MMBTU.
HELE Bulk Fuel Boiler Suppliers
Vendor Btu/hr ratings Supplier
Froling
35,800 to 200,000; up to 4 can be
cascaded as a single unit at
800,000 BTU
Tarm USA
www.tarmusa.com
KOB 512,000 – 1,800,000 BTU (PYROT
model)
Ventek Energy Systems Inc.
peter@ventekenergy.com
Dalson Energy Inc. – Nikolai Preliminary Feasibility Assessment 25
Binder 34,000 BTU – 34 MMBTU BINDER USA
contact@binder-boiler.com
Note: These lists are representational of available systems, and are not inclusive
The following is a review of Community Facilities being considered for biomass heating. The
subsequent section will recommend a certain type of biomass heating technology, based on the
Facility information below.
District heat loops
District heat loops refers to a system for heating multiple buildings from a central power plant. The
heat is transported in a piping system to consumers in the form of hot water or steam.
These are the key factors that affect the cost of installing and operating a district heating system7:
Heat load density.
Distance between buildings. Shorter distances between buildings will allow use of smaller
diameter (less expensive) pipes and lesser pumping costs.
Permafrost. In the Interior, frozen soil could affect construction costs and project feasibility.
Aboveground insulated piping may be preferred to underground piping, such as the
cordwood system recently installed in Tanana, Alaska.
Piping materials used. Several types of tubing are available for supply and return water. Pre-
insulated PEX tubing may be the preferred piping material for its flexibility and oxygen
barrier.
District loop design. Water can be piped in one direction (i.e., one pipe enclosed) or two
directions (two pipes enclosed) for a given piping system. Design affects capital costs and
equality of heat distribution.
Other considerations. Pump size, thermal load (BTUs per hour), water temperature, and
electrical use are other variables.
For the purposes of this study, the consultants have chosen to estimate the costs of district heat loops
using the RET Screen, a unique decision support tool developed with the contribution of numerous
experts from government, industry, and academia. The software, provided free-of-charge, can be
used worldwide to evaluate the energy production and savings, costs, emission reductions, financial
viability and risk for various types of Renewable-energy and Energy-efficient Technologies (RETs),
including district heat loops from biomass.
7 Nicholls, David; Miles, Tom. 2009. Cordwood energy systems for community heating in Alaska—an
overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-783. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. 17 p.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska: Koyukuk, Nulato, Kaltag, Anvik, Holy Cross, Hughes, Ruby, and Nikolai Presented to: Interior Regional Housing Authority 828 27th Ave. Fairbanks, AK 99701 By: Will Putman Tanana Chiefs Conference, Forestry Program 122 First Ave., Suite 600 Fairbanks, AK 99701 October, 2012
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska i Executive Summary As part of an effort to assess the feasibility of proposed biomass energy projects at a number of villages in Interior Alaska, an assessment of woody biomass resources was conducted for the vicinities of the villages of Koyukuk, Nulato, Kaltag, Anvik, Holy Cross, Hughes, Nikolai, and Ruby. The assessments attempt to leverage existing information as much as possible, including forest inventory information compiled by Tanana Chiefs Conference for previous projects and classified satellite imagery. The area considered for each community was defined by a 25-mile radius from the community (~1.25 million acres), with the area additionally constrained to exclude areas closer to neighboring communities. A number of cost parameters were assumed and used to estimate costs of harvesting, transporting, and managing biomass resources across the landscape. The assessments result in woody biomass stocking and annual allowable cut estimates stored and maintained in geodatabases, with the ability to query and report data by land cover type, ownership, biomass growth, biomass cost, distance from village, and other parameters. Highlights of the resulting data analysis include: • The percentage of land area determined to be associated with forested timber-bearing strata in the area of each community ranged from 28% at Nikolai and Holy Cross to 55% at Ruby, and averaged 37% overall. • Total biomass associated with each community ranged from 4,091,397 tons at Nulato to 15,743,931 tons at Ruby; the relatively lower numbers at Nulato are the result of the project area being constrained by the presence of nearby villages up and downriver from Nulato, and the relatively higher numbers at Ruby are partially the result of a higher percentage of forested land on the landscape. • Using some simple growth modeling and estimates of existing stocking, estimates of Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) were generated. Total AAC for each community ranges from 131,996 tons/year at Nulato to 427,338 tons/year at Ruby. • Using the cost parameters assumed in the analysis, the cost of harvesting, transporting and managing the woody biomass was determined to range from $37 to $256 per ton. Not surprisingly, the most expensive biomass is farthest from the communities because of the effect of the estimated transportation cost parameters. • There are extensive biomass stocks on Federal, State, and ANCSA corporation land holdings, but the areas closest to the villages are dominated by ANCSA corporation ownerships. • The data indicate the presence of significant amounts of recoverable woody biomass, particularly when viewed in terms of supporting relatively modest-sized thermal heating projects. Larger -scale projects, more demanding economic thresholds, and information demands required by more detailed planning will require the collection and analysis of additional data.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska ii Table of Contents INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1 DATA COMPONENTS ................................................................................ 5 Land Cover ................................................................................................. 5 Forest Inventory data ................................................................................. 6 Woody Biomass Units ................................................................................. 8 Land Ownership ......................................................................................... 9 Site class 10 Estimating AAC and assigning rotation and growth parameters...................... 10 Cost modeling .......................................................................................... 13 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS .................................................. 15 RESULTS ................................................................................................... 19 Overall Results ......................................................................................... 19 Koyukuk ................................................................................................. 21 Nulato ................................................................................................. 27 Kaltag ................................................................................................. 33 Anvik ................................................................................................. 39 Holy Cross ................................................................................................ 45 Hughes ................................................................................................. 51 Nikolai ................................................................................................. 57 Ruby ................................................................................................. 63 FUTURE STEPS ........................................................................................ 69
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska iii List of Figures Figure 1: Location of project communities in Alaska.................................................. 2 Figure 2: Location of 25-mile radius community project areas.................................... 3 Figure 3: Land ownership, Koyuku k project area. ................................................... 24 Figure 4: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Koyukuk. ............................................. 25 Figure 5: Woody biomass cost, Koyukuk. .............................................................. 26 Figure 6: Land ownership, Nulato project area. ...................................................... 30 Figure 7: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Nulato. ................................................ 31 Figure 8: Woody biomass cost, Nulato. ................................................................. 32 Figure 9: Land ownership, Kaltag project area. ...................................................... 36 Figure 10: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Kaltag. ............................................... 37 Figure 11: Woody biomass cost, Kaltag. ................................................................ 38 Figure 12: Land ownership, Anvik project area. ...................................................... 42 Figure 13: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Anvik. ................................................ 43 Figure 14: Woody biomass cost, Anvik. ................................................................. 44 Figure 15: Land ownership, Holy Cross project area. .............................................. 48 Figure 16: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Holy Cross. ......................................... 49 Figure 17: Woody biomass cost, Holy Cross. .......................................................... 50 Figure 18:: Land ownership, Hughes project area. .................................................. 54 Figure 19: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Hughes. ............................................. 55 Figure 20: Woody biomass cost, Hughes. .............................................................. 56 Figure 21: Land ownership, Nikolai project area. .................................................... 60 Figure 22: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Nikolai. .............................................. 61 Figure 23: Woody biomass cost, Nikolai. ............................................................... 62 Figure 24: Land ownership, Ruby project area. ...................................................... 66 Figure 25: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Ruby.................................................. 67 Figure 26: Woody biomass cost, Ruby. ................................................................. 68
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska iv List of Tables Table 1: Biomass assessment project communities ....................................... 3 Table 2: TCC forest inventories near project communities. ............................. 7 Table 3: Wood density of tree species in Interior Alaska................................. 9 Table 4: Cost parameters used in the analyses. .......................................... 13 Table 5: Forest area and biomass by village. .............................................. 20 Table 6: Biomass dry tons by ownership and village. ................................... 20 Table 7: Biomass by Land Ownership, Koyukuk. ......................................... 21 Table 8: Biomass by Village Proximity, Koyukuk. ........................................ 21 Table 9: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Koyukuk. ........................................... 22 Table 10: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Koyukuk. ... 23 Table 11: Biomass by species, Koyukuk. .................................................... 23 Table 12: Biomass by Land Ownership, Nulato. ........................................... 27 Table 13: Biomass by Village Proximity, Nulato. .......................................... 27 Table 14: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Nulato. ............................................ 28 Table 15: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Nulato. ...... 29 Table 16: Biomass by species, Nulato. ....................................................... 29 Table 17: Biomass by Land Ownership, Kaltag. ........................................... 33 Table 18: Biomass by Village Proximity, Kaltag ........................................... 33 Table 19: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Kaltag. ............................................ 34 Table 20: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Kaltag. ...... 35 Table 21: Biomass by species, Kaltag. ....................................................... 35 Table 22: Biomass by Land Ownership, Anvik. ............................................ 39 Table 23: Biomass by Village Proximity, Anvik. ........................................... 39 Table 24: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Anvik. ............................................. 40 Table 25: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Anvik. ........ 40 Table 26: Biomass by species, Anvik. ........................................................ 41 Table 27: Biomass by Land Ownership, Holy Cross. ..................................... 45 Table 28: Biomass by Village Proximity, Holy Cross. .................................... 45 Table 29: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Holy Cross. ...................................... 46 Table 30: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership an d Village Proximity, Holy Cross. 46 Table 31: Biomass by species, Holy Cross. ................................................. 47 Table 32: Biomass by Land Ownership, Hughes .......................................... 51 Table 33: Biomass by Village Proximity, Hughes. ........................................ 51 Table 34: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Hughes. ........................................... 52 Table 35: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Hughes. ..... 53 Table 36: Biomass by species, Hughes. ..................................................... 53 Table 37: Biomass by Land Ownership, Nikolai. .......................................... 57 Table 38: Biomass by Village Proximity, Nikolai. ......................................... 57 Table 39: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Nikolai. ............................................ 58 Table 40: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Nikolai. ...... 58 Table 41: Biomass by species, Nikolai. ....................................................... 59 Table 42: Biomass by Land Ownership, Ruby. ............................................. 63 Table 43: Biomass by Village Proximity, Ruby. ............................................ 63 Table 44: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Ruby. .............................................. 64 Table 45: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Ruby. ........ 65 Table 46: Biomass by species, Ruby. ......................................................... 65
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 1 INTRODUCTION Rapidly increasing fossil fuel costs have resulted in a heightened sense of urgency when considering the ability of small communities to absorb these costs and maintain some sense of community sustainability. There are few places where this is more severe than rural communities in Interior Alaska, where fossil fuel dependence, energy costs, and remoteness are conspiring to produce an energy crisis that is becoming increasingly difficult for these small communities to deal with. These conditions have resulted in increased interest in any available form of alternative energy that may possibly be deployed. In Interior Alaska, the presence of apparently large amounts of woody biomass has increased the consideration of biomass energy systems to help address this crisis. Funding provided through the State of Alaska’s Renewable Energy Fund, administered by the Alaska Energy Authority, has resulted in the Interior Regional Housing Authority being tasked with assessing the feasibility of potential woody biomass energy projects at the villages of Koyukuk, Nulato, Kaltag, Anvik, Holy Cross , Hughes, Nikolai, and Ruby, all located in Interior Alaska. These feasibility assessments, which are preliminary in nature, are to be composed of 2 major components – an assessment of the needs, economics, and human resources of the communities themselves, and an assessment of the woody biomass resources in the vicinity of the villages. Dalson Energy, Inc., a consulting firm based in Anchorage, Alaska, was retained to assess the community resources and needs and to produce recommendations on appropriate biomass heating systems, and has summarized that information in a series of separate reports. The biomass resource assessment component of the feasibility assessments was to be produced by the Forestry Program at Tanana Chiefs Conference, a non-profit tribal organization based in Fairbanks, Alaska, and is the subject of this report . With any proposed woody biomass energy project, a number of basic questi ons arise concerning the biomass supply, including: • How much biomass is there in the vicinity of the community? • What are the characteristics of the biomass (size, species, quality)? • Where is the resource located? • Who owns the resource? • What are the costs a ssociated with getting the resource to an energy facility? • What management restrictions are there are on the resource? • Considering growth rates, cover type conversions, and other factors, what is the sustainability of the resource? • How large an array of bi omass energy facilities could be economically supported on a sustainable basis by the local biomass resource? This report is an attempt to document an approach to answer these questions with available information, using information management tools such as a geographic information system (GIS) and relational databases. The process described here is meant to present a model for the handling of information to answer these questions, and in that regard does not constitute an end product. In those cases where information is lacking or unavailable, assumptions have been made and documented, with the idea that improved information in
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 2 Figure 1: Location of project communities in Alaska. the future can be used to improve the model. It is intended that the model itself be a useful tool in the land management required to support proposed biomass energy project s. The communities addressed in this report are located in western Interior Alaska (Figure 1). All are rural, not located on a contiguous highway system, and are accessible only by air, water, or overland trails. Hughes i s located on the Koyukuk River; Ruby, Koyukuk, Nulato, Kaltag, Anvik, and Holy Cross are located on the Yukon River, and Nikolai is located on the Upper Kuskokwim River. The largest nearby urban centers providing goods and services are Fairbanks and Anchorage. Air distances and community populations are summarized in Table 1. The geographic extent of each community’s assessment was defined as a radius of 25 miles surrounding each village. In addition, only those areas that were closer to a community than an adjacent community were included in that community’s assessment extent (Figure 2).
