HomeMy WebLinkAboutGalena Forest Inventory and Management Plan Report_FULLGalena Forest Inventory and
Management Plan Report
Submitted to:
March Runner, Tribal Administrator
Louden Tribal Council
P.O. Box 244
Galena, Alaska 99741
By:
Geographic Resource Solutions
Ken Stumpf, Professional Forester
Professional Forester
1125 16th Street, Suite 213
Arcata, CA 95521
1
Executive Summary
The city of Galena is located along the Yukon River in interior Alaska. Galena is off the
Alaska power grid and dependent on outside sources of petroleum-based fuels for the
production of heating and electricity. Because of the rising costs of their energy source, a
consortium of Galena community leaders obtained a grant from the Alaska Energy
Authority in 2011 to evaluate and define the nature and extent of the biomass resource in
the Galena area. In early 2012 Geographic Resource Solutions (GRS) was chosen to
conduct a biomass resource study within a 25-mile radius of Galena (Galena Vicinity),
develop a biomass inventory, and provide a sustainable management plan to potentially
utilize that biomass for local energy production.
GRS initially conducted a literature review and acquired as much currently available
ancillary geographic, cultural, and natural resource information thought pertinent to this
study. This information was all compiled in GRS’s geographic information system (GIS).
GRS then reviewed vegetation inventory data available for the Galena area and
determined that data collected on the two nearby wildlife refuges by Ducks Unlimited (DU)
in the late 1990’s-early 2000’s would be the best available resource information to use as a
foundation for inventory efforts. GRS then stratified the Galena Vicinity and visited field
data sites at which they collected detailed resource information that was used to verify,
refine, update, and replace portions of the DU data set. The updated data set was then
applied to recent Landsat 5 satellite imagery using GRS’s Discrete Classification
methodology to generate classification maps. These maps were then aggregated to
produce a site-specific Stand Inventory map data set of Viereck types and associated
species-specific biomass estimates for all lands in the Galena Vicinity. The total biomass
inventory estimated to be in the 25-mile radius of Galena is 5,050,297 Cft3 and 7,820,609
dry tons.
This Stand Inventory was associated with different landscape and cultural characteristics
of the Galena Vicinity and evaluated to develop an estimate of Available Biomass
Inventory. A site-specific Harvest Unit map data set was developed and five harvest plans
(Options) were generated using GRS’s application harvestBiomass to project long-term
sustained yield levels for the Galena Vicinity. All five alternative plans met the maximum
stated target of 20,000 tons per year for the projection period (2013-2110), however the
different alternatives reflect different levels of annual biomass procurement cost that range
from approximately $1.56 million to $1.92 million per year. The major cost component of
these management plans is Transportation Costs, which ranged from 59% to 70% of the
total biomass procurement costs. The estimated cost/ton of harvested biomass ranges
from just under $78/ton to over $94/ton depending on the management option.
The different plans represent different levels of harvest intensity near Galena and the
Yukon River; acreage harvested and reforested; winter and summer season
transportation; transportation system development; and environmental impact. Options
can be ranked by cost, but non-market values may play a significant role in which option
best fits the community. Ultimately, the choice of how to proceed with future biomass
procurement efforts in the Galena Vicinity rests with the path that the community of Galena
chooses to follow through the options that are available.
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
Project Methodology ........................................................................................................ 4
Data/Information Review .............................................................................................. 6
Data Sources ............................................................................................................... 6
Landscape Information ............................................................................................. 6
Satellite Imagery ....................................................................................................... 7
Existing Field Data .................................................................................................... 7
New/Current Field Data Sampling Locations ............................................................ 8
Ground-Truth/Field Data Collection ........................................................................ 11
Image Classification ................................................................................................... 14
Training Data Set Development .............................................................................. 14
Discrete Classification ............................................................................................ 15
Aggregation ................................................................................................................ 15
Stand Formation ..................................................................................................... 15
Harvest Unit Formation ........................................................................................... 17
Biomass Inventory Results ............................................................................................ 22
Biomass Inventory By Viereck Vegetation Type Class .............................................. 25
Biomass Inventory By Land Ownership ..................................................................... 29
Biomass Inventory By Land Administration ................................................................ 33
Biomass Inventory By Distance from Galena ............................................................. 38
Biomass Inventory By Access Class .......................................................................... 42
Biomass Inventory By Transportation Cost Projections ............................................. 44
Availability of the Biomass Inventory .......................................................................... 50
Harvest Projections ....................................................................................................... 54
Inventory Projection ................................................................................................... 54
Growth Projection ...................................................................................................... 54
Cost Projections ......................................................................................................... 56
Selection Priorities ..................................................................................................... 57
The harvestBiomass Application ................................................................................ 58
Harvest Alternatives ................................................................................................... 58
Harvest Projection Results ......................................................................................... 61
Biomass and Acreage ............................................................................................. 61
Biomass Procurement Cost Estimates ................................................................... 68
Harvest Projection Warning(s) ................................................................................... 83
Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 83
Deliverables .................................................................................................................. 84
Acknowledgment ........................................................................................................... 85
Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 85
3
Introduction
The city of Galena is located in the interior of Alaska, about 270 air miles west of
Fairbanks and 330 air miles northwest of Anchorage. Galena is inaccessible by road
and is not connected to the Alaska power grid. The major form of transportation in and
out of Galena is by plane. Freight and supplies are either barged into Galena on the
Yukon River or flown in by aircraft. Heating and electricity are produced by the City by
burning petroleum-based fuel that has been transported to Galena. So, except for
supplemental home heating provided by burning firewood cut by individuals of the
community from the local area, all other heating and electricity is produced by burning
petroleum-based fuel acquired from out of the area.
Due to rising costs, unreliable availability, and reliance on external sources of the fuel
that is currently being used for both heating and electricity, the local community has
become interested in the future use of alternative sources of energy for the generation
of their local heating and electricity. A number of alternative sources have been
suggested, such as coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and biomass, and addressed in
the 2004 report, Galena Electric Power – a Situational Analysis. That report
characterized biomass as not being a viable source of energy. The growth of the
biomass industry and its recent acceptance in rural areas of Alaska and Canada has led
to a greater interest in biomass as an energy source. Due to the apparent availability of
biomass resources in Alaska, the Alaska Energy Authority has provided grants to
encourage the further study of the feasibility of using biomass to produce heat and
electricity.
A consortium of the Louden Tribal Council in cooperation with the Gana-A’Yoo Ltd., the
City of Galena, and the Galena School District acquired such a grant from the Alaska
Energy Authority in the fall of 2011 to specifically estimate the nature of the biomass
inventory present in the approximate 25-mile area around Galena. The consortium,
under the Louden Tribal Council, released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to accomplish
such a study in late 2011.
The three stated objectives of the Request for Proposals were:
1. Provide an accurate and credible estimate of the biomass resource in the Galena
area suitable for long-term renewable energy development.
2. To complete of the forest inventory in a timely manner.
3. Create a management plan to consider cost and biomass harvest scheduling,
with initial estimates of consumption of 3,000 to 20,000 tons of fuel wood per
year.
Geographic Resource Solutions (GRS) of Arcata, CA was awarded the contract to
perform these services. This report addresses the stated project objectives and
4
provides a basis for decision-making and planning regarding the utilization of the
biomass for energy production in the Galena area. GRS assessed the nature and
extent of the biomass resource within the vicinity of the City of Galena, Alaska and has
estimated how much of this resource could be available to use as a sustainable fuel
source for a wood-based power generation facility. In addition, GRS has developed
projections of potential sustainable harvest levels of woody biomass now and into the
future. The results of this project indicate that many alternative paths to biomass power
production exist. While GRS can make recommendations, as it has in this report, the
ultimate decision of the actual course to follow may be a hybrid of information presented
in this report, or developed at a later time based upon further analysis of new questions
regarding the use of this resource. The final decision of how to pursue this matter is
going to be up to the community of Galena.
GRS must caution that this assessment is based upon a very limited set of field data
that has been applied to a very large regional area using image classification
techniques based upon statistical processes and applications. An inventory of this
nature is a regional inventory and provides inventory estimates at a regional level. This
inventory and site specific projections are subject to human interpretation, verification
and adjustment and there will be differences between site-specific estimates and on-
the-ground experience. Such site-specific differences however, should balance out
over the whole of the area being inventoried and mapped. Projections based upon
these inventory data are not “cast in concrete” and will need to be managed as plans
and conditions change over time. This inventory and planning information can also be
refined using updated and improved inventory and growth information as it is acquired
during future operations and studies in the Galena area.
Figure 1 shows the area of the 25-mile radius Galena Working Circle or Vicinity along
with lakes, rivers, streams, existing roads, and nearby cities and villages.
Project Methodology
GRS planned to implement an inventory/mapping methodology based upon using as
much existing resource inventory data as possible and then supplementing or replacing
that data with more current and representative data that met the information needs of
this project. The primary sources of existing field data were the cover-based Earth
Cover Mapping projects performed by Ducks Unlimited in the late 1990’s-early 2000’s.
As no current forest inventory data existed to accurately represent the forest resources
within the Project Area, GRS planned to collect as much forest inventory data as the
budget allowed and then merge this more recent inventory information into the older
data and information replacing the older unsuitable information with the new detailed
information.
e
e
Galena
Koyukuk
Figure 1: Galena Vicinity - 25-mile Radius Working Circle
³0 10 205 Miles
Legend
e Cities
Galena Vicinity
5
6
Data/Information Review
Prior to undertaking this effort, GRS gathered and collected existing information
regarding the forest resources, inventories, and forestry management for the interior
region of Alaska similar to the Galena Vicinity. These efforts included The Fort Yukon
Biomass Resource Assessment Report by TCC Forestry Director Will Putman, as well
as other published information about biomass energy production and harvest in Alaska.
Alaska DNR projects in the Tok vicinity were also considered. Past studies and papers
dealing with northern boreal forest growth and productivity of conifer and hardwoods
occurring in the Galena vicinity were reviewed. Tree volume estimation processes were
reviewed to determine the most appropriate means of estimating biomass on a species-
specific basis. Past mapping and inventory efforts in the Galena vicinity were reviewed,
with particular emphasis on the past (late 1990’s-early 2000’s) mapping efforts by
Ducks Unlimited (DU) on the Innoko and Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuges.
Data Sources
Landscape and Cultural Information
A variety of data sets for different landscape and cultural themes or characteristics were
acquired and stored in GRS’s geographic information system (GIS) to represent
planimetric, topographic, hydrologic, transportation, and cultural information for the
Galena Working Circle. The USGS digital elevation data (DEM) was used to generate
slope and aspect data sets. GRS developed an Access (seasonality of access) theme
for the Galena Vicinity using the USGS National Hydrology data set and the slope,
aspect, and elevation data. Land ownership and administration, fire history, and
city/village locations were downloaded and recreated in GRS’s GIS based upon the
BLM Spatial Data Information available through their website (BLM-SDMS, 2012 and
BLM-AICC, 2012).
Other landscape information that would be used in this project was developed by GRS.
Distance information, in terms of miles, was developed using grid data processes based
upon the location of Galena (an X,Y coordinate located very close to City Hall). Nine
distance zones were created based upon creating concentric bands of distance (miles)
from Galena that would represent nearly equal areas. In addition, GRS developed
directional information that could be used to focus harvest projections in specific regions
of the Galena Vicinity. Thirty-six (36) directional, azimuth zones used in harvest
projection efforts were created based upon sweeping an angle (azimuth) clockwise
through the Galena Working Circle and identifying 10-degree wide zones that were
created. GRS developed Transportation Cost estimates for the entire Galena Vicinity
based upon an evaluation of the Access and Distance grid information. All GIS data
used or developed during this project were projected to the Alaska Alber’s Equal Area
Projection, NAD83, units of meters.