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 3 Figure 2: Location of 25-mile radius community project areas . Table 1: Biomass assessment project communities Village Distance to Anchorage (miles) Distance to Fairbanks (miles) Population Project Area Acreage Hughes 362 206 79 1,256,509 Ruby 301 229 173 1,256,509 Koyukuk 352 294 97 651,422 Nulato 354 307 275 729,169 Kaltag 352 329 205 1,113,249 Nikolai 190 239 101 1,256,509 Anvik 347 411 79 642,839 Holy Cross 328 414 176 1,067,849
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 4
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 5 DATA COMPONENTS These biomass assessments relied heavily on computerized geographic information system (GIS) and relational database technologies to store, process, query, and analyze data. The GIS software used was ArcGIS 10.0 from ESRI, Inc., and the relational database software used was Microsoft Access. The GIS was used to spatially define the location of various attributes of the landscape, the combination of those attributes for any given location on the landscape, and to produce acreages and biomass stocking estimates associated with any combination of attributes. A relational database was used to relate the attribute information stored in GIS data layers to tabular datasets such as biomass stocking information derived from existing forest inventory datasets, cost parameters, and lookup tables, allowing the generation of GIS layers of derived information such as biomass stocking, annual allowable cut, and biomass cost estimates. The basic data input to the biomass assessment models consisted of land cover data, forest inventory data, and land ownership. Additional data components were derived from the basic input datasets, including raster datasets for site class, biomass stocking, biomass annual allowable cut, village proximity, and biomass cost estimates. Land Cover Typically, land cover is characterized from sources of remotely sensed image data such as aerial photography or satellite imagery. For the villages within the scope of this project, high resolution QuickBird satellite imagery (spatial resolution 0.6m) was available for 6 of the 8 villages, and there was the possibility of medium resolution (spatial resolution 2.5m) Spot 5 imagery becoming available through the Alaska Statewide Digital mapping Initiative (SDMI) for portions of the project area . However, the time and funding required to classify the imagery into classified land cover data layers was prohibitive given the scope of the project, and in any case those image sources were not available everywhere. As a result, it was decided instead to attempt to rely on classified image layers made available through the LandFire program, an interagency vegetation, fire and fuel characteristics mapping program sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service (http://www.landfire.gov). LandFire data products consist of up to 50 data layers generated for all land areas within the United S tates, including Alaska. Within Alaska, the data layers are generated from classified LandSat satellite imagery at a spatial resolution of 30 meters. Existing vegetation is described in 3 layers; existing vegetation type (evt), existing vegetation height (evh) and existing vegetation cover, or density (evc). In addition, a layer for biophysical settings (bps) showed potential for attempting to model potential productivity of a site. The advantages of the LandFire data include the comprehensive coverage of the data over the entire country, and the apparent detailed vegetation classification that appeared to be relatable to forest inventory stocking data from old forest inventory data on file at TCC. Potential disadvantages of use of the LandFire data include it’s relatively coars e spatial resolution (30m), and anecdotal and objective evidence that would lead one to question the accuracy of the LandFire classifications. In either case, the landscape-level nature of these biomass assessments, the preliminary nature of the assessments, and the lack of better options led to the decision to utilize the LandFire datasets.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 6 The LandFire data layers are provided as raster datasets, with classifications provided for individual pixels, or cells in an image. This is in contrast to vector datasets, which define areas as polygons defined by line segments running between x-y coordinat es. Previous analyses compiled by TCC have used land cover data in vector formats, and relied on standard vector overlay techniques to analyze biomass stocking with ownership, proximity to a village, etc. Using land cover data in a raster format dictated that the analyses for these assessments be based on raster techniques and processing. Forest Inventory data In I nterior Alaska, as in many places, woody biomass is a forest resource. The process of trying to assess the amount and location of forest resources falls under the purview of forest inventories, a traditional and essential component of forestry and forest management. This project is essentially a form of forest inventory, with particular interests and requirements that are driven by the land management required to support proposed biomass energy projects. The most prominent forest inventor y effort s to date in the vicinities of the communities in this project are a number of inventories conducted by the Forestry Program at Tanana Chiefs Conference on village corporation lands and Native allotments. The village corporation inventories were conducted on individual village ANCSA corporation lands on lands with a selected status at the time of the inventory. The Native allotment inventories were conducted on Native allotment parcels with a status of pending or better at the time of the inventories. For the allotment inventories, the entire TCC region was subdivided into 8 subunits, and a separate inventory project was conducted for each subunit, with the overall work occurring from 1987 to 1993. Table 2 summarizes the TCC inventory projects and the year they were conduct ed in the vicinities of the project communities. The protocols and processes used in the corporation and allotment inventories were very similar, and utilized a process that included the following steps: 1. The area included in the inventory was interpreted f or land cover type using high -altitude color-infrared aerial photographs dating from the late 1970s. 2. Forested stands delineated on the aerial photographs were attributed with a cover type code that included a determination of primary tree species, primary tree size class (dwarf, reproduction, poletimber, sawtimber), secondary tree species, secondary tree size class, and overall tree density (low, medium, and high crown closure). Non-forested areas were attributed for cover types such as water, tall shrub, bog, barren/cultural, etc. 3. Forested cover types covering the highest proportion of area were selected for field sampling by randomly selecting accessible stands within those types.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 7 Table 2: TCC forest inventories nea r project communities. Village Forest Inventory Hughes Hughes village corporation lands, 1987 Doyon -Koyukuk Native allotments, 1987-1993 Ruby Ruby village corporation lands, 1987 Doyon -Melozitna Native allotments, 1987-1993 Koyukuk Koyukuk village corporation lands, 1987 Doyon -Melozitna Native allotments, 1987-1993 Doyon -Koyukuk Native allotments, 1987-1993 Nulato Nulato-Galena corporation lands, 1990 Doyon -Melozitna Native allotments, 1987-1993 Kaltag Kaltag village corporation lands, 1985 Doyon -Middle Yukon Native allotments, 1987 -1993 Nikolai Nikolai village corporation lands, 1987 Doyon -McGrath Native allotments, 1987-1993 Anvik Doyon -Middle Yukon Native allotments, 1987 -1993 Holy Cross Doyon -Middle Yukon Native allotments, 1987-1993 4. Field sampling was accomplished by visiting the selected stands on the ground and installing a series of variable radius plots and conducting tree measurements. Sample trees were measured for species, tree diameter, tree height, and percent defect, and a small number of white spruce trees were measured for radial growth and age 5. The collected field data were processed and compiled in the office with a computer to produce timber volume per acre figures by species and size class within strata defined as groupings of similar cover types. 6. The volume per acre figures were then extrapolated to all forested areas withi n the extent of the project. 7. Some years after the completion of the inventories in the early ‘90s, the spatial data represented by th e cover type maps prepared in the inventory were digitized into a GIS, and the processed timber volume data was incorporated into a digital relational database. The most important component provided to the biomass assessments as a result of the forest inventor ies are the tabular timber volume and stocking estimates. The stocking data generated from the field measurements are used to produce estimates of the amount of woody biomass present in each forested cover type. The tree data processing produced est imates of board -foot and cubic-foot t imber volumes per acre by tree species and size class. For the purposes of evaluating a forest resource as an energy source, it is most appropriate to focus on the cubic -foot estimates, since they represent the total woody biomass volume on the main stem of trees below a minimum top diameter (usually 4”), and not just the amount of recoverable wood when processing trees for lumber.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 8 There are a number of serious limitations in this available forest inventory data that need to be considered. The inventor ies are quite “extensive”, that is, the geographic scope was relatively large and the intensity of the field sampling was relatively low, particularly for the allotment inventories . Forest cover types with relatively low acreages were not field sampled at all, but were lumped into similar types that were sampled, with resulting inaccuracies in the volume estimates. The village corporation inventory at Nulato was not field sampled at all, but instead used stocking figures from strata from other nearby inventories to generate overall timber volumes. The photography used to produce the land cover typing was less than 15 years old at the time the inventories wer e conducted, but is now more than 30 years old, and does not take into account the changes that have no doubt occurred on the landscape. The data collection was focused on the standing stock, and what little growth information was collected is difficult to apply in any meaningful way with regards to estimates of site and forest growth. Only the biomass represented by the main boles of trees is included in the volume estimates, with no attention paid to whole tree biomass or non -timber species such as alder or willow. That being said, the data contained in th ese old inventory project still provide a useful starting point for evaluation of woody biomass energy resources. Woody Biomass Units As mentioned previously, the cubic-foot (CF) estimates of wood volume that are one of the products of a forest inventory analysis are appropriate when evaluating the volume of woody biomass as an energy source. However, the energy value of wood per unit volume varies somewhat by species because of varying wood densities, so it is common to report woody biomass in units of weight, commonly tons (1 ton=2,000 lbs). This matter is further complicated by the variability of wood weight per unit volume because of moisture levels in the wood. There are three units commonly used to report woody biomass by weight: Green tons, or the weight of the wood in tons at moisture levels found when the material is freshly cut, often in the neighborhood of 50% moisture by weight; air dry tons, or the weight of the wood when enough moisture has been removed from the wood to make it feasible to efficiently recover energy from the wood through combustion, commonly in the neighborhood of 20% moisture by weight; and bone-dry tons, the weight of the wood with all moisture removed. For the purposes of this analysis, the unit of air-dry tons (also referred to in this document as “dry tons”) is used, the weight of the wood in the form most likely to be used in a heating project. The literature is inconsistent in terms of wood density values for the species found in Interior Alaska, but representative values (and their sources) are presented in Table 3.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 9 Table 3: Wood density of tree species in Interior Alaska. White spruce, Paper bi rch, Aspen and Balsam poplar figures are from the State of Alaska, Department of Commerce (http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/ded/ dev/forest_products/forest_products5.htm); Black spruce figures are from a Canadian website maintained by Lakehead University in Ontario (http://www.borealforest.org/); Tamarack figures are from an engineering website (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/weigt-wood -d_821.html). Tree Species Green Density (lbs/cubic foot) Air -dry density (lbs/cubic foot) Air -dry tons/cord White spruce 36 31 1.31 Black spruce 32 28 1.19 Paper birch 48 38 1.62 Aspen 43 27 1.15 Balsam poplar 38 24 1.02 Tamarack 47 37 1.57 Another unit used to measure wood is the “cord”, traditionally used to measure fuelwood. A cord is defined as the amount of minimally processed wood (bucked, split) that can be stacked in a space measuring 4’x4’x8’. Because of the airspace and inconsistency inherent in stacking cordwood, the cord is a relatively imprecise measure, but is n onetheless in common use in fuelwood transactions. The volume space of a cord, 128 cubic feet, is sometimes thought to contain roughly 100 cubic feet of wood (a “cunit”) when the air space between wood chinks in the stacked wood is considered. Other esti mates put the conversion at 85 cubic-feet of roundwood per cord. Using the conversion factors presented in Table 3 at 85 CF/cord, the number of air-dry tons in a cord varies from approximately 1.0 tons for balsam poplar to 1.6 tons for paper birch. Land Ownership A key component of the analysis is the determination of which individual or organization owns or has management responsibilities for the lands on which the biomass resource is found. In these analyses, this is accomplished through the use of a GIS layer that defines land ownership in the vicinity of the project communities . Spatial data of land ownership were acquired from several sources and combined into the ownership layer: • Generalized land status, from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • Native Allotments, from BLM • ANCSA Corporation conveyed lands, from Doyon, Ltd. The data from the various sources vary in quality and precision; specifically, the generalized land status data is available statewide, but only shows categories of land ownership to the nearest section (square mile). Because of that, allotment lands and ANCSA corporation lands as defined in the other sources were given priority over the generalized land status when combining the land ownership data. The data acquired from Doyon for conveyed ANCSA lands allows the land status to be defined for the regional corporation (Doyon Ltd.) and the village corporations, but the ANCSA land as coded in the BLM generalized land
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 10 status made no distinction between regional and village corporations. As a result, any listing of individual ANCSA corporations in the results in this report refers to the location of conveyed ANCSA corporation lands as defined in the Doyon data, and any reference to “ANCSA misc.” refers to ANCSA selected or patented lands as defined in the BLM generalized land status data with no distinction between individual corporations. Site class It was assumed that site productivity is a critical factor when attempting to determine the growth of biomass on the landscape, a key factor when evaluating biomass sustainability. For the purposes of this analysis, four broad site classes were defined to describe the location of site class areas in the project area. The four site classes defined were: • Site Class 0 – areas incapable of producing woody biomass such as rivers, lakes, seasonally submerged sandbars, wetland bogs, etc. • Site Class 1 – areas of relatively poor site in terms of woody biomass production, such as poorly drained areas and north -facing slopes with underlying continuous permafrost. These sites may have cover types such as tall shrubs, dwarf shrubs (dwarf birch, etc.), black spruce or other slow -growing unproductive cover types. • Site Class 2 – areas of intermediate productivity such as lower slopes adjacent to wetlands, areas underlain by permafrost but with some productive tree cover, etc. • Site Class 3 – Areas of relatively high productivity such as south-facing slopes, well-drained benchlands, and productive riparian sites. In the GIS, all parts of the project areas were classified into one of the four site classes, using the LandFire biophysical settings (bps) layer and a lookup table in the database assigning a site class to each bps classification, creating site class raster datasets for covering the project area. Estimating AAC and assigning rotation and growth parameters In order to assess sustainability, the traditional forestry concept of Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) was applied. AAC is deemed to be the maximum level of annual harvest that is possible in perpetuity without diminishment of the level of harvest or the amount and quality of the resource. There are a variety of techniques used to calculate AAC, including the “Hanzlik formula”, which was designed to attempt to deal with areas still in an unmanaged “old-growth” state. The Hanzlik formula uses mature standing volume, rotation length, and growth (increment) as parameters required to calculate AAC: Allowable cut (AAC) = (Mature Standing Volume / Rotation ) + Growth Standing volume is determined from the inventory data as described above, but figures for rotation length and growth are more difficult to determine or estimate. “Rotation”, or “rotation length” refers to the hypothetical length of time required for a forest stand to reforest, grow, and replace itself after harvest. At first glance this appears quite simple, but there are a number of complicating factors, including: • What species the stand regenerates to – different species will grow at different rates and mature at different time intervals.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 11 • Site potential may vary over time; in fact, in Interior Alaska, the act of harvesting (or other disturbances, such as fire) may change the growth potential of a site, and as a result, the anticipated rotation length. • Anything other than even-aged management may complicate the determination of rotation length, particularly if it involves multiple tree species and multiple stand entries in a rotation. • Differing economic conditions or other factors may dictate a different array of forest products requiring material to reach different sizes or ages to be marketable. Similarly, “growth” can be a concept that may be simple to visualize, but involves a number of factors that make it difficult to determine with any precision. The ability to gauge the capacity of woody biomass to grow and replace itself after harvest is a critical component of any assessment that would attempt to evaluate the sustainability of the resource. Unfortunately, this is one area where hard data to drive the analysis is in short supply. It is an exceedingly complex situation that is being modeled – growth rates of individual trees and the stands they grow in vary by site, species, tree age, stand age, stand density, reproductive capacity, disturbance regime, and other factors, and all in cumulative and interactive ways. Growth models for the boreal forest are in development at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and with the U.S. Forest Service and may prove to be useful. In the meantime, this effort applies some broad and exceedingly gross assumptions in an attempt to get a handle on growth and sustainability. For both growth and rotation, the approach taken was to establish an optimal value for each, then adjust the values based on other conditions. Based on TCC inventory data, maximum biomass stocking in high-volume spruce stands, presumably on good sites, is in the neighborhood of 60 tons/acre. Employing the concept of mean annual increment (MAI), and assuming a stand age of 120 years to produce this volume, this would indicate a maximum mean annual increment of 0.5 tons/acre/year on the best sites. Interestingly, roughly similar rates can be arrived at with productive hardwood stands; TCC’s inventory data indicates total biomass tons of well -stocked cottonwood, birch, or aspen stands to be in a somewhat lower range (~20-50 tons/acre), with lower stand ages to be expected to produce those volumes (~50-80 years). Based on this, a value of 0.5 tons/acre/year is assumed as an optimum mean annual growth rate. Optimal rotation length is assumed to be 50 years, based on a hypothetical rotation length for the deciduous broadleaf tree species (birch, aspen, and balsam poplar). Although white spruce has traditionally been the favored species for timber management in Interior Alaska, it is assumed that managing for hardwoods is desirable from a woody biomass perspective because of faster j uvenile growth rates, shorter rotations, ease in regenerating, importance in wildlife habitat, and desirability from a community wildfire protection perspective. Several key assumptions were made to facilitate adjusting the optimum growth and rotation figures based on the availability of existing information. The assumptions used in this analysis to estimate growth and rotation include: 1. Fully stocked stands will show best realization of potential growth . 2. Lower site quality will result in longer rotations and slower growth.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 12 The first assumption of stand stocking levels influencing relative growth can be dealt with most directly using the stand density component of the cover type calls coming from the LandFire evc layer. Each of the evc codes related to dens ity of a tree canopy were assigned a relative growth rate expressed as a proportion of optimum growth: LandFire evc Class Growth Proportion 151 (Tree Canopy >= 10 and < 25%) 0.3 152 (Tree Canopy >= 25 and < 60%) 0.6 153 (Tree Canopy >= 60 and <= 100%) 1.0 Similarly, the second assumption of relative growth varying by site quality was handled by taking the site class codes as assigned to areas on the landscape and adjusting the optimal rotation of 50 years upwards for poorer site classes, as well as assigning degraded growth proportions for lower sites: Site Class Growth proportion Rotation (years) 0 0 none 1 0.3 90 2 0.6 70 3 1.0 50 Using this approach, annual allowable cut was seriously degraded for those areas interpreted to be of poor site quality, by calculating a lower current growth and by using a longer rotation in the AAC formula. By applying a series of update queries in the database, allowable cut was determined for the project areas; since this was a raster analysis, this was done on a pixel -by-pixel basis based on the LandFire datasets. Growth for each pixel was determined by multiplying the optimum growth rate (0.5 tons/acre/year) by the growth proportion number assigned to the stand density of the pixel , and multiplied again by the growth proportion assigned to the site class of the pixel . Rotation length for each pixel was determined by applying the rotation length assigned to the site class of the area . The resulting figures for growth and rotation were used with the overall stocking of each pixel in the Hanzlik formula to generate an AAC for each pixel . The resulting AAC figures for each pixel are not me ant to mean that some calculated portion of every pixel is a portion of the volume cut in any given time frame, but refers to the contribution that the resource represented by area of that pixel contributes to the harvestable volume of biomass over the project as a whole. Through the other attributes assigned to each pixel through the creation of overlaid raster datasets, both standing stock and AAC figures can be broken out by ownership, proximity to the village, or other area attributes.