7
Satellite Imagery
Landsat 5 TM image data sets acquired on July 12, 2009 (20090712) and September
24, 2010 (20100924) were reviewed on the USGS GLOVIS website (USGS-GLOVIS,
2012) and downloaded for use during this project. These two 30-meter resolution multi-
spectral images were determined to be the best imagery available for use in this project.
While the 20090712 image (Path 74, Rows 14 and 15) had what appeared to be the
best spectral qualities, as it was acquired in July, there were some cloud cover issues,
as well as coverage limitations to the west that limited its application to the entire
Galena Vicinity. The 20100924 image (Path 75, Rows 14 and 15) had no such cloud
cover or coverage limitation issues, but was potentially of lesser quality if the late
season acquisition date (lower sun angle) might limit the spectral separation of different
vegetation characteristics, especially if it was acquired during the leaf-off state of the
deciduous plants. As much of the Galena Vicinity was relatively flat with little or no
terrain shadowing due to the low sun angle and as this imagery provided complete
cloud free coverage of the Project Area, the 20100924 image (7515f) was used for most
image processing/mapping efforts and the 20090712 image (7415f) was used to
supplement processing/mapping efforts. All image data were projected to the Alaska
Alber’s Equal Area Projection, NAD83, units of meters.
During past similar projects GRS has identified the need to remove/reduce the effects of
differential illumination due to slope and aspect on the satellite imagery (while slope and
aspect were minimal in most regions of the Project Area there were still a few area
where differential illumination was visible in the imagery). The benefits of such a
correction effort are twofold in that removal of these differential illumination effects
reduces confusion of training classes and decreases the number of field sites necessary
to describe the different vegetation/land cover types present in the area. Reduction of
the number of field sites is of particular importance to this mapping effort, since so much
of the area is either inaccessible or too costly to sample within the budget constraints of
this mapping effort. Correction for differential illumination should result in needing fewer
field sample sites to describe the vegetation using image classification techniques
(Stumpf, 1999). GRS performed the illumination correction on both image data sets
used during this project.
Existing Field Data
Past mapping efforts covering the Galena Vicinity have included three mapping efforts
by Ducks Unlimited (DU). The Innoko Earth Cover Mapping Project (DU-INNO, 2002),
the Northern Innoko Earth Cover Mapping Project (DU-NINNO, 2002), and the
Melozitna River and Koyukuk NWR Earth Cover Mapping Project (DU-MELO, 2002)
covered significant portions of the 7515f imagery in both the Innoko and Koyukuk
National Wildlife Refuges. Field data collection efforts for these projects occurred
between 1998 and 2001. These projects included a total of 2,319 field site locations,
training area boundaries, and associated vegetation descriptions. GRS reviewed these
field training data to determine their usefulness as potential spectral training sites that
could be used to represent the many different types of vegetation/land-cover found
8
within the Galena Vicinity. Field training data were reviewed with respect to the
vegetation/land-cover types they represented, the accuracy of their locations, and the
suitability of using the site in this project. Field sites outside of the current satellite
image footprints of images 7515f and 7415f used in this project or which appeared to be
inaccurately located were rejected. Field sites of vegetation/land-cover types that
appeared to have been burned and significantly altered by fires since data were
acquired were deemed unsuitable and rejected. Following GRS’s review of these DU
field data GRS retained a total of 635 sites for use in this project’s mapping efforts.
Figure 2 represents the DU field site locations that were used during this mapping effort
and the 7515f and 7415f satellite image footprints.
New/Current Field Data Sampling Locations
Field data site locations were selected for sampling based upon the spectral data in the
7515f satellite imagery being processed, the past DU field data collection efforts, and
the development and evaluation of a candidate field training site database that GRS
developed specifically for this project.
After GRS determined that many of the DU field data sites could be used to represent
existing vegetation/land-cover conditions, GRS used these field data to stratify the
newly acquired imagery. In other words, GRS developed an image classification
training data set using many of the past DU field data site information (locations as well
as species-specific cover descriptions) that had been accepted during GRS’s review.
All suitable sites representing all Viereck types, including tree vegetated types were
used. While this DU data set only included cover by species estimates, which are
inadequate to develop biomass estimates, these data descriptions were useful in
developing a stratification that GRS could use to identify the locations of where Viereck
tree type pixels (areas) existed that could be sampled and used to represent tree-
vegetated area in the subsequent image classification efforts undertaken during this
field data collection effort. As a result, an initial DU classification was performed based
upon the newly acquired imagery to create a stratification of the Galena Vicinity and
surrounding area (the surrounding area was included because some of the best sample
sites might be outside of the Galena Vicinity on nearby lands that were accessible for
this project. Confusion among DU sites included in this training data set was reviewed
and resolved and an initial Viereck Type Class Map was developed based on the DU
data to guide GRS’s field sampling efforts.
At the same time the stratification was performed, GRS also developed an
unsupervised classification isodata training data set that was used to represent all of the
major vegetated strata that GRS thought could be identified in the 7515f imagery. A
total of 57 vegetated isodata training classes were identified, which were then used to
develop an unsupervised classification map of the Galena vicinity. GRS then related
the initial DU Viereck Type class map data to the unsupervised class map data using
map overlay processing. Using these spatial relationships and the unsupervised class
map data, GRS applied pixel processing programs used during past projects to develop
a database of class-specific candidate field training site locations thought to represent
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!((!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(llllll7415f7515fRubyNulatoKaltagHusliaGalenaKoyukukDenali NP and NPRESFigure 2: Galena Vicinity, Satellite Image Footprints, and Duck's Unlimited Field Sites³0408020MilesLegendField Sites!(DUimage footprintsMosaic7415f7515f 9
10
areas of sampling interest. Estimates of vegetation/land-cover type and cover density
were developed for each of the unsupervised isodata classification classes. This
information would be used to direct GRS’s field data collection efforts to sample only
stratum that were representative of tree types or other types with at least 5% cover of
trees present (these types were thought most significant for sampling to develop the
biomass inventory estimates required during this mapping effort).
A data set of candidate sample sites was then developed by identifying the largest
contiguous areas of each different unsupervised tree-vegetated class (stratum) and
storing that information in the GIS. Areas that were too small or too heterogeneous to
sample were filtered out of the candidate site data set. This effort not only identified
potential field sample site locations, but also resulted in a frequency distribution of all
the different unsupervised classes of the sample sites. This class abundance
information was used to identify sites in rare (infrequently occurring) or small classes
and distinguish them from sites in abundant or commonly occurring larger classes.
Such information was instrumental in developing field sampling plans and guiding the
selection of field sample sites, so that GRS did not oversample the abundant classes
and undersample or miss some of the rarer classes during the very limited field
sampling efforts undertaken during this project.
GRS anticipated that the project budget would allow for the sampling of approximately
40 field sites during a two week field sampling period. Additional funding through a BLM
Challenge Cost Share Grant provided valuable additional funding that enabled GRS to
expand field sampling efforts to a 16-day period of field sampling during which we
anticipated visiting from 60-80 field sites (this additional funding also required a
provision for performing some field sampling on BLM lands either within or near the
Project Area, thereby explaining the sampling of some sites to the northeast that are 15
miles outside of the Project Area). The acreage of each tree-type stratum was
estimated and field sites were allocated to the different stratum based upon the acreage
of each type relative to the total acreage of tree-types that had been identified during
our initial stratification efforts. GRS divided the Galena Vicinity into 6 sample regions
that represented the lowland areas near Galena, upriver from Galena, and downriver
from Galena, and the upland areas in the mountains to the south, to the east, and to the
northeast. A minimum of 1 site and a maximum of 6 sites were allowed per
stratum/class and sites from the same stratum would typically not be sampled within the
same region, unless that was the region in which most of that class’s acreage was
thought to exist (this provided a means of distributing samples in the same class
throughout the Galena Vicinity). GRS then developed the field sample plans necessary
to sample the different areas thought to have a significant amount of tree biomass and
ignore non-tree areas, such as Carex-dominated Wet Marshes, Low Willow stands, or
Dwarf Birch stands that were thought to have little or no tree biomass present either
now or in the future. Field sample plans were updated on a daily basis as the plans
were implemented and selected sites were either sampled or not sampled, to assure
that sampling efforts provided the desired representation of the different tree-vegetated
classes thought to be present throughout the Galena Vicinity. After sampling efforts
were completed a total of 63 field sites were visited and assessed by GRS field crews.
11
GroundTruth/Field Data Collection
At each selected sample site GRS implemented a line-point sampling methodology that
was typically comprised of either 80, 60, 40, or 20 point sample locations. Samples of a
smaller number of points were only implemented when the vegetation being sampled
appeared to be very homogeneously distributed in terms of species, size, and
stocking/cover. Sample points were oriented along the sides of a rectangular or
triangular shaped transect and established every 9 (nine) feet apart. At each point all of
the sample characteristics of the different vegetation present at the point were recorded.
For trees this included species, dbh, total height, crown diameter, canopy position, and
status (dead, stunted, or alive). For shrubs, herbaceous, and non-vascular plants this
included species (genus) and canopy position. Ground surface characteristics were
also recorded. A diagram of the field sample transect configurations used during this
project is shown in Figure 3. In a few situations in which GRS field crews found that
there was little (< 5%) or no tree cover, ocular estimates of cover by vegetation cover
characteristics, including tree species, status, diameter and height for trees that were
present were made instead of installing a complete transect.
12
GRS fully equipped and trained two field crews, with each crew being comprised of one
GRS field forester, who would be responsible for all forestry/botany related data
estimates and one Galena high school student, who would fulfill GRS’s field data
collection responsibilities. All crew members were trained in the GRS field data
collection procedures during the first three days of field data collection efforts. Due to
safety concerns, as well as transportation issues and costs, the two field crews went to
each field site and each visited one-half of the sample points and estimated the
vegetation characteristics at each of the data collection locations. Field data were
recorded using the GRS field data collection software TransIn and output to comma
delimited files for subsequent processing. All field site locations were documented with
digital photography and global positioning (GPS) data. GPS point locations were
collected at the origin and corners of the sample transects to verify that the field site
was correctly located and oriented with respect to sample plans. GPS tracking data
were also collected, as the transects were implemented, to verify that field sampling
efforts was correctly positioned within sample unit boundaries. All field data and
photography were downloaded and processed on a daily basis to identify and correct
any data collection anomalies while in the field rather than when they would be found
after returning to the office.
Radial growth increment data were collected from a dominant ‘site’ tree at sample sites
in order to estimate diameter growth rates. In addition, the species, age and total height
of each of these trees was recorded. While there was not sufficient information to
develop any individual tree growth estimates, these radial growth increment data did
show the wide range of growth rates that were present in the sample areas.
GRS then processed the field data using transumcov to generate species-specific
estimates of cover, stocking (stems/acre), dbh, height, and cubic volume for each
sampled stand. Cubic volume estimates were developed using whole tree cubic volume
functions based on dbh and total height developed for similar species in the Matanuska
Valley (Larson and Winterberger, 1984). These volume functions only addressed the
cubic volume in the bole of the tree and were found to dramatically overestimate cubic
volume estimates for trees less than 4” dbh. Cubic volume estimates for small trees
less than 4” dbh were estimated using volumes GRS developed based on dbh, total
height, and average taper for the range of small tree dbh and heights found during
sampling effort. Stand volumes were developed by summing the individual tree
volumes expanded by the number of stems/acre of that species and size tree.
At the completion of field sampling efforts, GRS managed to sample 63 field sites
throughout the Galena Vicinity. In addition, knowing that some non-vegetated sample
sites would be needed during the mapping efforts, GRS collected ocular information at
an additional 14 sites representing different types of water (shallow, turbid, clear, and so
forth) visible in the imagery, as well as barren non-vegetated areas (gravel bars, mud
flats, cut banks, and so forth), and a couple of sparsely vegetated urban/herbaceous
areas near the airport. The locations of these GRS field data collection sites, as well as
the nearby DU field sites in and around the Galena Vicinity are shown in Figure 4.