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 13 Table 4: Cost parameters used in the analyses. Cost Type Cost Stumpage (payments to owner), cost per ton $ 5 Harvest Costs Costs per acre $300 Costs per ton of woody biomass $ 10 Transportation costs Cost/ton/mile off -road $ 6 Reforestation – cost per acre $100 Misc. Admin – cost per acre $ 20 Cost modeling In addition to estimates of the amount and growth of the woody biomass resource, it is also useful to estimate the costs involved in making the biomass available to an energy facility. This estimation could include the modeling of costs associated with harvesting, transport, reforestation, stumpage, and other costs. At this stage of the project, much is unclear in terms of type of harvest and equipment to be used, the nature and extent of the transportation network to be established and other cost factors, but all of these factors can be modeled in the GIS and reported back from the database. Table 4 presents a list of cost factors used in this analysis as an example of how these costs could be modeled. Per acre costs were converted into costs per ton. Per acre cost parameters such as harvest costs per acre and reforestation costs per acre have the effect of driving up relative costs per ton of woody biomass for low volume areas. Estimated transportation costs were driven solely by distances from the vill age, with the off-road transportation cost parameter of $6/ton/mile being applied. Harvest costs are broken into two components, cost per ton and cost per acre (Table 4). This is an attempt to recognize that some costs associated with harvesting will rem ain relatively fixed per ton, while other costs associated with mobilization, equipment movement, etc. may remain relatively fixed per unit area. Other costs associated with biomass supply could include reforestation costs and other management costs, and stumpage payments made to a landowner. The reforestation costs initially used in this analysis are based on a lowering of known planting costs, assuming that some level of natural regeneration or other techniques may be used. This cost modeling can be mod ified in the future with changes to the cost parameters, modification of the modeling used to assign costs, etc. to create updated cost scenarios. Since the cost per ton is determined by area, as is the annual allowable cut, one interesting ramification of this is that it is possible to evaluate AAC based on different cost thresholds.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 14
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 15 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS Starting with the basic datasets described above, there were several data processing steps that were conducted to prepare and analyze the data and prepare for the generation of tables and maps showing the analysis results. The spatial data raster processing steps described below used geoprocessing tools in the GIS software, with the use of the tools bein g automated somewhat through the creation of script tools written in Python, a scripting language used with ArcGIS software. The data processing steps implemented for each project area were: 1. Data were downloaded from the LandFire website for the LandFire data layers to be used in the analysis. A spatial extent defining an area including a 25-mile radius around each project village was used to define each download, with a separate download for each village except where villages were near enough to each oth er that their areas overlap, in which case there was a single download covering the area of several villages simultaneously. For example, Koyukuk, Nulato and Kaltag (all Gana -A’Yoo Ltd. villages) had overlapping areas, and were included in the same download area and processed together . Likewise, Holy Cross and Anvik were included in the same download area. Data were downloaded for the LandFire evt, evc, evh, and bps layers in ArcInfo GRID format. 2. A geodatabase was created, and the downloaded data were imported into it as raster datasets. All resulting datasets, both raster and vector, were also stored in the geodatabase, which was created as an ArcGIS personal geodatabase in MS Access format, and which also served as the repository for the other database structures in the analysis; lookup tables, strata stock tables, queries, data entry forms, reports, etc. 3. The evt, evc, and evh layers were combined into a new raster layer (called lf_tch) containing the combined attributes of vegetation type, vegetation cover (density) and vegetation height. This produced a VAT (value attribute table) describing all possible combinations of the attributes from the combined raster layers. In the case of the 3 Gana-A’Yoo villages being processed together, this produced a t able of 374 combinations of vegetation type, coverage, and height classes. 4. The VAT was exported into a database table, (called tch_classes), and a column was added to the table to hold information on strata ID. 5. Each row in the tch_classes table was assigned a strata ID from the TCC forest inventories . Non-forested vegetation types (shrubland, wetland, water, barren, etc.) were assigned to non -forested strata not associated with any timber volume. Forested vegetation types were subjectively assigne d to the most appropriate strata from nearby TCC forest inventory projects. To aid in this rather complex, manual, and very subjective process, a form was developed in MS Access. 6. The database contained a table called strata_biomass that had been processed to contain biomass stocking values (in tons and cords) for all strata defined in the TCC inventories. In ArcGIS, the tch_classes table and the strata_biomass table were joined and the tch_classes table and the lf_tch VAT were joined to associate each cel l in the combined vegetation raster with strata biomass stocking values. This joined raster is used to create a series of raster datasets of biomass stocking with the ArcGIS Spatial Analyst “lookup” command. Raster datasets were created for overall dry t on stocking, dry tons by species, and cords by species. 7. Similarly, a site class raster was created for the project area. The LandFire biophysical settings raster (lf_bps) VAT was exported to a database table (bps_classes) and a column for site class code was added to the bps_classes table, and each row of the bps_classes table was coded for site class using the codes 0
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 16 through 3 described above. In ArcGIS, the bps_classes table was joined to the lf_bps raster layer, and the “lookup” command was used to create a site class raster for the project area. 8. A raster of annual allowable cut (AAC) was created by first creating rasters of growth adjustment by density values, growth adjustment by site values, and rotation adjustment by site values, and then executi ng a map algebra raster calculation for AAC using an application of the Hanzlik formula with the rasters for biomass stocking, growth as determined from the growth adjustment rasters, and rotation as determined from the rotation adjustment raster. The growth by density adjustment raster was created in a process similar to that used to create the stocking and site class rasters by joining the LandFire vegetation density raster (lf_evc) to a growth_by_density table in the database to relate the evc codes to a density adjustment factor and creating a growth by density adjustment raster with a lookup command. Similarly, the growth adjustment by site and rotation adjustment by site rasters were created by joining the site class raster to lookup tables in the database (growth_by_site, rotation_by_site) and creating the adjustment rasters with lookup commands. 9. A raster dataset was created defining the proximity to the nearest village in miles up to a 25 mile radius using ArcGIS spatial analyst commands. In addition, a raster dataset defining which village was closest to each pixel in the dataset was created , to account for those villages whose 25-mile radii overlap. 10. A raster dataset of biomass costs per ton was created by applying the cost parameters described above to previously created raster datasets. A harvest cost raster was created by dividing the harvest per acre parameter by the biomass stocking per acre raster, and adding the result to the harvest cost per ton parameter. A transportation cost raster was created by multiplying the village proximity raster and multiplying it by the off-road transportation cost parameter. A total cost per ton raster was created by adding the harvest cost raster, the transportation cost raster, the reforestation parameter and the administration cost parameters divided by the biomass stocking raster (to convert those parameters to per -ton units), and the stumpage parameter. 11. A vector layer of land ownership was created for each project area by overlaying generalize d land status (from BLM) with conveyed ANCSA land data (from Doyon, Ltd.), and Native allotment locations (from BLM). These are overlapping datasets, but a unique ownership was identified for all areas through the overlay commands applied, with a priority given to the location of Native allotment parcels, the next lowest priority given to the conveyed ANCSA data, and the least priority given to the generalized land status. The resulting polygons were attributed for owner and owner class. Native allotments were coded with the BLM serial number as the owner and “Native allotment” as the owner class. ANCSA conveyed lands were coded with the name of the ANCSA corporation as the owner (usually either the local village corporation or Doyon, Ltd.) and an owner class of “ANCSA corp”. The remaining lands were identified from the generalized land status data with some level of agency ownership; State lands were identified as “State patented” or “State selected” as the owner and “State of Alaska” as the owner Class; federal lands identify the agency (USFWS, NPS, BLM) as the owner and “Federal” as the owner class. To be compatible with the raster analysis used in these analyses, the tools used to query the data convert the vector ownership layer to a raster dataset f or processing. 12. The layers described above for ownership, village, village proximity, and biomass cost were combined together into a single raster layer, called the “combined parameters layer”, attributed for all parameters. To do this, vector layers such as ownership were converted to rasters, and to keep the number of parameter
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 17 combinations to a reasonable number, layers containing continuous data (biomass cost and distance to village) were converted into class categories; for example, instead of using the calculated biomass cost numbers directly, the biomass costs were grouped into increments of $20/ton ($20 -40/ton, $40-60/ton, etc.), and the distances in the village proximity raster were converted to 1-mile classes (1-2 miles, 2-3 miles etc.). 13. Using spatial analyst commands in ArcGIS, tables of statistics were generated by analyzing the stocking rasters with the combined parameters layer. Each table generated summarized one component of biomass stocking with all combinations of the parameters. Tables were generated for summary statistics for overall dry tons, dry ton annual allowable cut, dry tons by species, and cords by species. Once the statistics table were generated, it was possible to produce summary tables of biomass stocking by various attributes using standard database reporting tools. The datasets resulting from the process described above allow querying and displaying the data with multiple combinations of attributes. For example, one can query the data to show those areas and the biomass stocking amounts for a particular ownership and under a particular cost threshold. Or, perhaps one would want to query the data show the estimated annual allowable cut on a particular ownership within a specified distance of the village. Two tools were prepared as ArcGIS Python script tools to facilitate querying the data: 1. A GIS interactive query tool allows a user to interactively specify query parameters for village, ownership, owner class, and maximum biomass cost per ton, view the calculated values for total biomass and annual allowable cut in a brief tabular display, and have the areas in question highlighted on the map in ArcGIS. 2. A GIS statistics generation t ool generates a table of statistics that is stored in the database and can be used to drive reports showing biomass stocking and annual allowable cut by distance class, cost class, owner, owner class, and village.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 18