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç !(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç !(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç
!(Ç
!(Ç
!(Ç
!(Ç
!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç !(Ç!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç
!(Ç
!(Ç
!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç!(Ç
e
e
Galena
Koyukuk 1969
2004
2005
1956
Figure 4: Galena Vicinity; GRS and DU Field Site Locations; GPS Tracks; and Fire History
³0 10 205 Miles
Legend
e Cities
field site locations
Source
!(DU
!(Ç GRS
13
14
Image Classification
Training Data Set Development
As the field sample data had been collected and processed, these field site locations
were added to the original DU spectral training data set to form one comprehensive
spectral training data set. The newly acquired tree-vegetated training site information
would eventually replace the original DU tree-vegetated areas that lacked tree
measurement data, such as diameter, height, or stocking (trees/acre).
GRS performed a review of the spectral confusion as well as the classification fidelity to
determine the validity of this combined GRS-DU spectral training data set. For the most
part, GRS field data locations collected in tree-type classes corresponded fairly well with
DU field site tree-type information. The one exception was that for some of the training
areas in which GRS field staff identified the coniferous species as white spruce (Picea
glauca), the corresponding coniferous species on a “confused” DU field site was
identified as black spruce (Picea mariana). This difference in species may be an
indication of the difficulty in species identification based upon aerial helicopter
observations, as was done during the DU field data collection efforts, as opposed to on
the ground observations as undertaken by GRS. GRS understood that species
identification of white spruce and black spruce would be an issue from the very start and
went to great lengths to be certain that field crew members could correctly identify the
differences in these species in the field based upon needle characteristics, bark
characteristics, cones, smell, and environmental situations. GRS has seen this spruce
species identification problem in prior mapping efforts in Alaska and was not surprised
to encounter these results in the confusion report. This species confusion was not a
problem in this mapping effort, as all DU field sites with greater than 5% tree cover were
eventually replaced in the training data set by GRS field sites. Thus tree species
designations were based upon the most recent on-the-ground inventory efforts rather
than by the older aerial observations. Only a couple of sites of different tree- and
nontree-types were actually confused, and this confusion was significant as it involved
graminoid dominated marsh type areas and well stocked hardwood stands. This type of
confusion could cause incorrect mapping results, as hardwoods might be mapped
where there was really a marsh and vice versa. To resolve this confusion, GRS added
band 4 (near infrared wavelength) of the 7415f imagery to the 7515f training data set in
the hopes that the imagery taken during an active portion of the growing season would
enable better differentiation between the marsh and hardwood types. This proved to be
the case as the confusion of these different types was resolved after adding band 4 to
the image data set.
After the training set was finalized and all DU field sites having greater than 5% tree
cover were removed and replaced by GRS field sites, a total of 265 training sites
comprised the final 7515f image classification training data set. These 265 training sites
were comprised of the 63 newly acquired GRS training sites representing the different
tree-type classes, 188 of the original DU non-tree training sites, and the 14 additional
15
newly acquired GRS non-tree training sites. A summary of the field training site data by
Origin (GRS or DU) and Viereck Class is shown in Table 1.
Discrete Classification
GRS then applied a supervised classification algorithm based upon this combined
training data set to develop pixel classification maps that represented the many different
forest types and vegetation classes found in the Galena Vicinity. Class maps were
developed at statistical thresholds of 90 and 99%. The result of this discrete
classification is that each pixel location in the map has descriptive inventory information
associated with it so that each individual area (pixel) in the classification map is joined in
the GIS database to its estimated vegetation and inventory characteristics.
Discrete classification results in about 95-97% of the pixels being classified. Thus
anywhere from 3-5% of the pixels remain unclassified. GRS next used the original
isodata class map to fill in these remaining unclassified areas, as most of them are
classified in the 99% threshold classified isodata class map. This results in a final class
map that provides nearly 100% coverage of the Project Area. Vegetation
characteristics for these added isodata classes are estimated based on the
correspondence of the different isodata classes with the discrete classification map
data, rather than the previous DU field data set as was done during the stratification
efforts. In this way, isodata classes now have species-specific tree characteristics that
include dbh, height, crown diameter, and trees/acre and may be processed in a manner
comparable to the discrete classification results.
Aggregation
Stand Formation
While the individual pixel data are useful for many GIS applications, a vector based data
set that represents polygons or stands of different vegetation characteristics is often
more useful, as pixel heterogeneity that often confounds the data user may be reduced
and area processing applications can be more easily applied. During this project, the
resulting final class map was processed using the GRS pixel aggregation program
called aggregate to group pixels into polygons or stand level map units (Stumpf, 1993).
This aggregation process evaluated individual pixels and small groups of pixels (subject
pixels) with respect to nearby adjacent pixels and aggregated the subject pixels into
larger groups based on the similarity of a subject pixel(s) to the surrounding pixels.
GRS, while mapping national parks in Alaska has developed aggregation logic to merge
pixel class data using the Viereck Vegetation Classification. During this project, GRS
enhanced the logic to include tree volume/acre, dbh, height, and volume by species in
an effort to aggregate pixels and develop stands of similar biomass inventory levels
rather than just similar vegetation types. Each pixel in an aggregated group (polygon)
retains its descriptive vegetation information, so an aggregated group of pixels
(polygon) can be summarized by the weighted average of the vegetation/land-cover
Table 1: Field Training Sites by Viereck Type and Source
DU DU GRS GRS All All
Viereck Types Training Average Training Average Training Average
Sites Tree Cover Sites Tree Cover Sites Tree Cover
White Spruce:Wdlnd 3 18.4 3 18.4
White Spruce:Open 2 48.8 2 48.8
Mixed Spruce:Wdlnd 1 20.7 1 20.7
Black Spruce:Wdlnd 4 16.3 4 16.3
Black Spruce:Open 10 40.4 10 40.4
Black Spruce:Closed 4 70.2 4 70.2
Larch‐Black Spruce Cmplx:Open 1 26.2 1 26.2
Mixed deciduous‐conifer:Wdlnd 1 21.3 1 21.3
Mixed deciduous‐conifer:Open 9 41.9 9 41.9
Mixed deciduous‐conifer:Closed 6 71.8 6 71.8
Balsam Poplar:Open 1 43.8 1 43.8
Balsam Poplar:Closed 1 86.3 1 86.3
Paper Birch:Open 2 54.1 2 54.1
Paper Birch:Closed 6 86.5 6 86.5
Salix‐tree:Closed 1 68.7 1 68.7
Mixed deciduous:Open 1 28.8 1 28.8
Mi d did Cl d 2 95 0 2 95 0Mixed deciduous:Closed 2 95.0 2 95.0
Tall shrub:Open:Alder 12 2.1 1 0.0 13 1.9
Tall shrub:Open:Alder‐Lichen 15.0 15.0
Tall shrub:Closed:Alder 4 3.8 2 18.9 6 8.8
Tall shrub:Closed:Willow 3 0.0 3 0.0
Mixed shrub:Open:Birch 22.0 22.0
Mixed shrub:Open:Willow 3 3.3 3 3.3
Mixed shrub:Open:Willow‐Lichen 15.0 15.0
L hbO Ei 2 00 1 16 5 3 55Low shrub:Open:Ericaceous 2 0.0 1 16.5 3 5.5
Low shrub:Open:Mix 10.0 10.0
Low shrub:Open:Willow 6 1.7 6 1.7
Low shrub:Closed:Ericaceous 1 4.7 1 4.7
Low shrub:Closed:Willow 3 0.0 3 0.0
Dwarf Shrub:Birch 24 2.1 24 2.1
Dwarf Shrub:Birch‐Lichen 81.3 81.3
Dwarf Shrub:Dryas 1 0.0 1 0.0
DfSh b E i 6 17 6 17Dwarf Shrub:Ericaceous 6 1.7 6 1.7
Dwarf Shrub:Ericaceous‐Lichen 10.0 10.0
Moist Sedge‐Shrub Meadow 13 1.2 13 1.2
Moist Sedge‐Shrub Meadow‐Lichen 41.3 41.3
Graminoid 39 0.1 39 0.1
Graminoid‐Lichen 51.0 51.0
Herbaceous 22.5 20.0 41.3
Aquatic Forb 3 00 3 00Aquatic Forb 3 0.0 3 0.0
Aquatic Mix 15 0.0 15 0.0
Lichen 11 2.7 11 2.7
Moss‐Lichen 33.3 33.3
Moss 15 1.0 15 1.0
Sparse Vegetation 1 0.0 1 0.0
Barren 1 0.0 6 0.0 7 0.0
Water 1 0.0 6 0.0 7 0.0
Grand Total 188 1.2 77 37.4 265 11.8
16
17
characteristics of all of the pixels in that polygon. In this manner, as pixels are
aggregated into polygons/stands the species-specific characteristics of trees/acre by
dbh and height are updated to reflect actual averages rather than just class values (this
enables a more accurate estimation of the biomass volume because you know what is
actually in the polygon rather than just an average type/class of a polygon).
In addition, minimum mapping limits representing the minimum size area to retain in the
map, as the pixels are aggregated into stands, were set so that stands of as small as 1
acre would be retained if they were sufficiently different from the surrounding adjacent
stands. Using this approach, small stands of trees, as small as 1 acre in size, could be
retained in the stand inventory.
The resulting Stand Inventory map data set, representing the 1.25-million acre Galena
Vicinity, contained 173,331 stands. This Stand Inventory map data set forms the
comprehensive timber inventory of the Galena Vicinity. Individual stands records that
represent specific mapped areas on the ground (in the map) contain attribute
information regarding average dbh, height, trees/acre, cubic volume, and tonnage for all
species, as well as for just the trees that comprise the top layer of the forest canopy.
Tonnage was estimated as dry tons, using the species-specific conversion factors
shown in Table 2 (CES-UAF, 2008 and Francescato, et al. 2008) (GRS elected to use
units of dry tons as the unit of biomass because the final biomass target level to be
converted into energy was thought to be dry tons rather than green tons and selection
of the dry ton enabled working with one common unit, rather than species specific green
ton values that would still require conversion to dry tons). In addition, inventory values
estimating volume and tonnage have been generated for all significant conifer and
hardwood tree species for each stand. An example of the mapped Stand Inventory
level information, color coded by Viereck Type Classes, is shown in Figures 5 and 6.
Harvest Unit Formation
GRS then developed a Harvest Unit map data set, using the Stand Inventory map data
set as the basis of the Harvest Unit theme. The purpose of this theme is to identify site
specific areas of a manageable, harvestable size whose inventory attributes have been
estimated and whose tree volumes may be projected or grown to future points in time
using the current tree vegetation characteristics estimated for each specific harvest unit.
When planning current and future biomass harvest activities and formulating different
projection outcomes, these harvest units become the basic unit of analysis as they may
be prioritized and/or constrained on the basis of their individual characteristics and
selected to be part of a specific annual harvest of a long-term plan or projection being
developed. The fact that they have specific locations and characteristics, such as
volume or tonnage/acre, ownership, species composition, and accessibility enables a
model to prioritize and select harvest units in specific years to form the basis of a long-
term harvest plan. The development of a Harvest Unit map data set also acts to refine
the Stand Inventory, as not all stands may be harvestable due to their smallness in size,
species composition, growth potential, or isolation from other harvestable stands. The
refinement of the Stand Inventory that results from placing stands into harvest units
Table 2: Volume and Tonnage Conversion InformationGreen/Air Dry Density (lbs/ft3***)Air Dry Density (lbs/ft3*)Relative Density Index** Lbs/cord (85 ft3*) BTU Energy Content per Cord (85 ft3*) Lbs/cunit (100 ft3*) BTU Energy Content per Cunit (100 ft3*) BTU Energy Content per ft3* BTUs/lb White Spruce36/3130 0.4 2,550 18,100,000 3000 21,294,118212,941 7098.039Black Spruce32/2829.22,482 15,900,000 2920 18,705,882187,059 6406.124Larch/Tamarack 47/3738.23,247 16,000,000 3820 18,823,529188,235 4927.626Birch48/3841 0.55 3,485 23,600,000 4100 27,764,706277,647 6771.879Aspen43/2728.4 0.38 2,414 16,600,000 284019,529,412195,2946876.553Cottonwoodn/a24.8 0.34 2,108 14,500,000 2480 17,058,824170,588 6878.558Poplar37/2425.5 0.34 2,168 15,000,000 2550 17,642,989176,471 6920.415Willown/a22.321,897 223200 0Aldern/a28.052,384 280500 0Source: Wood Energy Content(Alaskawoodheating.com) 18
e
e
Galena
Koyukuk
Figure 5: Stand Inventory in the Galena Vicinity
³0 10 205 Miles
Legend
Stand Inventory
Viereck Type Class
White Spruce
Black Spruce
Black Spruce - Larch Mix
Mixed Spruce
Spruce - Hardwood Mix
Paper Birch
Poplar
Salix - Tree
Mixed Hardwood
Tall shrub Alder
Tall Shrub Willow
Mixed shrub Birch
Mixed shrub Willow
Mixed Shrub
Low shrub Alder
Low shrub Willow
Low shrub
Dwarf shrub Birch
Dwarf shrub
Herbaceous - wet
Herbaceous - dry
Herbaceous
Aquatic Forb
Aquatic
Lichen
Moss
Sparse Veg - Water
Sparse Veg
Barren - Water
Barren
Water
Unknown
19
e
Galena
Figure 6: Stand Inventory Around the City of Galena
³0 1 20.5 Miles
Legend
Stand Inventory
Viereck Type Class
White Spruce
Black Spruce
Black Spruce - Larch Mix
Mixed Spruce
Spruce - Hardwood Mix
Paper Birch
Poplar
Salix - Tree
Mixed Hardwood
Tall shrub Alder
Tall Shrub Willow
Mixed shrub Birch
Mixed shrub Willow
Mixed Shrub
Low shrub Alder
Low shrub Willow
Low shrub
Dwarf shrub Birch
Dwarf shrub
Herbaceous - wet
Herbaceous - dry
Herbaceous
Aquatic Forb
Aquatic
Lichen
Moss
Sparse Veg - Water
Sparse Veg
Barren - Water
Barren
Water
Unknown
20
21
enables the estimation of more accurate future growth levels as it eliminates
consideration of volume and growth from stands that are unlikely to ever be harvested.
Such refinement helps in establishing what may be considered the upper limits of future
harvest levels, if total harvest is never going to exceed growth, because only
harvestable volume is considered in the planning process rather than total volume.
GRS used an aggregation process to build stands into harvest units that was similar to
the way the GRS aggregated classified pixels into stands. In order to limit harvest units
to areas that could potentially be modeled and harvested during biomass production
activities, GRS started with the Stand Inventory map data set and filtered out all stands
that were either not tree-types and which had low tree cover and low estimates of
tons/acre. Any stand with less than 10 percent tree cover and an estimated inventory of
less than 2.0 tons/acre was filtered out of the Stand Inventory map data set. GRS then
developed harvest unit boundaries by aggregating the remaining stand polygons into
harvest units (HUs) of roughly 90 acres or more in size. Many isolated groups of stands
did not reach the 90 acre size target, but they were maintained as a harvest unit if they
were at least 10 acres in size and had at least 100 tons of biomass in the unit.
Similarity was judged on the basis of volume/acre and total acreage. Subject stands
were merged in an attempt to create many (smaller) 90+ acre units rather than a few
very large acreage units encompassing thousands of acres, as the smaller units enable
more flexibility in the planning process than do the larger units. In addition, stands were
aggregated based upon similarity in their tons/acre values. The result of this
aggregation process was a Harvest Unit map data set that represented approximately
641,140 acres of forestlands in 20,260 harvest units. Examples of the Harvest Unit map
data set are shown in Figures 7 and 8. Each harvest unit in this data set is attributed
with location specific information as well as stocking information that enables the current
and future estimation of its harvest levels in terms of cubic volume and tonnage.
All harvest units were then spatially related to several of the other map themes that
represented the different landscape and cultural characteristics of the Galena Vicinity.
As a result, harvest units also have attributes that indicate land ownership, land
administration, accessibility, distance from Galena, direction (azimuth) from Galena, and
how much of their harvest unit is buffered in stream and lake protection zones.
e
e
Galena
Koyukuk
Figure 7: Harvest Units in the Galena Vicinity
³0 10 205 Miles
Legend
Harvest Units
TONS Per Acre
0.01 - 4.00
4.01 - 7.00
7.01 - 10.00
10.01 - 15.00
15.01 - 20.00
20.01 - 25.00
25.01 - 30.00
30.01 - 35.00
35.01 - 40.00
22
e
Galena
Figure 8: Harvest Units Around the City of Galena
³0 1 20.5 Miles
Legend
Harvest Units
TONS Per Acre
0.01 - 4.00
4.01 - 7.00
7.01 - 10.00
10.01 - 15.00
15.01 - 20.00
20.01 - 25.00
25.01 - 30.00
30.01 - 35.00
35.01 - 40.00
23
24
Biomass Inventory Results
Biomass inventory are expressed in terms of two different units of measure; one
measure is Cunits (Cft3), or units of one hundred cubic feet, and the other measure is
dry (air) tonnage. The Galena Working Circle as mapped in the Stand Inventory map
data set encompasses approximately 1,254,262 acres. The total volume in Cunits (100
ft3 or Cft3) for this area is estimated at 5,050,194 Cft3. The dry tonnage for the area
mapped in the Stand Inventory map data set is estimated at 7,820,554 tons of biomass.
In their entirety, these inventory numbers do not mean a lot except to show that if
maximum sustainable harvest levels of 20,000 per year are being considered, then
there appears to be ample standing volume to support those potential levels, as the
7,820,554 tons of tree biomass would provide 391 years of harvest without
consideration of any future growth in existing stands or regeneration and growth of
harvested areas.
Of course, it is completely unrealistic to consider such an approach, as there are many
different constraints that will affect the ability to harvest some of this material. Land
ownership, vegetation type, reforestation concerns, land administration, accessibility,
proximity to other biomass stands, distance from Galena, environmental laws and
concerns, community concerns, and cost will all likely influence how much of this
material might actually be available for harvest now and in the future and help
determine the location and quantity of future harvest operations. Some acres and
volume will need to be “Reserved” from harvest due to environmental constraints and
regulations. Some acres and volume will need to be removed from consideration due to
land ownership and/or administration. Some acres and volume will need to be removed
from consideration due to the nature of the existing vegetation and/or limited harvest
available from those lands.
Therefore, in order to better understand these biomass inventory values, as they relate
to these potential limiting factors that may influence their harvest availability, the
inventory values will be presented with respect to some of the different landscape
features and Galena Vicinity characteristics that may influence the number of acres and
amount of biomass that may be available for harvest now and in the future.
Note that some tables also include a subcategory called “Reserved.” GRS added this
subcategory to reflect the acres and biomass found within approximately 100-foot wide
buffer zones created along streams, rivers, and lakes that represent streamside and
water-body protection zones required on all public lands by the Alaska Forest Practices
Act. The source of the water features buffered in this manner was the National
Hydrology data set (USGS-NHD, 2012). These buffers were also created on private
lands, although private land owners have options to harvest portions of the volume
present in these areas under certain conditions. However, for the purposes of this
assessment, GRS has put all the biomass in these buffered protection zones into the
“Reserved” subcategory rather than make assumptions about what portion could or
could not be harvest on certain lands.
25
Therefore, the “Reserved” category represents the area, volume, and tonnage that are
contained within 100-foot wide buffers constructed along all water features represented
in the National Hydrology Data Set for the Galena Vicinity. These buffer areas are
shown in Figure 9.
Biomass Inventory by Viereck Vegetation Type Class
The first way to view this inventory is with respect to the different vegetation/land-cover
types present in the Stand Inventory. Tables 3 and 4 show the Biomass Inventory Cft3
and tonnage values by Viereck Vegetation Type Class. Examples of the Viereck Type
Map drawn from the Stand Inventory map data set are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
Tables 3 and 4 list the acreage and inventory figures by species and in total for the
major Viereck Vegetation/land-cover Types mapped in the Galena Vicinity.
The conifer cover types mapped in this assessment total 205,773 acres and 1,462,000
dry tons of biomass which is 19% of the total Galena Vicinity Biomass Inventory. These
acres average 7.1 tons/acre. 95% of these acres are Black Spruce type averaging 6.5
tons/acre, while there are roughly 6,800 acres of White Spruce averaging 28.5 tons/acre
and 6,400 acres of Mixed Spruce types averaging 3.4 tons/acre. Biomass in these
coniferous type classes is almost 50% black spruce, while the rest of the biomass is
primarily split between white spruce (34%) and paper birch (13%). These figures show
that while the Black Spruce type dominates in terms of acreage (95%), black spruce
biomass is only about half of the total coniferous type biomass. This illustrates how the
larger and taller white spruce and paper birch trees in the coniferous types contribute far
more biomass than do the more numerous but smaller black spruce trees (tree volume
increases geometrically with tree size, typically with respect to the tree radius squared.
This results in trees that are twice as large having as much as than four to five times the
biomass).
The Mixed Spruce-Hardwood type mapped in this assessment totals 309,391 acres and
4,585,005 dry tons of biomass which is 59% of the total Galena Vicinity Biomass
Inventory. Nearly two-thirds of this biomass is coniferous tonnage and nearly all of that
(90%) is white spruce. Of the remaining one-third hardwood tonnage in this type class,
87% is paper birch and the rest is balsam poplar. These Mixed Spruce-Hardwood type
stands average 17.1 tons/acre.
The remaining hardwood vegetation types comprise 80,188 acres and amount to
1,469,484 tons of biomass. This accounts for about 6% of the total area of Stand
Inventory and 19% of the total tonnage. Approximately 75% of this acreage is in Paper
Birch stands which account for 81% of the total tonnage in hardwood types. The rest of
the hardwood acres and tonnage are in the Mixed Hardwood type, with a small portion,
3,620 acres and 79,215 tons found in Balsam Poplar type acres. Overall, hardwood
type acres average 18.3 tons/acre, with the Paper Birch type averaging 20.2 tons/acre
and Balsam Poplar averaging 21.9 tons/acre.