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 19 RESULTS Following are selected results of the analysis by village, with tabular results produced from the statistical summaries generated by the statistics generation tool described above, and sample maps of the generated spatial data. As indicated above, these results as displayed constitute only a portion of the possible combinations and ways to view the data, both in tabular form or on maps. “Forested area” refers to those portions of the project areas that have been associated with a forest inventory stratum that have woody biomass estimates. It does not include those areas that have a LandFire classification not associated with any woody biomass stocking estimates, including low-volume types such as dwarf black spruce or shrubland types. As determined in this analysis, forested area ranges from 28% at Nikolai and Holy Cross to 55% at Ruby (Table 5). Overall Results The amount of biomass found on ANCSA corporation lands (both regional and village) ranged from 29% to 40% of the totals by village (Table 6). Perhaps more importantly, a range of 53% to 86% (average of 72%) of the biomass within 10 miles of the village was found on ANCSA lands, highlighting the importance of the ANCSA corporations, particularly the village corporati ons, in the ownership of the most accessible, least expensive biomass resources. Over half of the estimated biomass stocking was found to be white spruce at 6 of the villages (59.3% to 75.3%), but Nikolai and Ruby showed a higher proportion of hardwoods (birch, cottonwood, aspen; 52% at Nikolai, and 49% at Ruby). This may be due to the inherent difference in the landscapes at those communities, but these determinations are also sensitive to the subjective assignment of inventory strata to the LandFire land classifications. For example, cottonwood stockings are extremely low (~1%) for several of the Yukon River villages, despite the known presence of extensive productive riparian cottonwood stands; the nature of the LandFire classifications did not readily associate themselves with forest inventory cottonwood strata, and as a result, may be underestimated in the analysis.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 20 Table 5: Forest area and biomass by village. Table 6: Biomass dry tons by ownership and village. Land Ownership : Native State of Village ANCSA Corp. Allotments Federal Alaska Total Koyukuk 1,811,844 46,830 2,423,907 216,699 4,499,280 Nulato 2,008,240 111,767 1,857,234 114,156 4,091,397 Kaltag 2,950,911 74,723 2,274,429 2,341,749 7,641,812 Anvik 2,750,225 118,083 3,792,036 311,696 6,972,039 Holy Cross 3,029,788 113,696 3,681,992 793,182 7,618,657 Hughes 2,749,873 10,224 6,450,437 321,555 9,535,036 Nikolai 3,048,703 59,246 458,457 4,770,585 8,336,991 Ruby 5,359,655 119,829 3,579,498 6,684,949 15,743,931 Village Forested acres Forested % of project area Biomass (dry tons) Annual Allowable Cut (dry tons/year) Koyukuk 226,001 35% 4,499,280 148,618 Nulato 215,423 30% 4,091,397 131,996 Kaltag 436,256 39% 7,641,812 252,749 Anvik 270,219 42% 6,972,039 196,019 Holy Cross 303,595 28% 7,618,657 220,155 Hughes 496,483 40% 9,535,036 301,032 Nikolai 346,648 28% 8,336,991 223,732 Ruby 692,623 55% 15,743,931 427,338
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 21 Koyukuk Table 7: Biomass by Land Ownership, Koyukuk. Annual Allowable Cut Forested Ownership Air -dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres Gana-A' Yoo Ltd. 902,767 662,484 29,937 43,817 Doyon, Ltd. 909,077 659,666 30,139 44,932 Native allotments 46,830 34,346 1,562 2,217 BLM 1,246,190 898,634 41,711 63,463 USFWS 1,177,717 849,482 38,138 60,731 State of Alaska 216,699 159,140 7,130 10,841 All ownerships: 4,499,280 3,263,752 148,618 226,001 Table 8: Biomass by Village Proximity, Koyukuk. Proximity to Annual Allowable Cut Forested village (miles) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 0 - 1 16,401 12,210 563 764 1 - 2 55,518 40,930 1,865 2,543 2 - 3 89,760 65,849 3,012 4,243 3 - 4 114,372 83,869 3,857 5,539 4 - 5 150,759 110,263 5,086 7,098 5 - 6 178,792 131,112 6,067 8,213 6 - 7 198,736 145,617 6,587 9,607 7 - 8 249,848 182,616 8,284 12,256 8 - 9 299,777 218,831 9,938 14,191 9 - 10 251,790 183,758 8,200 12,232 10 - 11 239,479 174,585 7,845 12,101 11 - 12 236,309 171,997 7,876 12,123 12 - 13 217,886 158,090 7,238 11,001 13 - 14 195,137 141,638 6,424 10,241 14 - 15 184,968 133,918 6,108 9,669 15 - 16 184,950 134,029 6,154 9,359 16 - 17 177,732 128,624 5,872 9,059 17 - 18 160,810 115,929 5,290 8,266 18 - 19 167,414 121,117 5,553 8,622 19 - 20 188,568 135,823 6,273 9,523 20 - 21 203,150 146,057 6,867 10,194 21 - 22 194,349 139,445 6,527 9,785 22 - 23 191,534 137,222 6,328 9,713 23 - 24 161,676 115,334 5,108 8,957 24 - 25 189,565 134,889 5,693 10,703 Totals: 4,499,280 3,263,752 148,618 226,001
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 22 Table 9: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Koyukuk. Biomass Cost Annual Allowable Cut Forested ($/ton) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 20 - 40 91 68 2 2 40 - 60 87,124 65,039 2,763 2,963 60 - 80 397,026 291,683 13,242 16,615 80 - 100 712,033 520,558 23,307 31,190 100 - 120 790,695 575,014 26,288 38,980 120 - 140 662,567 480,673 21,986 34,155 140 - 160 579,237 419,046 19,039 30,182 160 - 180 641,483 462,259 21,392 33,039 180 - 200 482,463 344,801 16,079 27,995 200 - 220 141,761 101,049 4,331 10,102 220 - 240 3,550 2,636 138 564 240 - 260 1,251 926 51 213 Totals: 4,499,280 3,263,752 148,618 226,001
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 23 Table 10: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Koyukuk. Land Ownership : Proximity to Native State of village (miles) ANCSA Corp. Allotments Federal Alaska Total 0 - 1 15,077 1,324 16,401 1 - 2 51,723 3,795 55,518 2 - 3 88,495 1,067 197 89,760 3 - 4 105,310 3,214 5,847 114,372 4 - 5 117,553 1,864 31,342 150,759 5 - 6 122,401 10,328 45,013 1,050 178,792 6 - 7 134,361 7,558 40,937 15,880 198,736 7 - 8 118,499 4,389 98,347 28,613 249,848 8 - 9 123,848 1,752 143,338 30,838 299,777 9 - 10 124,439 1,354 94,996 31,000 251,790 10 - 11 139,294 3,527 56,383 40,275 239,479 11 - 12 153,000 2,073 35,543 45,692 236,309 12 - 13 162,855 480 33,431 21,120 217,886 13 - 14 152,248 265 40,420 2,204 195,137 14 - 15 112,920 1,876 70,146 26 184,968 15 - 16 62,986 160 121,805 184,950 16 - 17 16,528 181 161,023 177,732 17 - 18 6,521 874 153,415 160,810 18 - 19 3,329 119 163,966 167,414 19 - 20 457 188,111 188,568 20 - 21 203,150 203,150 21 - 22 626 193,723 194,349 22 - 23 4 191,531 191,534 23 - 24 161,676 161,676 24 - 25 189,565 189,565 Totals: 1,811,844 46,830 2,423,907 216,699 4,499,280 Table 11: Biomass by species, Koyukuk. Tree Species Air -dry Tons Cords % of Total White Spruce 2,743,655 2,082,471 61.0% Black Spruce 265,696 223,274 5.9% Birch 1,371,070 848,959 30.5% Aspen 68,671 59,844 1.5% Cottonwood 50,188 49,204 1.1% All Species 4,499,280 3,263,752 100.0%
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 24 Figure 3: Land ownership, Koyukuk project area.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 25 Figure 4: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Koyukuk.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 26 Figure 5: Woody biomass cost, Koyukuk.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 27 Nulato Table 12: Biomass by Land Ownership, Nulato. Annual Allowable Cut Forested Ownership Air -dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres Gana-A' Yoo Ltd. 1,244,942 910,404 40,969 55,766 Doyon, Ltd. 763,298 552,907 24,834 47,447 Native allotments 111,767 82,332 3,475 4,901 BLM 1,489,694 1,079,789 48,372 80,213 USFWS 367,539 263,708 10,583 21,771 State of Alaska 114,156 83,992 3,763 5,324 All ownerships: 4,091,397 2,973,133 131,996 215,423 Table 13: Biomass by Village Proximity, Nulato. Proximity to Annual Allowable Cut Forested village (miles) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 0 - 1 7,069 5,342 226 297 1 - 2 43,030 32,179 1,403 1,766 2 - 3 77,094 56,779 2,472 3,441 3 - 4 118,889 87,275 3,916 5,668 4 - 5 138,036 101,011 4,547 6,773 5 - 6 178,863 130,827 5,920 8,866 6 - 7 182,557 133,832 6,035 9,182 7 - 8 227,490 166,758 7,452 11,496 8 - 9 232,510 169,316 7,714 11,893 9 - 10 242,861 176,213 8,042 12,645 10 - 11 251,405 182,513 8,312 13,450 11 - 12 235,814 171,378 7,720 12,695 12 - 13 236,100 171,118 7,767 12,824 13 - 14 248,855 180,276 8,117 13,457 14 - 15 263,852 191,101 8,435 13,883 15 - 16 235,716 170,894 7,575 12,391 16 - 17 197,773 142,802 6,341 10,622 17 - 18 170,799 122,989 5,438 9,501 18 - 19 148,475 107,088 4,534 8,122 19 - 20 133,464 96,193 4,068 7,381 20 - 21 120,498 87,778 3,635 6,613 21 - 22 109,943 80,168 3,241 5,850 22 - 23 106,714 76,869 3,327 5,885 23 - 24 95,535 68,962 2,988 5,551 24 - 25 88,055 63,472 2,770 5,170 Totals: 4,091,397 2,973,133 131,996 215,423
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 28 Table 14: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Nulato. Biomass Cost Annual Allowable Cut Forested ($/ton) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 20 - 40 65 49 2 1 40 - 60 78,684 58,873 2,480 2,552 60 - 80 335,985 246,443 10,728 13,330 80 - 100 631,647 461,992 20,775 29,232 100 - 120 744,235 539,571 24,523 37,914 120 - 140 815,835 591,944 26,308 43,018 140 - 160 641,455 463,886 20,637 36,928 160 - 180 470,716 341,216 14,428 27,848 180 - 200 291,791 210,133 9,437 17,973 200 - 220 76,863 55,946 2,534 6,067 220 - 240 3,256 2,439 112 411 240 - 260 863 641 33 149 Totals: 4,091,397 2,973,133 131,996 215,423
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 29 Table 15: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Nulato. Land Ownership : Proximity to Native State of village (miles) ANCSA Corp. Allotments Federal Alaska Total 0 - 1 5,123 1,946 7,069 1 - 2 32,032 10,998 43,030 2 - 3 57,450 19,644 77,094 3 - 4 109,042 9,846 118,889 4 - 5 124,488 10,666 2,883 138,036 5 - 6 138,394 12,426 20,802 7,241 178,863 6 - 7 127,673 10,418 30,649 13,818 182,557 7 - 8 164,307 4,529 37,569 21,085 227,490 8 - 9 137,445 3,914 81,190 9,960 232,510 9 - 10 157,541 5,560 79,760 242,861 10 - 11 164,124 4,489 82,792 251,405 11 - 12 168,574 82 67,158 235,814 12 - 13 193,950 245 41,905 236,100 13 - 14 170,373 2,392 72,176 3,914 248,855 14 - 15 125,814 2,942 119,720 15,377 263,852 15 - 16 74,233 2,937 135,924 22,621 235,716 16 - 17 40,126 2,698 135,266 19,683 197,773 17 - 18 11,457 158,885 457 170,799 18 - 19 5,545 55 142,875 148,475 19 - 20 551 2,210 130,704 133,464 20 - 21 2,433 118,065 120,498 21 - 22 664 109,279 109,943 22 - 23 380 106,334 106,714 23 - 24 292 95,243 95,535 24 - 25 88,055 88,055 Totals: 2,008,240 111,767 1,857,234 114,156 4,091,397 Table 16: Biomass by species, Nulato. Tree Species Air -dry Tons Cords % of Total White Spruce 2,505,067 1,901,379 61.2% Black Spruce 275,169 231,235 6.7% Birch 1,216,231 753,084 29.7% Aspen 51,715 45,067 1.3% Cottonwood 43,214 42,367 1.1% All Species 4,091,397 2,973,133 100.0%