e
Galena
Figure 9: NHD Water-features and Protection Zone Buffers
³0 3 61.5 Miles
Legend
Rivers
Streams
Lakes
River Buffers
Stream Buffers
Lake Buffers
26
Table 3: Volume (Cft3) By Viereck Type ‐ based on Stand InventorySpecies/Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper BalsamOther/ Total Grand Percent Cft3 PerViereck TypeSpruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof TotalAcre White Spruce6,794 128,755 721 3 129,479 4,063 1,257 1 106 5,427 134,906 3% 19.9Black Spruce192 326211 957572 480289784 72687 25131 5915173 084122 443907 16918%47 Black Spruce192,326 211,957 572,480 289 784,726 87,251 31,591 517 3,084 122,443 907,169 18%4.7 Mixed Spruce6,402 9,752 3,680 130 13,562 1,222 133 5 74 1,435 14,997 0% 2.3 Spruce‐Larch Mix251 20 82 29 130 12 1 ‐ 1 14 144 0% 0.6Total Conifer205,773 350,485 576,962 451 927,897 92,548 32,982 524 3,265 129,319 1,057,216 21%5.1Spruce‐Hardwood Mix 309,391 1,861,667 248,244 2,350 2,112,261 666,186 143,553 4,203 13,240 827,182 2,939,443 58%9.5 Paper Birch59,032 220,269 3,600 262 224,131 401,597 15,669 6,870 8,024 432,159 656,290 13% 11.1 Poplar3,620 457 19 2 477 944 57,389 150 2,679 61,162 61,639 1% 17.0SliT314689178607421 0461 1831 2610%40 Salix‐Tree314 68 9 1 78 60 74 2 1,046 1,183 1,261 0% 4.0 Mixed Hardwood17,222 14,106 424 44 14,573 26,270 65,072 7,706 24,298 123,346 137,919 3% 8.0Total Hardwood80,188 234,900 4,051 308 239,259 428,871 138,204 14,728 36,047 617,850 857,109 17%10.7Tall & Low Shrub162,184 25,534 2,277 272 28,083 28,590 41,002 3,475 9,700 82,767 110,850 2%0.7Dwarf Shrub182,813 6,475 2,875 143 9,492 7,798 1,489 851 520 10,658 20,150 0% 0.1Herbaceous215,705 13,024 3,425 111 16,560 15,494 9,484 2,657 2,678 30,313 46,873 1% 0.2Aquatic26,450 2,656 223 1 2,881 1,203 219 426 107 1,955 4,835 0% 0.2Non‐vascular8,717 978 302 1 1,282 1,783 132 796 45 2,756 4,037 0% 0.5Sparse Vegetation14,754 2,039 208 3 2,250 2,580 1,691 1,110 406 5,786 8,035 0% 0.5Barren8,310 162 40 0 202 277 374 174 53 877 1,080 0% 0.1Water39,978 163 30 0 193 139 102 71 61 372 565 0% 0.0,Grand Total1,254,262 2,498,082 838,637 3,640 3,340,359 1,245,469 369,230 29,014 66,122 1,709,835 5,050,194 100% 4.0 27
Table 4: Tonnage (Dry) By Viereck Type ‐ based on Stand InventorySpecies/ Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper BalsamOther/ Total Grand Percent Tons PerViereck TypeSpruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof TotalAcre White Spruce6,794 182,688 1,008 4 183,700 8,329 1,602 2 144 10,077 193,777 2% 28.5 Black Spruce192,326 306,873 715,659 220 1,022,752 178,863 40,278 734 3,989 223,865 1,246,617 16% 6.5 Mixed Spruce6,402 14,022 4,649 25 18,696 2,506 170 8 95 2,779 21,475 0% 3.4 Spruce‐Larch Mix251 21 119 0 141 24 2 ‐ 2 27 167 0% 0.7Total Conifer205,773 503,605 721,435 249 1,225,289 189,722 42,052 744 4,230 236,748 1,462,037 19%7.1Spruce‐Hardwood Mix 309,391 2,697,952 313,523 2,576 3,014,051 1,365,672 183,033 5,969 16,280 1,570,954 4,585,005 59%14.8 Paper Birch59,032 324,545 4,711 357 329,613 823,288 19,978 9,755 9,190 862,212 1,191,824 15%20.2 Poplar3,620 669 25 2 696 1,935 73,171 213 3,200 78,519 79,215 1% 21.9 Salix‐Tree314 97 13 1 110 124 94 3 1,196 1,418 1,528 0% 4.9 Mixed Hardwood17,222 20,569 598 54 21,220 53,855 82,968 10,942 27,932 175,696 196,917 3% 11.4Total Hardwood80,188 345,879 5,347 413 351,639 879,202 176,211 20,914 41,518 1,117,845 1,469,484 19%18.3Tall & Low Shrub162,184 36,380 3,168 100 39,647 58,610 52,277 4,935 11,182 127,003 166,650 2% 1.0Dwarf Shrub182,813 9,492 3,989 16 13,496 15,986 1,898 1,209 601 19,694 33,190 0% 0.2Herbaceous215,705 18,955 4,751 30 23,736 31,764 12,092 3,773 3,089 50,717 74,454 1% 0.3Aquatic26,450 3,828 315 1 4,144 2,465 279 605 123 3,473 7,616 0%0.3Non‐vascular8,717 1,439 409 1 1,849 3,655 169 1,130 52 5,006 6,855 0% 0.8Sparse Vegetation14,754 2,965 291 4 3,260 5,290 2,156 1,575 468 9,489 12,749 0% 0.9Barren8,310 239 57 0 296 568 476 247 62 1,353 1,648 0% 0.2Water39,978 239 44 0 283 285 129 100 70 584 867 0%0.0Grand Total1,254,262 3,620,971 1,053,329 3,389 4,677,689 2,553,218 470,771 41,200 77,675 3,142,864 7,820,554 100% 6.2 28
29
All other types account for 658,810 acres which is 53% of the total Galena Vicinity area.
These acres support very low levels of tree stocking that average less than 1.0
tons/acre. Biomass associated with these non-tree types is typically found in very small
and/or very scattered trees that are associated with these non-tree Viereck types.
These types are typically not conducive to timber management, harvest, or potential
conversion to biomass production stands. However, due to the impact of the recent
fires of 2004 and 2005, some of these acres may be burned forestlands that are
currently inhabited by shrubs and in an early stage of succession eventually leading
back to a forestland type (a determination of these transitional acres was not in the
scope of this study and these acres are not included in any growth and harvest
projections, even though they may return to tree type acres in the future.)
In summary, many of the higher tonnage/acre stands that would most likely support
future biomass harvest operations are found on the White Spruce, Mixed Spruce-
Hardwood, Paper Birch, Balsam Poplar, and Mixed Hardwood type acres. These types
account for 396,060 acres or 32% of the total area and 6,246,738 dry tons or 80% of the
total Biomass Inventory of the Galena Vicinity. All of these acres average 15.8
tons/acre. In all likelihood, these acres will form the basis of future biomass harvest
operations as they have the higher tons/acre figures that will result in harvesting fewer
acres each year to support desired biomass harvest levels thereby resulting in lower
harvest and reforestation costs.
Biomass Inventory by Land Ownership
Land Ownership for the Galena Vicinity was broken into 10 major classes, as
represented in Figure 10. These major Land Ownership classes include the Bureau of
Land Management, US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Military, Native Patent Allotments,
Native Patent Lands – Doyon, Native Patent Lands– Gana-A’Yoo, Native Selected
Lands, State Patent Lands, State Selected Lands, and lands within the City Limits of
Galena (BLM-SDMS, 2012).
Tables 5 and 6 show the Biomass Inventory Cft3 and tonnage values by major Land
Ownership class. These two tables list the acreage and inventory figures by species
and in total for the major Land Ownership classes in the Galena Vicinity.
Land ownership is significant to this assessment as certain types of ownership may
preclude acreage and the biomass on these lands from being available for harvest now
or in the future. The most notable case involves the lands owned by the US Fish &
Wildlife Service (USF&WS) in the Innoko and Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuges that
fall within the Galena Vicinity. Biomass production is not one of the goals of USF&WS
resource management practices and in some cases may be forbidden by laws designed
to protect the refuges and wildlife that use this habitat. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, the
USF&WS owns 259,773 acres of this area which is approximately 21% or one-fifth of
the total area. However, the tonnage on the USF&WS lands is estimated to total only
617,796 tons or 8% of the total biomass inventory. These figures show that of the total
Galena Vicinity tonnage, a relatively small portion (8%) is located on USF&WS lands.
e
e
Galena
Koyukuk
Figure 10: Land Ownership in the Galena Vicinity
³0 10 205 Miles
Legend
BLM
USF&WS
US Military
Native Allotments
Native Patent - Doyon
Native Patent - Gana'a-Yoo
Native Selected
State Patented
State Selected
Within City of Galena
30
Table 5: Volume (Cft3) and Area By Land Ownership ‐ as of 1/1/2012Species or Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper Balsam Other/ Total Grand Percent Owner EntityGroup/FeatureSpruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof Total1 ‐ BLMUnreserved166,238 217,334 117,812 340 335,486 132,317 22,191 3,276 2,774 160,558 496,044 10%Reserved12,463 36,239 6,134 106 42,479 25,475 2,164 385 564 28,588 71,067 1%Subtotal178,702 253,573 123,946 447 377,965 157,792 24,355 3,661 3,338 189,146 567,111 11%2 ‐ USF&WSUnreserved233,790 103,245 63,216 322 166,783 80,195 31,583 2,481 4,422 118,681 285,464 6%Reserved25,982 45,517 11,233 118 56,867 37,696 9,149 1,937 2,931 51,711 108,579 2%Subtotal259,773 148,762 74,449 439 223,650 117,890 40,731 4,418 7,353 170,392 394,042 8%3 ‐ US‐MilitaryUnreserved2,495 6,969 3,103 3 10,075 2,789 234 62 23 3,107 13,182 0%Reserved66 448 89 0 537 94 8 1 1 104 642 0%Subtotal2,561 7,417 3,192 4 10,612 2,883 241 63 24 3,212 13,824 0%4 ‐ Native‐PatentUnreserved8,083 27,554 3,675 30 31,259 13,948 2,897 782 626 18,253 49,511 1%AllotmentsReserved802 4,072 463 4 4,538 1,982 680 210 170 3,042 7,580 0%Subtotal8,886 31,626 4,138 34 35,797 15,930 3,578 992 795 21,295 57,092 1%5 ‐ Native‐PatentUnreserved266,771 467,852 178,039 805 646,695 241,686 94,167 4,029 14,484 354,366 1,001,062 20%DoyonReserved22,940 80,118 14,413 150 94,682 48,038 14,652 1,411 4,105 68,206 162,888 3%Subtotal289,711 547,970 192,452 955 741,377 289,724 108,819 5,440 18,589 422,572 1,163,949 23%6 ‐ Native‐PatentUnreserved150,569 403,330 73,526 667 477,522 200,415 64,882 3,545 12,479 281,322 758,844 15%GANAReserved15,175 64,796 6,618 116 71,531 33,213 16,593 2,315 4,188 56,309 127,840 3%Subtotal165,743 468,126 80,144 783 549,053 233,628 81,475 5,860 16,667 337,631 886,684 18%7 ‐ Native‐SelectUnreserved11,595 11,039 3,776 40 14,855 11,011 1,550 196 555 13,313 28,168 1%Reserved1,915 5,362 489 19 5,869 5,314 678 84 320 6,396 12,265 0%Subtotal13,510 16,401 4,265 59 20,724 16,325 2,229 280 875 19,709 40,433 1%8 ‐ State‐PatentUnreserved186,731 596,864 212,885 509 810,258 224,917 49,913 3,810 8,772 287,411 1,097,669 22%Reserved13,773 68,945 14,061 67 83,073 30,980 7,268 1,192 1,610 41,050 124,123 2%Subtotal200,504 665,808 226,946 576 893,331 255,897 57,181 5,002 10,381 328,462 1,221,792 24%9 ‐ State‐SelectUnreserved111,966 301,462 121,621 241 423,324 123,758 32,125 1,731 3,927 161,540 584,865 12%Reserved8,624 42,695 6,708 51 49,455 19,261 6,855 717 1,384 28,217 77,672 2%Subtotal120,590 344,158 128,329 292 472,779 143,019 38,980 2,448 5,311 189,758 662,537 13%10 ‐ Within Unreserved13,675 12,462 701 48 13,211 10,562 9,315 562 2,206 22,644 35,855 1%Galena City LimitsReserved814 1,851 88 4 1,943 1,838 2,325 288 584 5,034 6,977 0%Subtotal14,489 14,313 789 52 15,154 12,400 11,639 850 2,789 27,678 42,833 1%Grand TotalTotal Unreserved 1,151,913 2,148,110 778,354 3,005 2,929,468 1,041,597 308,857 20,475 50,268 1,421,196 4,350,664 86%Total Reserved102,554 350,043 60,296 635 410,974 203,892 60,372 8,540 15,854 288,658 699,632 14%Grand Total1,254,467 2,498,153 838,650 3,640 3,340,442 1,245,489 369,229 29,014 66,122 1,709,854 5,050,296 100% 31
Table 6: Tonnage (Dry) and Area By Land Ownership ‐ as of 1/1/2012Species or Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper Balsam Other/ Total Grand Percent Owner EntityGroup/FeatureSpruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof Total1 ‐ BLMUnreserved166,238 316,068 145,151 246 461,465 271,250 28,293 4,652 3,332 307,527 768,992 10%Reserved12,463 52,135 7,232 97 59,464 52,225 2,759 546 650 56,181 115,645 1%Subtotal178,702 368,203 152,383 343 520,929 323,474 31,053 5,199 3,982 363,707 884,636 11%2 ‐ USF&WSUnreserved233,790 150,499 78,437 171 229,106 164,400 40,268 3,524 5,171 213,361 442,468 6%Reserved25,982 65,994 14,175 91 80,260 77,276 11,664 2,750 3,377 95,068 175,328 2%Subtotal259,773 216,493 92,611 263 309,367 241,675 51,932 6,274 8,548 308,429 617,796 8%3 ‐ US‐MilitaryUnreserved2,495 10,099 3,808 4 13,911 5,717 298 88 28 6,131 20,042 0%Reserved66 644 116 0 760 194 10 2 1 206 966 0%Subtotal2,561 10,743 3,924 4 14,671 5,911 308 89 30 6,337 21,008 0%4 ‐ Native‐PatentUnreserved8,083 39,912 4,738 33 44,683 28,593 3,694 1,110 732 34,130 78,813 1%AllotmentsReserved802 5,894 606 5 6,505 4,063 868 298 197 5,425 11,931 0%Subtotal8,886 45,807 5,345 37 51,188 32,657 4,562 1,409 929 39,556 90,744 1%5 ‐ Native‐PatentUnreserved266,771 678,303 225,364 708 904,375 495,457 120,063 5,721 17,063 638,304 1,542,680 20%DoyonReserved22,940 115,478 17,541 158 133,177 98,478 18,682 2,004 4,744 123,908 257,085 3%Subtotal289,711 793,781 242,906 866 1,037,552 593,935 138,745 7,725 21,808 762,212 1,799,764 23%6 ‐ Native‐PatentUnreserved150,569 581,769 93,209 752 675,730 410,852 82,725 5,035 14,573 513,185 1,188,914 15%GANAReserved15,175 93,270 8,463 130 101,864 68,087 21,156 3,287 4,836 97,367 199,231 3%Subtotal165,743 675,039 101,672 882 777,594 478,939 103,881 8,322 19,409 610,551 1,388,145 18%7 ‐ Native‐SelectUnreserved11,595 15,984 4,559 26 20,568 22,572 1,977 279 641 25,469 46,038 1%Reserved1,915 7,741 603 17 8,361 10,894 865 119 367 12,244 20,605 0%Subtotal13,510 23,724 5,162 43 28,929 33,466 2,841 398 1,008 37,713 66,643 1%8 ‐ State‐PatentUnreserved186,731 867,613 269,683 486 1,137,782 461,082 63,639 5,410 10,510 540,640 1,678,423 21%Reserved13,773 99,767 16,764 79 116,610 63,510 9,267 1,693 1,866 76,335 192,945 2%Subtotal200,504 967,380 286,447 566 1,254,392 524,591 72,906 7,103 12,375 616,976 1,871,368 24%9 ‐ State‐SelectUnreserved111,966 437,682 153,666 266 591,614 253,704 40,959 2,457 4,763 301,883 893,496 11%Reserved8,624 61,570 8,184 66 69,820 39,485 8,741 1,019 1,606 50,850 120,669 2%Subtotal120,590 499,252 161,850 332 661,434 293,188 49,700 3,476 6,368 352,732 1,014,166 13%10 ‐ Within Unreserved13,675 17,878 923 49 18,850 21,652 11,876 798 2,543 36,869 55,719 1%Galena City LimitsReserved814 2,665 108 5 2,778 3,769 2,964 409 673 7,814 10,593 0%Subtotal14,489 20,543 1,031 54 21,628 25,420 14,840 1,207 3,216 44,684 66,312 1%Grand TotalTotal Unreserved 1,151,913 3,115,806 979,538 2,740 4,098,084 2,135,277 393,792 29,074 59,357 2,617,500 6,715,584 86%Total Reserved102,554 505,158 73,791 649 579,598 417,979 76,975 12,126 18,318 525,398 1,104,996 14%Grand Total1,254,467 3,620,964 1,053,329 3,389 4,677,682 2,553,256 470,767 41,200 77,675 3,142,897 7,820,580 100% 32
33
There may also be some reservations regarding harvesting of biomass on Native
Allotments or within the City Limits of Galena due to the proximity of harvest operations
to local homes and the private ownership of these parcels. Both of these ownership
classes each total about 14,000 acres or 1% of the Galena Vicinity total area and
66,000 tons or 1% of the total tonnage. While these lands may certainly contribute
some biomass to future harvest levels, these are relatively insignificant amounts of
tonnage when considered over a long-term planning period for a sustainable harvest
level that could be as high as 20,000 tons per year.
The most significant landowners in the Galena Vicinity are the State of Alaska, owning
lands that total 321,093 acres and have an estimated tonnage of 2,885,533 or 37% of
the total estimated tonnage; Native Patent - Doyon Ltd. owning lands that total 289,711
acres and have an estimated tonnage of 1,799,764 or 23% of the total estimated
volume; the Native Patent - Gana-A’Yoo (GANA) owning lands that total 165,743 acres
and have an estimated tonnage of 1,388,145 or 18% of the total estimated volume; and
the Bureau of Land Management owning lands that total 178,702 acres and have an
estimated tonnage of 884,636 or 11% of the total estimated volume. These four land
owners possess 955,249 acres or 76% of the Galena Vicinity that have 89% of the total
tonnage on these lands. There is a high likelihood that any future harvest operations in
the Galena Vicinity will involve biomass harvest agreements with these four landowners.
Tables 5 and 6 do include the “Reserved” subcategory that reflects acreage and
inventory in streamside and water-body protection zones. By subtracting these
“Reserved” acreage and tonnage estimates from the four major land owners’ figures
referenced above, we find that these three major land owners possess 882,275 acres
potentially available for harvest that contain 6,958,079 tons or 89% of the total tonnage
of the Galena Vicinity.
Overall, the “Reserved” subcategory contains 102,554 acres or 8% of the area of the
Galena Vicinity and 1,104,996 tons or 14% of the estimated total tonnage of the Galena
Vicinity. Nearly half of the tonnage on these lands is white spruce while another 38% is
paper birch. 25% of the “Reserved” acres fall on the USF&WS lands indicating a
slightly higher proportion of water features on these lands when compared to the rest of
the Galena Vicinity.
Biomass Inventory by Land Administration
Land Administration for the Galena Vicinity was broken into 10 major classes, as
represented in Figure 11. These major Land Administration classes include the same
classes that were defined as Land Ownership classes, which were Bureau of Land
Management, US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Military, Native Patent Allotments, Native
Patent Lands – Doyon, Native Patent Lands– Gana-A’Yoo, Native Selected Lands,
State Patent Lands, State Selected Lands, and lands within the City Limits of Galena.
e
e
Galena
Koyukuk
Figure 11: Land Administration in the Galena Vicinity
³0 10 205 Miles
Legend
BLM
USF&WS
US Military
Native Allotments
Native Patent - Doyon
Native Patent - Gana'a-Yoo
Native Selected
State Patented
State Selected
Within City of Galena
34
35
Tables 7 and 8 show the Biomass Inventory Cft3 and tonnage values by major Land
Administration class. These two tables list the acreage and inventory figures by species
and in total for the major Land Administration classes in the Galena Vicinity.
Similar to Land Ownership, Land Administration may be significant to this assessment,
as certain types of administrative authority may preclude acreage and the biomass on
these lands from being available for harvest now or in the future. As with Land
Ownership, the most notable case involves the lands administered by the US Fish &
Wildlife Service that fall within the Galena Vicinity. Some privately and publicly owned
lands fall within USF&WS refuge boundaries. While land owners may certainly have
rights to harvest biomass on their lands administered by USF&WS, this may involve
administrative and environmental cans-of-worms that may be better left unopened.
Many of these lands are in-holdings and the regulatory safeguards necessary to protect
refuge lands may prove to be costly when compared to harvesting non-USF&WS
administered lands, making these lands less desirable to include in biomass harvest
operations.
As shown in Tables 7 and 8, lands administered by USF&WS total 461,822 acres or
37% of the Galena Vicinity, up from 21% of the total area based on land ownership.
The tonnage on the land administered by USF&WS totals 1,776,516 or 23% of the total
tonnage of the Galena Vicinity, up from 8% of the total tonnage based on land
ownership. Much of this increase in acreage and tonnage for lands administered by
USF&WS comes from Native Patent lands owned by Doyon Ltd. and Gana-A’Yoo that
fall within the Innoko and Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuges.
The other most significant land administrators in the Galena Vicinity are the State of
Alaska, with lands that total 267,348 acres and have an estimated tonnage of 2,283,207
or 29% of the total estimated tonnage; Native Patent - Doyon Ltd. with lands that total
171,833 acres and have an estimated tonnage of 1,191,105 or 15% of the total
estimated volume; the Native Patent - Gana-A’Yoo (GANA) with lands that total 144,492
acres and have an estimated tonnage of 1,237,262 or 16% of the total estimated
volume; and the Bureau of Land Management with lands that total 178,702 acres and
have an estimated tonnage of 884,636 or 11% of the total estimated volume. These
four land administrators manage 762,374 acres or 61% (down from 78% of land owned)
of the Galena Vicinity that have total tonnage of 5,866,346 or 75% (down from 89% of
tonnage owned) of the total tonnage on these lands. As with land ownership, there is
still a very significant amount of biomass potentially available for harvest of the lands
administered by these four entities and there is a high likelihood that any future harvest
operations in the Galena Vicinity will involve biomass harvest agreements with these
four land administrators.