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 30 Figure 6: Land ownership, Nulato project area.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 31 Figure 7: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Nulato.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 32 Figure 8: Woody biomass cost, Nulato.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 33 Kaltag Table 17: Biomass by Land Ownership, Kaltag. Annual Allowable Cut Forested Ownership Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres Gana-A' Yoo Ltd. 1,349,940 980,705 44,669 74,074 Doyon, Ltd. 1,600,971 1,154,853 52,771 89,258 Native allotments 74,723 54,416 2,445 3,869 BLM 1,921,919 1,375,939 61,376 106,818 USFWS 352,509 258,248 10,445 19,788 State of Alaska 2,341,749 1,684,626 81,044 142,449 All ownerships: 7,641,812 5,508,787 252,749 436,256 Table 18: Biomass by Village Proximity, Kaltag. Proximity to Annual Allowable Cut Forested village (miles) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 0 - 1 9,011 6,695 250 470 1 - 2 35,497 26,355 1,036 1,966 2 - 3 72,594 53,220 2,218 3,835 3 - 4 106,516 77,785 3,334 5,852 4 - 5 152,710 110,694 4,943 8,417 5 - 6 222,493 161,137 7,266 12,120 6 - 7 263,767 190,927 8,661 14,472 7 - 8 278,973 202,323 9,029 15,358 8 - 9 324,412 234,165 10,625 17,805 9 - 10 346,512 250,394 11,178 18,921 10 - 11 379,190 273,928 12,420 20,745 11 - 12 387,415 280,110 12,813 21,037 12 - 13 425,412 307,617 14,123 23,242 13 - 14 447,246 322,908 14,952 25,182 14 - 15 473,540 341,058 15,895 26,892 15 - 16 481,993 347,760 16,066 27,575 16 - 17 423,384 304,340 14,201 25,510 17 - 18 371,882 265,913 12,557 22,341 18 - 19 366,234 262,089 12,163 21,780 19 - 20 385,401 275,772 12,941 22,181 20 - 21 370,020 265,138 12,506 21,554 21 - 22 325,936 233,388 11,009 19,694 22 - 23 316,180 227,522 10,447 19,342 23 - 24 333,639 240,425 10,986 19,627 24 - 25 341,854 247,126 11,131 20,336 Totals: 7,641,812 5,508,787 252,749 436,256
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 34 Table 19: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Kaltag. Biomass Cost Annual Allowable Cut Forested ($/ton) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 40 - 60 45,397 34,019 1,032 1,530 60 - 80 319,114 233,083 9,545 14,501 80 - 100 816,767 590,622 26,182 40,656 100 - 120 1,148,248 829,778 37,443 59,448 120 - 140 1,387,524 1,001,529 46,085 73,934 140 - 160 1,340,992 962,001 45,495 78,780 160 - 180 1,219,877 872,995 41,152 73,052 180 - 200 1,041,863 749,112 34,864 65,201 200 - 220 289,405 211,336 9,750 24,334 220 - 240 26,409 19,697 966 3,749 240 - 260 6,215 4,616 236 1,070 Totals: 7,641,812 5,508,787 252,749 436,256
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 35 Table 20: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Kaltag. Land Ownership : Proximity to Native State of village (miles) ANCSA Corp. Allotments Federal Alaska Total 0 - 1 6,750 2,261 9,011 1 - 2 30,682 4,815 35,497 2 - 3 71,261 1,333 72,594 3 - 4 98,623 3,131 4,762 106,516 4 - 5 135,476 6,420 10,814 152,710 5 - 6 146,081 8,336 68,076 222,493 6 - 7 186,354 2,583 74,830 263,767 7 - 8 183,463 4,006 91,504 278,973 8 - 9 205,418 6 118,988 324,412 9 - 10 207,323 4,189 134,926 74 346,512 10 - 11 243,419 3,210 123,429 9,132 379,190 11 - 12 270,058 3,113 88,082 26,162 387,415 12 - 13 281,278 7,446 87,320 49,369 425,412 13 - 14 223,206 5,099 116,630 102,311 447,246 14 - 15 174,293 5,860 128,695 164,692 473,540 15 - 16 144,652 5,981 120,462 210,897 481,993 16 - 17 119,061 1,144 88,728 214,452 423,384 17 - 18 28,891 128,793 214,198 371,882 18 - 19 5,606 1,328 136,656 222,643 366,234 19 - 20 21,057 1,970 121,373 241,001 385,401 20 - 21 51,061 1,695 102,286 214,978 370,020 21 - 22 40,501 94,891 190,545 325,936 22 - 23 14,323 100,350 201,507 316,180 23 - 24 23,456 142,680 167,503 333,639 24 - 25 38,618 796 190,154 112,286 341,854 Totals: 2,950,911 74,723 2,274,429 2,341,749 7,641,812 Table 21: Biomass by species, Kaltag. Tree Species Air -dry Tons Cords % of Total White Spruce 4,530,772 3,438,916 59.3% Black Spruce 411,654 345,928 5.4% Birch 2,527,750 1,565,170 33.1% Aspen 87,184 75,978 1.1% Cottonwood 84,452 82,796 1.1% All Species 7,641,812 5,508,787 100.0%
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 36 Figure 9: Land ownership, Kaltag project area.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 37 Figure 10: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Kaltag.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 38 Figure 11: Woody biomass cost, Kaltag.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 39 Anvik Table 22: Biomass by Land Ownership, Anvik. Annual Allowable Cut Forested Ownership Air -dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres Deloy Ges Inc. 1,563,983 1,172,996 46,101 60,005 Hee-yea -lingde Corp. 19,051 13,837 634 763 Doyon Ltd. 1,123,038 834,135 32,635 46,398 ANCSA misc. 44,153 32,928 1,251 1,688 Native allotments 118,083 88,408 3,455 4,510 BLM 3,792,036 2,854,343 103,132 144,980 State of Alaska 311,696 232,374 8,812 11,875 All ownerships: 6,972,039 5,229,021 196,019 270,219 Table 23: Biomass by Village Proximity, Anvik. Proximity to Annual Allowable Cut Forested village (miles) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 0 - 1 25,821 19,327 769 987 1 - 2 92,945 69,923 2,760 3,552 2 - 3 136,125 102,897 3,983 5,155 3 - 4 208,939 157,741 6,110 8,101 4 - 5 290,288 218,041 8,439 11,643 5 - 6 276,844 208,396 7,977 11,257 6 - 7 266,533 199,442 7,752 11,353 7 - 8 361,124 267,048 10,796 14,974 8 - 9 383,942 283,031 11,555 15,432 9 - 10 342,521 255,491 10,043 13,318 10 - 11 291,981 220,002 8,375 11,540 11 - 12 275,583 208,310 7,673 10,745 12 - 13 246,906 186,395 6,820 9,794 13 - 14 307,757 233,641 8,463 12,265 14 - 15 361,661 273,546 10,030 14,229 15 - 16 364,591 274,778 10,019 13,782 16 - 17 408,585 306,491 11,323 15,318 17 - 18 389,755 292,131 10,714 14,777 18 - 19 293,099 220,896 7,688 10,710 19 - 20 225,569 169,988 5,847 8,319 20 - 21 226,489 170,480 5,884 8,449 21 - 22 251,065 188,172 6,736 9,445 22 - 23 287,885 214,586 7,970 10,811 23 - 24 334,820 248,609 9,519 12,471 24 - 25 321,210 239,659 8,777 11,793 Totals: 6,972,039 5,229,021 196,019 270,219
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 40 Table 24: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Anvik. Biomass Cost Annual Allowable Cut Forested ($/ton) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 40 - 60 177,684 133,777 5,284 6,438 60 - 80 765,238 576,001 22,268 28,173 80 - 100 1,059,286 787,017 31,410 41,899 100 - 120 1,032,853 775,698 29,525 42,555 120 - 140 1,119,033 846,716 30,748 42,917 140 - 160 1,211,044 908,086 32,991 45,574 160 - 180 790,968 594,433 20,989 29,688 180 - 200 793,762 590,094 22,237 30,975 200 - 220 22,171 17,199 567 2,000 Totals: 6,972,039 5,229,021 196,019 270,219 Table 25: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Anvik. Land Ownership : Proximity to Native State of village (miles) ANCSA Corp. Allotments Federal Alaska Total 0 - 1 23,864 1,957 25,821 1 - 2 87,670 5,276 92,945 2 - 3 128,175 7,950 136,125 3 - 4 186,023 13,714 9,202 208,939 4 - 5 226,548 12,383 51,357 290,288 5 - 6 197,017 13,038 66,788 276,844 6 - 7 220,064 598 45,871 266,533 7 - 8 286,105 995 74,024 361,124 8 - 9 322,680 4,048 57,215 383,942 9 - 10 287,638 3,778 51,105 342,521 10 - 11 222,589 5,129 49,279 14,984 291,981 11 - 12 191,166 3,071 45,474 35,872 275,583 12 - 13 148,858 3,924 56,712 37,412 246,906 13 - 14 127,931 7,885 152,050 19,891 307,757 14 - 15 58,309 3,220 286,780 13,352 361,661 15 - 16 20,247 7,216 323,120 14,009 364,591 16 - 17 8,790 11,713 360,008 28,075 408,585 17 - 18 6,369 1,704 361,510 20,172 389,755 18 - 19 183 1,117 291,799 293,099 19 - 20 224 225,345 225,569 20 - 21 2,069 224,420 226,489 21 - 22 3,011 248,054 251,065 22 - 23 261,818 26,067 287,885 23 - 24 1,154 281,874 51,792 334,820 24 - 25 2,911 268,228 50,072 321,210 Totals: 2,750,225 118,083 3,792,036 311,696 6,972,039
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 41 Table 26: Biomass by species, Anvik. Tree Species Air -dry Tons Cords % of Total White Spruce 5,182,452 3,933,550 74.3% Black Spruce 141,131 118,598 2.0% Birch 1,194,892 739,871 17.1% Aspen 70,398 61,349 1.0% Cottonwood 383,166 375,653 5.5% All Species 6,972,039 5,229,021 100.0%
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 42 Figure 12: Land ownership, Anvik project area.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 43 Figure 13: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Anvik.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 44 Figure 14: Woody biomass cost, Anvik.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 45 Holy Cross Table 27: Biomass by Land Ownership, Holy Cross. Annual Allowable Cut Forested Ownership Air -dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres Deloycheet 1,612,466 1,215,246 47,850 62,912 Doyon Ltd. 1,326,622 985,639 39,245 52,652 ANCSA misc. 90,700 67,044 2,282 3,701 Native allotments 113,696 84,571 3,422 4,504 BLM 3,292,801 2,452,681 92,351 132,702 USFWS 389,191 289,098 11,525 15,122 State of Alaska 793,182 593,481 23,480 32,001 All ownerships: 7,618,657 5,687,759 220,155 303,595 Table 28: Biomass by Village Proximity, Holy Cross. Proximity to Annual Allowable Cut Forested village (miles) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 0 - 1 29,612 21,946 934 1,149 1 - 2 68,652 51,955 2,052 2,657 2 - 3 127,264 95,501 3,822 4,973 3 - 4 183,749 136,626 5,545 7,236 4 - 5 218,702 164,622 6,454 8,608 5 - 6 258,842 192,814 7,652 10,200 6 - 7 287,083 214,471 8,382 11,305 7 - 8 274,172 206,430 7,947 10,817 8 - 9 292,230 219,073 8,523 11,484 9 - 10 329,910 246,711 9,698 13,057 10 - 11 302,208 227,927 8,882 11,824 11 - 12 348,732 262,256 10,277 13,714 12 - 13 360,086 270,341 10,622 14,130 13 - 14 367,069 273,197 10,796 14,570 14 - 15 386,943 288,131 11,259 15,465 15 - 16 430,961 318,718 12,677 17,100 16 - 17 451,739 333,746 13,365 18,138 17 - 18 431,443 319,603 12,531 17,271 18 - 19 395,803 295,111 11,177 15,729 19 - 20 383,476 286,997 10,632 15,418 20 - 21 370,244 276,875 10,299 15,166 21 - 22 352,850 264,196 9,667 14,392 22 - 23 350,131 261,473 9,709 14,090 23 - 24 328,627 244,540 9,185 13,318 24 - 25 288,126 214,498 8,067 11,783 Totals: 7,618,657 5,687,759 220,155 303,595
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 46 Table 29: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Holy Cross. Biomass Cost Annual Allowable Cut Forested ($/ton) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 40 - 60 145,913 110,255 4,420 5,274 60 - 80 658,387 493,088 19,547 25,428 80 - 100 935,617 701,463 27,311 36,356 100 - 120 1,117,109 840,294 32,802 43,727 120 - 140 1,271,117 946,232 37,214 48,931 140 - 160 1,423,714 1,053,730 41,408 55,602 160 - 180 1,181,123 882,284 32,807 46,769 180 - 200 835,807 621,651 23,369 36,981 200 - 220 49,870 38,763 1,277 4,528 Totals: 7,618,657 5,687,759 220,155 303,595 Table 30: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Holy Cross. Land Ownership : Native Native State of Allotments Federal Allotments Federal Alaska Total 0 - 1 29,184 428 29,612 1 - 2 68,652 68,652 2 - 3 127,264 127,264 3 - 4 176,098 2,877 4,774 183,749 4 - 5 199,244 4,647 14,811 218,702 5 - 6 237,574 4,596 16,672 258,842 6 - 7 251,954 9,255 22,567 3,307 287,083 7 - 8 219,049 7,000 30,815 17,308 274,172 8 - 9 194,964 11,580 66,252 19,434 292,230 9 - 10 193,815 8,164 94,484 33,446 329,910 10 - 11 174,324 2,215 102,462 23,206 302,208 11 - 12 198,382 6,375 112,587 31,387 348,732 12 - 13 186,289 9,432 125,556 38,810 360,086 13 - 14 187,407 5,437 162,562 11,664 367,069 14 - 15 155,611 4,944 213,217 13,171 386,943 15 - 16 122,436 6,772 264,142 37,611 430,961 16 - 17 84,732 6,097 250,623 110,288 451,739 17 - 18 59,872 6,431 258,776 106,364 431,443 18 - 19 30,553 2,253 276,755 86,243 395,803 19 - 20 30,813 283,939 68,724 383,476 20 - 21 23,743 4,855 302,368 39,277 370,244 21 - 22 36,495 3,762 288,042 24,551 352,850 22 - 23 19,016 6,059 289,080 35,975 350,131 23 - 24 15,792 114 269,761 42,960 328,627 24 - 25 6,525 401 231,744 49,456 288,126 Totals: 3,029,788 113,696 3,681,992 793,182 7,618,657
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 47 Table 31: Biomass by species, Holy Cross. Tree Species Air -dry Tons Cords % of Total White Spruce 5,288,287 4,013,880 69.4% Black Spruce 142,748 119,956 1.9% Birch 1,603,439 992,841 21.0% Aspen 106,922 93,178 1.4% Cottonwood 477,262 467,904 6.3% All Species 7,618,657 5,687,759 100.0%
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 48 Figure 15: Land ownership, Holy Cross project area.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 49 Figure 16: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Holy Cross.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 50 Figure 17: Woody biomass cost, Holy Cross .