Table 7: Volume (Cft3) and Area By Administrative Entity ‐ as of 1/1/2012Species or Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper Balsam Other/ Total Grand Percent Admin EntityGroup/FeatureSpruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof Total1 ‐ BLMUnreserved166,238 217,334 117,812 340 335,486 132,317 22,191 3,276 2,774 160,558 496,044 9.8%Reserved12,463 36,239 6,134 106 42,479 25,475 2,164 385 564 28,588 71,067 1.4%Subtotal178,702 253,573 123,946 447 377,965 157,792 24,355 3,661 3,338 189,146 567,111 11.2%2 ‐ USF&WSUnreserved419,522 397,601 142,038 813 540,453 229,717 120,862 6,069 20,243 376,891 917,344 18.2%Reserved42,300 103,415 20,234 211 123,859 69,126 26,169 4,154 7,171 106,620 230,479 4.6%Subtotal461,822 501,016 162,272 1,024 664,312 298,843 147,031 10,223 27,415 483,511 1,147,823 22.7%3 ‐ US‐MilUnreserved2,495 6,969 3,103 3 10,075 2,789 234 62 23 3,107 13,182 0.3%Reserved66 448 89 0 537 94 8 1 1 104 642 0.0%Subtotal2,561 7,416 3,192 4 10,612 2,883 241 63 24 3,212 13,824 0.3%4 ‐ Native‐PatentUnreserved4,505 15,135 2,038 13 17,185 8,911 1,455 623 332 11,320 28,505 0.6%AllotmentsReserved347 1,543 182 2 1,727 844 380 137 85 1,446 3,173 0.1%Subtotal4,853 16,678 2,220 15 18,912 9,755 1,835 761 417 12,766 31,679 0.6%5 ‐ Native‐PatentUnreserved158,710 318,661 128,230 544 447,435 168,374 45,048 2,509 6,678 222,609 670,044 13.3%DoyonReserved13,123 46,362 8,428 91 54,880 30,513 7,147 861 2,021 40,541 95,422 1.9%Subtotal171,833 365,023 136,658 635 502,315 198,887 52,195 3,370 8,699 263,150 765,466 15.2%6 ‐ Native‐PatentUnreserved131,255 360,990 69,191 595 430,776 179,505 55,592 3,076 10,503 248,676 679,452 13.5%GANAReserved13,237 55,819 5,816 108 61,743 29,036 14,581 1,709 3,576 48,901 110,645 2.2%Subtotal144,492 416,809 75,007 703 492,519 208,541 70,173 4,785 14,079 297,577 790,096 15.6%7 ‐ Native‐SelectUnreserved6,428 4,852 1,034 25 5,911 6,350 396 122 313 7,181 13,091 0.3%Reserved1,232 3,155 260 16 3,430 3,660 160 31 152 4,002 7,432 0.1%Subtotal7,660 8,006 1,294 41 9,341 10,010 555 153 465 11,183 20,523 0.4%8 ‐ State‐PatentUnreserved156,232 567,324 208,732 426 776,482 201,628 32,586 2,851 4,851 241,916 1,018,398 20.2%Reserved12,382 65,969 13,953 60 79,981 28,158 3,916 710 849 33,633 113,615 2.2%Subtotal168,614 633,292 222,685 485 856,463 229,786 36,502 3,561 5,701 275,550 1,132,012 22.4%9 ‐ State‐SelectUnreserved92,192 245,709 105,384 188 351,281 100,732 20,926 1,311 2,285 125,254 476,534 9.4%Reserved6,541 34,908 5,098 38 40,045 15,052 3,502 263 839 19,656 59,700 1.2%Subtotal98,734 280,617 110,482 227 391,325 115,784 24,428 1,574 3,124 144,910 536,235 10.6%10 ‐ Within Unreserved14,312 13,538 791 57 14,386 11,274 9,568 576 2,265 23,684 38,070 0.8%Galena City LimitsReserved863 2,185 103 4 2,292 1,933 2,347 289 597 5,166 7,458 0.1%Subtotal15,174 15,723 894 61 16,678 13,207 11,915 865 2,862 28,850 45,528 0.9%Total Unreserved 1,151,889 2,148,111 778,353 3,005 2,929,469 1,041,596 308,857 20,475 50,268 1,421,196 4,350,664 86.1%Total Reserved102,555 350,042 60,296 635 410,974 203,892 60,373 8,540 15,854 288,658 699,632 13.9%Grand Total1,254,444 2,498,153 838,649 3,640 3,340,442 1,245,488 369,229 29,014 66,122 1,709,854 5,050,296 100.0% 36
Table 8: Tonnage (Dry) and Area By Administrative Entity ‐ as of 1/1/2012Species or Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper Balsam Other/ Total Grand Percent Admin EntityGroup/FeatureSpruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof Total1 ‐ BLMUnreserved166,238 316,068 145,151 246 461,465 271,250 28,293 4,652 3,332 307,527 768,992 9.8%Reserved12,463 52,135 7,232 97 59,464 52,225 2,759 546 650 56,181 115,645 1.5%Subtotal178,702 368,203 152,383 343 520,929 323,474 31,053 5,199 3,982 363,707 884,636 11.3%2 ‐ USF&WSUnreserved419,522 575,214 178,947 691 754,852 470,921 154,099 8,618 23,648 657,286 1,412,138 18.1%Reserved42,300 149,406 25,530 188 175,124 141,708 33,365 5,899 8,281 189,253 364,378 4.7%Subtotal461,822 724,620 204,477 879 929,976 612,629 187,465 14,516 31,930 846,540 1,776,516 22.7%3 ‐ US‐MilUnreserved2,495 10,099 3,808 4 13,911 5,717 298 88 28 6,131 20,042 0.3%Reserved66 644 116 0 760 194 10 2 1 206 966 0.0%Subtotal2,561 10,743 3,924 4 14,671 5,911 308 89 30 6,337 21,008 0.3%4 ‐ Native‐PatentUnreserved4,505 21,941 2,635 16 24,592 18,267 1,855 885 389 21,396 45,988 0.6%AllotmentsReserved347 2,236 236 2 2,474 1,730 484 195 99 2,508 4,983 0.1%Subtotal4,853 24,177 2,871 18 27,066 19,998 2,339 1,080 488 23,905 50,970 0.7%5 ‐ Native‐PatentUnreserved158,710 462,655 161,649 459 624,762 345,166 57,437 3,562 7,914 414,080 1,038,842 13.3%DoyonReserved13,123 66,898 10,045 99 77,041 62,552 9,112 1,223 2,335 75,222 152,263 1.9%Subtotal171,833 529,552 171,693 558 701,804 407,718 66,549 4,785 10,250 489,301 1,191,105 15.2%6 ‐ Native‐PatentUnreserved131,255 520,983 87,608 659 609,249 367,986 70,879 4,369 12,283 455,517 1,064,766 13.6%GANAReserved13,237 80,323 7,383 120 87,826 59,523 18,591 2,426 4,130 84,670 172,496 2.2%Subtotal144,492 601,306 94,991 778 697,075 427,509 89,471 6,795 16,413 540,188 1,237,262 15.8%7 ‐ Native‐SelectUnreserved6,428 7,047 1,236 16 8,299 13,018 505 173 359 14,055 22,354 0.3%Reserved1,232 4,532 324 14 4,870 7,503 203 44 174 7,924 12,794 0.2%Subtotal7,660 11,580 1,560 30 13,169 20,521 708 217 533 21,978 35,148 0.4%8 ‐ State‐PatentUnreserved156,232 825,430 264,652 384 1,090,465 413,339 41,547 4,049 5,968 464,903 1,555,368 19.9%Reserved12,382 95,478 16,628 71 112,176 57,725 4,993 1,008 988 64,713 176,889 2.3%Subtotal168,614 920,908 281,279 455 1,202,641 471,064 46,540 5,056 6,956 529,616 1,732,257 22.1%9 ‐ State‐SelectUnreserved92,192 356,964 132,802 210 489,976 206,500 26,680 1,862 2,822 237,863 727,839 9.3%Reserved6,541 50,357 6,170 54 56,580 30,857 4,465 374 971 36,667 93,247 1.2%Subtotal98,734 407,320 138,972 263 546,556 237,357 31,145 2,235 3,793 274,530 821,086 10.5%10 ‐ Within Unreserved14,312 19,407 1,051 57 20,514 23,112 12,200 818 2,612 38,742 59,257 0.8%Galena City LimitsReserved863 3,149 128 6 3,283 3,963 2,992 411 689 8,054 11,336 0.1%Subtotal15,174 22,556 1,178 63 23,797 27,075 15,191 1,229 3,301 46,796 70,593 0.9%Total Unreserved 1,151,889 3,115,807 979,537 2,740 4,098,085 2,135,277 393,793 29,074 59,357 2,617,500 6,715,585 85.9%Total Reserved102,555 505,158 73,791 649 579,598 417,979 76,975 12,126 18,318 525,398 1,104,996 14.1%Grand Total1,254,444 3,620,965 1,053,329 3,389 4,677,683 2,553,256 470,768 41,200 77,674 3,142,898 7,820,581 100.0% 37
38
Biomass Inventory by Distance from Galena
Distance from Galena has been developed as an attribute to characterize the Biomass
Inventory. It is used as a relative measure of difficulty in performing harvest and
associated transportation operations. This relative measure was used in scheduling
harvest units by year and by five-year period so that that overall cumulative distance of
operations was balanced from period to period with respect to how the biomass
inventory was distributed through the different Distance Zones. Using this approach,
the Biomass Inventory would not be “cherry-picked,” where all the closest and lowest
cost harvest units were harvested during the first few decades resulting in what
appeared to be very favorable results, only to realize twenty years later that costs were
now going to rise very sharply because operations had to move out farther and farther
away from town because all the biomass in close proximity was gone.
These resulting Distance Zones are shown in Figure 12. They were created based on
an equal area approach, whereby the areas of the closest zones (from 5 to 18 miles
out) were nearly equal and the areas of the farthest zones (past 21 miles) were also
comparable in size. The resulting Distance Zones represent the Distance from Galena
as from 0-4 miles, 5-9 miles, 10-13 miles, 14-16 miles, 17-18 miles, 19-21 miles, 22
miles, 23 miles, 24 miles, and 25 miles. Biomass may be summarized within these
zones to estimate its distribution throughout these zones which may then be used to
guide the selection of harvest units when modeling the harvest during any 5-year
period.
As noted by Will Putnam in his Ft. Yukon report these type distance measures reflect
“straight-line proximity distance measurements” and the actual distance to any point will
be affected by streams, rivers, lakes, land topography, time of the year, and the
ownership and administration of the land between Galena and any biomass
inventory/harvest unit location (Putnam, 2010). They are not meant to be exact
measures of distance but rather relative measures designed to provide a means of
characterizing the Biomass Inventory.
Tables 9 and 10 show the Biomass Inventory Cft3 and tonnage values by Distance
Zone. These two tables list the acreage and inventory figures by species and in total for
the ten Distance Zones in the Galena Vicinity. As was shown previously, these tables
again show that we are dealing with Total Cft3 and tonnage values of approximately
5,050,000 Cft3 and 7,820,000 dry tons in the Galena Working Circle. Our Total
“Reserved” acreage is about 102,500 acres on which there are about 700,000 Cft3 and
1,100,000 dry tons of biomass. Our Total “Unreserved” acreage is about 1,150,000
acres on which there are about 4,350,000 Cft3 and 6,700,000 dry tons of biomass.