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 51 Hughes Table 32: Biomass by Land Ownership, Hughes. Annual Allowable Cut Forested Ownership Air -dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres K'oyitl'ots'ina Ltd. 328,128 244,499 11,591 20,061 Doyon Ltd. 2,285,475 1,695,809 71,781 113,348 ANCSA misc. 136,269 100,788 4,383 6,746 Native allotment 10,224 7,667 379 715 Private 2,947 2,179 92 161 BLM 5,036,979 3,748,495 158,172 261,290 USFWS 1,302,296 956,653 41,196 72,557 Military 111,162 82,064 3,500 5,435 State of Alaska 321,555 238,440 9,938 16,170 All ownerships: 9,535,036 7,076,594 301,032 496,483 Table 33: Biomass by Village Proximity, Hughes. Proximity to Annual Allowable Cut Forested village (miles) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 0 - 1 8,115 6,055 303 551 1 - 2 33,292 24,581 1,137 1,780 2 - 3 69,378 50,963 2,347 3,562 3 - 4 128,600 94,241 4,267 6,326 4 - 5 162,439 119,348 5,272 8,233 5 - 6 172,264 126,707 5,529 9,133 6 - 7 194,013 142,862 6,124 10,451 7 - 8 214,280 157,335 6,881 11,463 8 - 9 271,749 200,728 8,643 14,157 9 - 10 261,322 193,629 8,357 13,803 10 - 11 256,407 190,603 8,165 13,081 11 - 12 291,211 216,588 9,377 15,092 12 - 13 320,091 238,516 10,170 16,395 13 - 14 414,588 308,897 13,061 20,412 14 - 15 453,341 338,532 14,344 23,039 15 - 16 506,343 376,920 15,931 25,611 16 - 17 519,682 384,290 16,403 26,959 17 - 18 617,836 458,635 19,023 30,390 18 - 19 672,203 498,840 20,824 33,605 19 - 20 626,598 466,023 19,703 32,645 20 - 21 674,008 502,040 20,963 34,894 21 - 22 617,596 460,266 19,319 33,485 22 - 23 662,429 491,500 20,814 35,941 23 - 24 678,059 502,848 21,504 37,195 24 - 25 709,191 525,649 22,572 38,279 Totals: 9,535,036 7,076,594 301,032 496,483
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 52 Table 34: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Hughes. Biomass Cost Annual Allowable Cut Forested ($/ton) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 20 - 40 286 214 8 5 40 - 60 51,653 38,553 1,473 1,370 60 - 80 345,957 254,737 10,953 14,574 80 – 100 645,353 474,394 20,277 31,191 100 - 120 953,540 704,129 29,922 45,425 120 - 140 1,265,392 939,078 39,279 58,437 140 - 160 1,842,956 1,366,810 56,993 86,492 160 - 180 2,039,404 1,511,987 63,873 103,851 180 - 200 1,876,963 1,390,298 59,986 105,354 200 - 220 443,123 329,453 15,310 34,006 220 - 240 31,711 30,098 1,424 5,656 240 - 260 16,428 15,534 693 3,449 260 - 280 9,037 8,648 330 2,708 280 - 300 12,529 11,989 481 3,755 300 - 320 703 673 31 211 Totals: 9,535,036 7,076,594 301,032 496,483
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 53 Table 35: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Hughes. Land Ownership : Proximity to Native State of village (miles) ANCSA Corp. Allotments Federal Alaska Total 0 - 1 7,035 812 268 8,115 1 - 2 26,821 310 274 5,887 33,292 2 - 3 39,332 24 17,950 12,072 69,378 3 - 4 58,129 130 66,698 3,643 128,600 4 - 5 77,022 546 84,871 162,439 5 - 6 77,291 873 94,099 172,264 6 - 7 99,616 132 94,264 194,013 7 - 8 125,423 1,637 82,880 4,340 214,280 8 - 9 156,519 974 98,085 16,171 271,749 9 - 10 143,129 88,616 29,578 261,322 10 - 11 124,488 99,840 32,079 256,407 11 - 12 152,137 1,029 109,427 28,618 291,211 12 - 13 176,650 312 124,747 18,383 320,091 13 - 14 206,460 499 196,135 11,494 414,588 14 - 15 219,560 227,495 6,286 453,341 15 - 16 242,831 60 262,050 1,402 506,343 16 - 17 212,518 568 297,967 8,629 519,682 17 - 18 182,121 255 397,611 37,850 617,836 18 - 19 126,710 433 473,602 71,458 672,203 19 - 20 71,424 521,777 33,397 626,598 20 - 21 56,410 177 616,832 674,008 21 - 22 44,200 327 570,712 617,596 22 - 23 44,218 881 617,329 662,429 23 - 24 42,779 219 635,061 678,059 24 - 25 37,051 27 672,114 709,191 Totals: 2,749,873 10,224 6,450,437 321,555 9,535,036 Table 36: Biomass by species, Hughes. Tree Species Air -dry Tons Cords % of Total White Spruce 7,183,921 5,452,691 75.3% Black Spruce 158,640 133,311 1.7% Birch 1,796,965 1,112,672 18.8% Aspen 90,288 78,683 0.9% Cottonwood 305,222 299,238 3.2% All Species 9,535,036 7,076,594 100.0%
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 54 Figure 18:: Land ownership, Hughes project area.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 55 Figure 19: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Hughes .
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 56 Figure 20: Woody biomass cost, Hughes.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 57 Nikolai Table 37: Biomass by Land Ownership, Nikolai. Annual Allowable Cut Forested Ownership Air -dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres MTNT 423,971 382,717 11,587 18,447 Doyon Ltd. 2,614,262 2,008,618 73,210 108,457 ANCSA misc. 10,470 7,663 286 389 Native allotments 59,246 53,792 1,587 2,208 BLM 458,457 415,087 10,510 17,146 State of Alaska 4,770,585 3,821,741 126,553 200,000 All ownerships: 8,336,991 6,689,618 223,732 346,648 Table 38: Biomass by Village Proximity, Nikolai. Proximity to Annual Allowable Cut Forested village (miles) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 0 - 1 6,858 6,117 191 467 1 - 2 22,837 20,031 594 1,219 2 - 3 40,040 35,167 1,075 2,117 3 - 4 52,875 45,357 1,458 2,786 4 - 5 55,646 47,026 1,592 2,972 5 - 6 60,529 53,351 1,686 2,861 6 - 7 80,391 74,185 2,211 3,537 7 - 8 131,363 123,567 3,486 5,214 8 - 9 163,850 153,816 4,253 6,387 9 - 10 166,028 150,351 4,253 6,804 10 - 11 230,410 199,681 5,965 9,485 11 - 12 266,084 229,049 6,898 10,485 12 - 13 314,715 266,185 8,040 12,052 13 - 14 392,093 325,085 10,215 14,664 14 - 15 494,510 397,207 13,382 19,009 15 - 16 585,415 465,659 15,864 22,753 16 - 17 642,780 498,659 17,695 25,462 17 - 18 605,175 470,370 16,656 24,707 18 - 19 614,911 476,954 16,736 24,924 19 - 20 647,547 501,373 17,527 26,033 20 - 21 599,118 466,064 16,060 25,212 21 - 22 561,191 435,095 15,225 25,052 22 - 23 535,065 416,356 14,291 23,754 23 - 24 485,316 378,005 12,913 22,740 24 - 25 582,243 454,908 15,466 25,954 Totals: 8,336,991 6,689,618 223,732 346,648
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 58 Table 39: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Nikolai. Biomass Cost Annual Allowable Cut Forested ($/ton) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 40 - 60 42,217 38,182 1,006 1,398 60 - 80 151,233 131,710 3,964 5,325 80 – 100 417,854 391,082 10,951 15,952 100 - 120 816,348 708,087 21,077 30,485 120 - 140 1,530,722 1,239,570 40,493 54,402 140 - 160 2,007,995 1,552,482 54,435 74,062 160 - 180 1,856,030 1,435,189 49,602 69,979 180 - 200 1,189,532 925,237 31,865 52,808 200 - 220 184,860 152,442 5,973 24,011 220 - 240 140,200 115,637 4,366 18,226 Totals: 8,336,991 6,689,618 223,732 346,648 Table 40: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Nikolai. Land Ownership : Proximity to Native State of village (miles) ANCSA Corp. Allotments Federal Alaska Total 0 - 1 6,858 6,858 1 - 2 16,870 5,966 22,837 2 - 3 33,889 6,151 40,040 3 - 4 50,538 2,337 52,875 4 - 5 52,441 3,205 55,646 5 - 6 54,211 1,165 5,154 60,529 6 - 7 46,999 1,647 31,745 80,391 7 - 8 73,507 2,014 23 55,820 131,363 8 - 9 98,858 1,658 1,147 62,187 163,850 9 - 10 81,266 6,579 10,378 67,806 166,028 10 - 11 118,885 14,497 30,138 66,889 230,410 11 - 12 151,491 5,393 25,414 83,786 266,084 12 - 13 155,797 3,825 16,490 138,604 314,715 13 - 14 180,079 2,651 24,235 185,129 392,093 14 - 15 201,726 5,912 26,415 260,457 494,510 15 - 16 203,233 2,813 44,529 334,838 585,415 16 - 17 271,257 3,771 39,809 327,944 642,780 17 - 18 275,703 409 31,158 297,904 605,175 18 - 19 234,176 1,730 27,324 351,681 614,911 19 - 20 198,984 2,052 23,080 423,432 647,547 20 - 21 137,545 2,329 21,218 438,026 599,118 21 - 22 97,108 24,548 439,536 561,191 22 - 23 87,261 729 35,426 411,649 535,065 23 - 24 70,769 68 37,463 377,016 485,316 24 - 25 149,253 3 39,662 393,325 582,243 Totals: 3,048,703 59,246 458,457 4,770,585 8,336,991
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 59 Table 41: Biomass by species, Nikolai. Tree Species Air -dry Tons Cords % of Total White Spruce 3,368,461 2,556,707 40.4% Black Spruce 541,611 455,136 6.5% Birch 1,819,053 1,126,349 21.8% Aspen 48,690 42,431 0.6% Cottonwood 2,559,176 2,508,996 30.7% All Species 8,336,991 6,689,618 100.0%
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 60 Figure 21: Land ownership, Nikolai project area.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 61 Figure 22: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Nikolai.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 62 Figure 23: Woody biomass cost, Nikolai.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 63 Ruby Table 42: Biomass by Land Ownership, Ruby. Annual Allowable Cut Forested Ownership Air -dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres Dineega Corporation 2,029,349 1,524,067 57,465 82,931 Doyon Ltd. 3,330,306 2,533,386 89,889 144,001 Native allotment 119,829 89,509 3,445 4,811 BLM 2,038,745 1,499,636 56,853 87,855 USFWS 1,540,752 1,250,323 36,474 80,227 State of Alaska 6,684,949 5,007,512 183,212 292,798 All ownerships: 15,743,931 11,904,433 427,338 692,623 Table 43: Biomass by Village Proximity, Ruby. Proximity to Annual Allowable Cut Forested village (miles) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 0 - 1 26,106 19,199 769 1,069 1 - 2 77,967 59,978 2,127 3,591 2 - 3 151,771 116,815 4,138 6,600 3 - 4 217,293 165,215 5,995 9,482 4 - 5 292,367 220,014 8,300 12,308 5 - 6 392,605 289,774 11,545 15,769 6 - 7 462,991 339,815 13,581 18,282 7 - 8 453,027 337,552 12,932 19,134 8 - 9 496,964 370,634 14,012 21,068 9 - 10 529,892 397,768 14,711 22,754 10 - 11 572,431 428,356 16,101 23,955 11 - 12 578,222 433,652 16,078 25,710 12 - 13 642,505 481,494 17,780 27,560 13 - 14 682,614 513,881 18,625 29,377 14 - 15 745,194 561,676 20,360 32,602 15 - 16 771,341 580,996 20,935 33,965 16 - 17 790,542 600,459 21,295 34,849 17 - 18 806,510 613,087 21,487 36,141 18 - 19 842,744 641,075 22,520 38,171 19 - 20 908,812 690,297 24,097 40,607 20 - 21 958,667 729,580 25,258 42,894 21 - 22 999,063 763,404 26,310 45,972 22 - 23 1,067,935 813,314 28,154 47,905 23 - 24 1,112,226 848,775 29,309 50,178 24 - 25 1,164,143 887,623 30,919 52,680 Totals: 15,743,931 11,904,433 427,338 692,623
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 64 Table 44: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Ruby. Biomass Cost Annual Allowable Cut Forested ($/ton) Air-dry Tons Cords (AAC, tons/year) Acres 20 - 40 32 24 1 1 40 - 60 143,220 105,488 4,129 4,710 60 - 80 892,148 661,483 25,751 34,022 80 - 100 1,428,862 1,058,725 41,142 57,888 100 - 120 1,850,193 1,382,961 51,725 77,426 120 - 140 2,306,720 1,732,651 63,146 97,451 140 - 160 2,611,077 1,974,746 70,324 112,888 160 - 180 3,175,870 2,414,688 83,906 139,024 180 - 200 2,971,905 2,276,806 77,908 138,470 200 - 220 319,551 263,059 7,927 22,609 220 - 240 21,089 16,094 598 3,766 240 - 260 23,264 17,709 782 4,367 Totals: 15,743,931 11,904,433 427,338 692,623
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 65 Table 45: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Ruby. Land Ownership : Proximity to Native State of village (miles) ANCSA Corp. Allotments Federal Alaska Total 0 - 1 24,060 2,046 26,106 1 - 2 73,491 4,476 77,967 2 - 3 140,020 11,189 563 151,771 3 - 4 191,014 9,655 16,623 217,293 4 - 5 214,156 4,358 73,854 292,367 5 - 6 233,178 17,662 105 141,660 392,605 6 - 7 262,060 12,187 24,129 164,615 462,991 7 - 8 316,378 3,897 41,007 91,745 453,027 8 - 9 344,797 7,291 35,269 109,607 496,964 9 - 10 340,583 852 39,967 148,490 529,892 10 - 11 414,885 555 34,167 122,824 572,431 11 - 12 404,426 567 46,766 126,463 578,222 12 - 13 365,589 496 51,222 225,199 642,505 13 - 14 274,752 3,581 122,666 281,615 682,614 14 - 15 238,307 1,644 163,489 341,753 745,194 15 - 16 204,846 2,350 202,774 361,372 771,341 16 - 17 214,599 6,253 237,073 332,617 790,542 17 - 18 210,555 1,427 244,198 350,330 806,510 18 - 19 168,967 5,487 265,371 402,919 842,744 19 - 20 186,007 6,312 263,132 453,360 908,812 20 - 21 169,650 2,802 308,486 477,729 958,667 21 - 22 129,003 3,461 339,715 526,883 999,063 22 - 23 86,756 3,965 364,307 612,908 1,067,935 23 - 24 88,073 2,297 370,790 651,066 1,112,226 24 - 25 63,505 5,019 424,866 670,753 1,164,143 Totals: 5,359,655 119,829 3,579,498 6,684,949 15,743,931 Table 46: Biomass by species, Ruby. Tree Species Air -dry Tons Cords % of Total White Spruce 5,283,702 4,010,400 33.6% Black Spruce 2,810,741 2,361,967 17.9% Birch 5,148,791 3,188,106 32.7% Aspen 988,725 861,634 6.3% Cottonwood 1,511,973 1,482,327 9.6% All Species 15,743,931 11,904,433 100.0%
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 66 Figure 24: Land ownership, Ruby project area.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 67 Figure 25: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Ruby.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 68 Figure 26: Woody biomass cost, Ruby.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Rural Villages in Interior Alaska 69 FUTURE STEPS As plans for proposed biomass heating projects move forward, what steps need to be taken to implement effective and sustained use of forest resources as a woody biomass supply at villages in Interior Alaska? This report constitutes a first-look assessment designed to assist in determining if the potential supply of woody biomass warrants pursuing the development of proposed biomas s energy projects. Additional steps that will need to be considered as proposed projects move forward include: • Develop agreements with major landowners. As owners of the resource required to fuel a biomass energy project, any proposed project needs to have the commitment and participation of the landowners involved. In many cases, this means the required participation of the local ANCSA village corporation as the owner of the bulk of the lands in the immediate vicinity of a community. • With the involved landowners, develop forest management plans. The forest stewardship program, administered by the State of Alaska with federal funds, is one option for a landowner to receive planning assistance. A project involving multipl e landowners would require coordinated planning among the landowners to best serve the project and the affected community. Included in the issues to be addressed by these plans would be: Managing the biomass resources in a sustainable manner through reforestation and other forestry Best management Practices (BMPs), and ensuring compliance with the Alaska Forest Resource Practices Act (FRPA); Preparation of a transportation and access plan; Detailed harvest plans; Ensuring that the harvest of biomass for energy does not interfere with normal subsistence wood gathering and other forest products utilization by community residents; Work to avoid the natural tendency to harvest the most available resource first, with the resultant effect of making fuel costs prohibitively more expensive in the future; Coordinate biomass harvesting with other land management activities such as hazardous fuel mitigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, etc. • Work to develop local capacity for technical land management tasks, biomass harvesting and transportation, and other contractable services and small businesses required to make a biomass energy project functional. • Attempt to develop better biomass supply and growth data. This can include the development of more precise and accur ate land cover mapping using higher-resolution imagery or aerial photography, and the installation of ground plots to determine more accurate estimates of biomass stocking. This work can be quite expensive, but can be scaled to fit the demands of a proposed project. For example, a combined heat and power project (CHP) projected to consume relatively large amounts of woody biomass would require tighter biomass stocking and sustainability estimates and more detailed planning than would a relatively small co rdwood thermal heating projec t. The Alaska Energy Authority has recently worked to develop standards for required information for projects of varying size, complexity, resource demands, and stage of development. • As projects come on line, develop monitorin g programs to collect information on harvest and transportation costs to better inform decisions made for current and future projects.
City of Nikolai
COST ESTIMATES
Nikolai Biomass System Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate Daily Operations Labor (hrs/yr) (hrs/day X 210 Days/yr)280Periodic Maintenance Labor (hrs/yr) (hrs/week X 28 wks/yr)49Total Annual Labor (hrs/yr)328.93Total Annual Labor Cost ($/yr) (wage rate = $22/hr)$7,236Annual Replacement Parts Cost ($/yr)$945Total Annual O&M Cost ($/yr)$8,182Garn Boiler Replacement Parts ListDescriptionQTY Unit Unit Price TotalFrequency/YearAnnual Cost VendorGasket Service Pack Horizontal Flue P-00 2 Ea $68.00 $136.00 0.5 $68.00 GarnIndoor Door Tadpole Gasket P-0008 1 Ea $77.00 $77.00 1 $77.00 GarnManway Cover gasket P-00011 1 Ea $19.00 $19.00 1 $19.00 GarnBlower Wheel P-0001 1 Ea $100.00 $100.00 0.5 $50.00 GarnBlower Motor for Garn JR 1000 H 1/2 Hp In1 Ea $331.00 $331.00 0.5 $165.50 GarnMotor Mount Kit P-0031 1 Ea $87.00 $87.00 0.5 $43.50 GarnBlower Wheel Puller P-0075 1 Ea $19.00 $19.00 0.25 $4.75 GarnAnode Rod P-0014 1 Ea $52.00 $52.00 0.5 $26.00 GarnRod and Brush Kit P-0053 1 Ea $68.00 $68.00 0.5 $34.00 GarnFibreglass Cleaning Rod 36" P-0045 1 Ea $8.00 $8.00 1 $8.00 GarnFlat Gasket Kit P-0073 1 Ea $32.00 $32.00 1 $32.00 GarnSeasonal Water Quality Testing 2 Ea $150.00 $300.00 1 $300.00 GarnGarn Chemicals 1 Set $235.00 $235.00 0.5 $117.50 Garn $945.25Total Annual Replacement Parts
Cost Estimate for Biomass Heating Project
Qty Rate 134 126 117 115 127 126 85 108 35 35 35 Labor
Project Management (Match)951$
Civil 110 8 11.0 13,200$ Site Visit 2 1,100$ 2,200$
Mechanical 140 8 14.0 16,800$ Site Visit 2 1,100$ 2,200$
Electrical 50 8 5.0 6,000$ Site Visit 1 1,100$ 1,100$
CAD 190 8 19.0 19,000$
Survey 45 8 4.5 5,400$ Site Visit 2 1,100$ 2,200$
61,351$ 7,700$
Biomass Harvesting Plan 15,000$
Biomass Operations Plan 12,000$
Subtotal 34,700$
96,051$
Total hours > 380.0 160.0 0.0 0.0 315.0 395.0 80.0 0.0 980.0 220.0 70.0
Mobilization Man-Days
Equipment Shipping 2.0 1 1,700$
Takeoffs 3.0 1 1 7,590$
Training 0.0 -$
Materials Receiving and Inventory 4.0 1 1 1 13,520$
Set up Materials Storage/Yard 1.0 0.5 0.5 1 2,115$
Expediting to Const Site 1.0 -$
Housing
Local Rental -$ Rental 60 200$ 12,000$ 12,000.00$
Camp set up 11 -$
-$
-$ Equipment Rental 15 250$ 3,750$ 3,750.00$
Sitework & Foundation/Slab 10.0 1 2 1 23,900$ Garn 2000 Boiler 1 20,500$ 20,500$ 7,500$ 28,000.00$
Arctic Pipe 12.0 1 2 1 28,680$ Arctic Pipe 1000 50$ 50,000$ 11,000$ 61,000.00$
Building Erection 6.0 1 2 12,240$ Boiler Accessories 1 3,100$ 3,100$ 300$ 3,400.00$
Boiler Installation/Framing 6.0 1 1 10,140$ Prefab Building 1 15,000$ 15,000$ 3,500$ 18,500.00$
Plumbing 7.0 1 8,820$ Foundation 1 7,500$ 7,500$ 2,000$ 9,500.00$
Electrical & Controls 5.0 1 6,350$ Pipe & Fittings 4 10,000$ 40,000$ 4,000$ 44,000.00$
Heat Exchanger 2 3,500$ 7,000$ 200$ 7,200.00$
Controls 1 2,000$ 2,000$ 100$ 2,100.00$
Insulation 1 600$ 600$ 200$ 800.00$
-$
Building Penetration 4.0 1 1 1 8,160$ Pipe & Fittings 4 2,000$ 8,000$ 1,400$ 9,400.00$
Plumbing 18.0 1 1 28,980$ Heat Exchanger 4 3,500$ 14,000$ 400$ 14,400.00$
Electrical & Controls 16.0 1 20,320$ Pumps 4 750$ 3,000$ 400$ 3,400.00$
Heating Elements 6 1,200$ 7,200$ 400$ 7,600.00$
Controls 4 2,000$ 8,000$ 200$ 8,200.00$
BTU Meter 2 3,000$ 6,000$ 100$ 6,100.00$
Connection and install 2.0 1 1 1 5,760$ Flow meter 2 4,500$ 9,000$ 100$ 9,100.00$
Programming and interface 2.0 1 2,520$
-$ -$
Glycol 1.0 1 1,260$ Glycol 5 1,150$ 5,750$ 2,000$ 7,750.00$
Startup and Operator Training.-$ -$
Literature and References 4.0 1 5,040$ Publishing 4 520$ 2,080$ 15$ 2,095.00$
Training 5.0 1 2 9,800$ -$ -$
-$
Job Clean Up/ Final Inspection -$ -$ -$
Preliminary Clean Up 1.0 1 2 1,960$ -$ -$
Final Inspection Punch List 1.0 1 1 1 3,790$ -$ -$
Final Clean Up 1.0 1 2 1 2,310$ -$ -$
-$ -$
De-Mobe -$
Pack Up and Crate 1.0 1 1,260$ -$ -$
Shipping 1.0 1 850$ -$ 7,500$ 7,500.00$
-$ -$
-$ -$ -$
Financial Close out/ Auditing 2.0 1 2,520$ -$ -$
As builting 2.0 1 2,520$ -$ -$
-$ -$
Construction Management 20,000$
Project Management (Match)6,040$
238,145$
224,480$ 41,315$ 265,795$
503,940$
599,991$
689,990$
2 years escalation @ 3% / year 15,903$
705,893$
6,989$
698,904$
$60,765
Simple Payback of Grant Investment 11.50 yrs
Final
Labor + Materials + Freight
Total Mat
*Note
MATERIALS / SUBCONTRACT
Local PlumberSupport Activities
Fixed estimate @ 120 /hr.
*Note LocalLabor ElectricianLocal OperatorNikolai Biomass Cost Estimate
PlumbershippingMaterials
+ FreightTotalItemOperatorFreight
Production
Rate
EngineerDays
(60hr.
Week)Crew LeadSuperLABOR
MechanicEstimated annual savings
Assumptions:
- Local accomodations are available.
- All exterior piping run on sleepers above
No. Cost Ea Total Cost
BTU Meter install
Design
End-User Building Integration
ELEMENT
Fixed estimate @ 120 /hr.
Biomass Building and Boiler
Fixed estimate @ 120 /hr.
Fixed estimate @ 120 /hr.
Total Construction Phase Labor
Total
All + contingency
Labor + Mat + Frgt + Design
Fixed estimate @ 100 /hr.
Grant Request
Design Subtotal
Design Total
Design Travel Total
Match