Only about 2% of the total tonnage or 157,000 dry tons are estimated to be on the
29,700 acres of “Unreserved” lands located within four miles of Galena. Only 8% of the
total tonnage or 632,000 dry tons of biomass on 120,000 “Unreserved” acres are
located from 5 to 9 miles of Galena. This means that 90% of the total Biomass
e
e
Galena
Koyukuk
Figure 12: Galena Vicinity Distance (Zones)
³0 10 205 Miles
Legend
Distance - miles
Miles
0 - 4
5 - 9
10 - 13
14 - 16
17 - 18
19 - 21
22
23
24
25
Table 9: Total Volume (Cft3) and Area By Distance Zone ‐ as of 1/1/2012Species or Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper BalsamOther/ Total Grand Percent Cumulat.Distance ZoneGroup/FeatureSpruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof Total% of TotalZone 0Unreserved29,727 40,364 2,485 185 43,035 35,713 13,927 972 3,761 54,373 97,407 1.9% 1.9%< 5 milesReserved2,392 7,022 371 19 7,412 6,182 4,265 408 1,139 11,994 19,406 0.4% 0.4%Subtotal32,119 47,387 2,856 204 50,447 41,895 18,192 1,380 4,900 66,366 116,813 2.3% 2.3%Zone 1Unreserved119,639 185,097 28,990 618 214,705 135,018 32,483 2,533 8,148 178,181 392,887 7.8% 9.7%5 to 9 milesReserved10,825 31,934 2,505 109 34,548 27,309 8,484 1,220 2,624 39,636 74,184 1.5% 1.9%Subtotal130,464 217,032 31,495 727 249,254 162,327 40,967 3,752 10,772 217,817 467,071 9.2% 11.6%Zone 2Unreserved161,835 232,276 71,947 513 304,736 150,750 53,197 3,623 9,932 217,501 522,237 10.3% 20.0%10 to 13 milesReserved14,786 44,701 6,529 112 51,342 33,526 8,649 1,440 2,647 46,262 97,604 1.9% 3.8%Subtotal176,621 276,977 78,476 625 356,078 184,276 61,846 5,063 12,578 263,763 619,841 12.3% 23.8%Zone 3Unreserved160,202 292,049 106,303 423 398,775 148,041 46,067 3,225 7,007 204,341 603,116 11.9% 32.0%14 to 16 milesReserved14,412 44,379 7,988 91 52,458 27,334 6,751 1,376 1,815 37,277 89,735 1.8% 5.6%Subtotal174,614 336,428 114,291 514 451,233 175,375 52,819 4,601 8,822 241,618 692,851 13.7% 37.6%Zone 4Unreserved124,846 264,432 102,755 274 367,461 126,524 32,973 2,394 4,063 165,954 533,415 10.6% 42.6%17 to 18 milesReserved11,642 40,933 8,441 63 49,437 21,442 5,867 1,040 1,276 29,625 79,061 1.6% 7.1%Subtotal136,488 305,364 111,197 337 416,897 147,966 38,840 3,434 5,338 195,579 612,476 12.1% 49.7%Zone 5Unreserved216,991 430,961 177,756 396 609,113 177,369 49,462 3,014 6,184 236,029 845,141 16.7% 59.3%19 to 21 milesReserved17,846 65,295 12,858 95 78,248 32,706 8,175 1,042 1,829 43,753 122,001 2.4% 9.5%Subtotal234,837 496,256 190,614 491 687,361 210,076 57,637 4,056 8,014 279,781 967,142 19.2% 68.8%Zone 6Unreserved78,938 152,907 62,485 149 215,540 59,282 17,816 1,097 2,467 80,662 296,202 5.9% 65.2%22 milesReserved7,369 26,571 5,055 37 31,663 13,507 4,964 566 1,134 20,171 51,834 1.0% 10.6%Subtotal86,307 179,478 67,540 186 247,203 72,789 22,780 1,663 3,601 100,832 348,035 6.9% 75.7%Zone 7Unreserved83,276 173,420 66,242 152 239,814 67,662 22,010 1,095 2,720 93,487 333,301 6.6% 71.8%23 milesReserved7,051 27,832 5,141 31 33,004 13,049 4,080 374 933 18,437 51,441 1.0% 11.6%Subtotal90,327 201,252 71,384 183 272,819 80,711 26,090 1,469 3,653 111,924 384,742 7.6% 83.3%Zone 8Unreserved86,788 191,507 75,366 165 267,037 72,065 19,951 1,063 2,890 95,969 363,006 7.2% 78.9%24 milesReserved 7,567 28,421 4,775 37 33,234 13,163 4,808 439 1,338 19,748 52,982 1.0% 12.6%Subtotal94,354 219,928 80,142 202 300,271 85,229 24,758 1,502 4,228 115,717 415,988 8.2% 91.6%Zone 9Unreserved89,672 185,097 84,025 131 269,253 69,172 20,972 1,459 3,097 94,699 363,952 7.2% 86.1%25 milesReserved8,665 32,954 6,632 42 39,628 15,673 4,329 635 1,120 21,757 61,385 1.2% 13.9%Subtotal98,337 218,051 90,657 173 308,880 84,845 25,301 2,094 4,217 116,456 425,336 8.4% 100.0%Grand TotalUnreserved 1,151,915 2,148,109 778,354 3,005 2,929,468 1,041,596 308,857 20,475 50,268 1,421,195 4,350,663 86.1%Total Reserved 102,553 350,043 60,296 636 410,975 203,892 60,372 8,540 15,854 288,658 699,633 13.9%Grand Total 1,254,468 2,498,152 838,651 3,640 3,340,443 1,245,488 369,229 29,014 66,122 1,709,853 5,050,296 100.0% 40
Table 10: Tonnage (Dry) and Area By Distance Zone ‐ as of 1/1/2012Species or Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper BalsamOther/ Total Grand Percent Cumulat.Distance ZoneGroup/FeatureSpruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof Total% of TotalZone 0Unreserved29,727 57,301 3,169 209 60,679 73,212 17,757 1,381 4,331 96,679 157,359 2.0% 2.0%< 5 milesReserved2,392 10,094 469 25 10,587 12,673 5,438 579 1,313 20,003 30,590 0.4% 0.4%Subtotal32,119 67,395 3,638 234 71,267 85,885 23,194 1,959 5,644 116,682 187,949 2.4% 2.4%Zone 1Unreserved119,639 264,948 35,174 634 300,757 276,787 41,416 3,596 9,426 331,224 631,981 8.1% 10.1%5 to 9 milesReserved10,825 45,862 3,128 112 49,103 55,983 10,817 1,732 3,022 71,554 120,656 1.5% 1.9%Subtotal130,464 310,810 38,302 747 349,859 332,770 52,233 5,328 12,447 402,778 752,637 9.6% 12.0%Zone 2Unreserved161,835 337,234 90,894 444 428,572 309,039 67,826 5,145 11,591 393,600 822,172 10.5% 20.6%10 to 13 milesReserved14,786 64,640 7,990 109 72,739 68,729 11,028 2,045 3,053 84,854 157,593 2.0% 3.9%Subtotal176,621 401,874 98,885 553 501,311 377,767 78,854 7,189 14,644 478,454 979,765 12.5% 24.6%Zone 3Unreserved160,202 424,460 136,345 329 561,134 303,485 58,736 4,579 8,339 375,139 936,273 12.0% 32.6%14 to 16 milesReserved14,412 64,062 9,921 85 74,068 56,035 8,608 1,954 2,100 68,698 142,766 1.8% 5.8%Subtotal174,614 488,522 146,266 413 635,202 359,520 67,344 6,534 10,439 443,837 1,079,039 13.8% 38.4%Zone 4Unreserved124,846 384,769 129,269 229 514,267 259,375 42,041 3,400 4,877 309,693 823,960 10.5% 43.1%17 to 18 milesReserved11,642 59,070 10,308 61 69,438 43,956 7,480 1,477 1,481 54,394 123,832 1.6% 7.4%Subtotal136,488 443,839 139,577 290 583,706 303,331 49,521 4,877 6,358 364,086 947,792 12.1% 50.5%Zone 5Unreserved216,991 626,122 223,211 332 849,665 363,609 63,063 4,279 7,406 438,357 1,288,022 16.5% 59.6%19 to 21 milesReserved17,846 94,307 15,642 98 110,047 67,048 10,423 1,480 2,119 81,070 191,118 2.4% 9.8%Subtotal234,837 720,429 238,853 430 959,712 430,656 73,487 5,759 9,525 519,427 1,479,139 18.9% 69.4%Zone 6Unreserved78,938 221,827 78,002 130 299,960 121,527 22,716 1,558 2,972 148,772 448,732 5.7% 65.3%22 milesReserved7,369 38,380 6,135 37 44,552 27,689 6,329 804 1,311 36,133 80,685 1.0% 10.8%Subtotal86,307 260,207 84,138 167 344,512 149,216 29,044 2,362 4,283 184,906 529,417 6.8% 76.2%Zone 7Unreserved83,276 251,480 82,608 153 334,242 138,707 28,063 1,555 3,247 171,572 505,814 6.5% 71.8%23 milesReserved 7,051 40,216 6,247 34 46,497 26,751 5,202 531 1,080 33,564 80,061 1.0% 11.9%Subtotal90,327 291,696 88,855 187 380,738 165,458 33,265 2,086 4,326 205,136 585,874 7.5% 83.6%Zone 8Unreserved86,788 278,303 95,306 152 373,761 147,734 25,437 1,510 3,471 178,151 551,912 7.1% 78.8%24 milesReserved7,567 40,971 5,909 42 46,922 26,985 6,130 624 1,544 35,283 82,205 1.1% 12.9%Subtotal94,354 319,273 101,215 194 420,683 174,719 31,567 2,133 5,015 213,434 634,116 8.1% 91.8%Zone 9Unreserved89,672 269,363 105,559 128 375,049 141,802 26,739 2,072 3,699 174,312 549,361 7.0% 85.9%25 milesReserved8,665 47,556 8,042 47 55,644 32,131 5,520 901 1,295 39,846 95,490 1.2% 14.1%Subtotal98,337 316,919 113,600 175 430,694 173,933 32,259 2,973 4,994 214,158 644,851 8.2% 100.0%Grand TotalUnreserved 1,151,915 3,115,807 979,538 2,740 4,098,085 2,135,276 393,792 29,074 59,357 2,617,499 6,715,584 85.9%Total Reserved 102,553 505,157 73,791 649 579,598 417,979 76,975 12,126 18,318 525,398 1,104,995 14.1%Grand Total 1,254,468 3,620,964 1,053,330 3,389 4,677,683 2,553,255 470,767 41,200 77,675 3,142,8967,820,579 100.0% 41
42
Inventory is growing in the “Unreserved” portions of stands 10 or more miles from
Galena. It is apparent that if significant biomass harvest levels of as much as 20,000
dry tons per year are going to be undertaken in the future, that a significant amount of
the biomass resource is going to be harvested from stands at least 10 miles from
Galena.
An additional 10 % of the total tonnage or 822,000 dry tons are estimated to be on the
162,000 acres of “Unreserved” lands located within between 10 and 13 miles from
Galena, meaning that only a total of 20% of the Biomass Inventory is within 13 miles of
Galena. As we go further out to 16 miles another 935,000 dry tons on “Unreserved”
160,000 acres are added to the totals meaning that only 32.6% of the Total Biomass
Inventory or 2,547,000 dry tons of biomass are located within 16 miles of Galena. At a
biomass harvest level of 20,000 dry tons per year, this tonnage would last over 100
years, but we would have to be able to harvest about 80% of the existing Biomass
Inventory to accomplish this level of harvest on a continual basis.
Approximately half of the “Unreserved” Biomass Inventory is located within 19 miles of
Galena meaning that the other half is located from 19-25 miles of Galena. All these
figures indicate that transportation of biomass from future harvest locations to Galena
will require considerable effort and that there will likely be a need to develop and
manage different types of transportation efforts in order to minimize road building and
maintenance activities and associated transportation costs. In addition, as
transportation distance appears to be an issue, future plans should attempt to focus
harvest activity for a period of time, such as a 5-year period or a decade, within specific
areas that can be accessed by a few roads that are maintained and lengthened each
year, rather than by undertaking a scattered shotgun-like approach to developing and
maintaining many miles of roads throughout the Galena Vicinity each year.
Biomass Inventory by Access Class
Another landscape characteristic that will likely influence future biomass harvest activity
is the varied accessibility to different regions of the Galena Vicinity. GRS has identified
three major classes of accessibility as shown in Figure 13. These classes of
accessibility are Lowland, Upland, and Yukon River Slopes. The Lowland Access Class
represents portions of the Galena Vicinity that are very flat with little change in elevation
that are characterized by the presence of many lakes, streams, bodies of water,
marshes, and very wet herbaceous meadows. The damp wet nature of these lowland
areas makes road building into and through these areas virtually impossible during the
spring, summer, and fall seasons. These lowland areas will likely require Winter Access
for harvest and transportation activities as the biomass may be harvested and
transported to Galena far easier when the ground and water are frozen rather than
when it is in a wet or liquid state. The second class of accessibility is the Upland Class
of lands. Lands in this class are characterized by moderate slope of at least 3-5% and
a general lack of the hydrologic features and damp wet areas (surface water limitations)
that characterize the lowland areas. Most of these upland areas are to the far south,
east, and northeast of Galena. These areas appear to have soils that are well enough
e
e
Galena
Koyukuk
Figure 13: Galena Vicinity Access Types
³0 10 205 Miles
Legend
Accessibility
ACCESS TYPE
Lowland
Upland
Yukon River Slopes
43
44
drained to enable summer season harvest and transportation operations. More gently
sloped portions of these areas may also be accessible in the winter months, provided
the winter equipment can operate in these sloped portions of the Galena Vicinity.
These upland areas represent summer and possibly all-season access (summer and
winter) access and transportation networks will likely need to be developed, if the
biomass on these acres is going to be harvested. The third accessibility class is the
Yukon River Slopes class. Lands in his class may have very limited accessibility due to
its steepness of slopes in this area. These steeply sloped areas were noted along the
slopes on the north side of the Yukon River from approximately 10 to 25 miles upriver
from Galena. The steepness of some of these lands might require cable yarding
operations to harvest the biomass on these lands, if these lands can be harvested at all.
The steepness of these lands in combination with their proximity to the Yukon River
may constrain these areas from future harvest.
Tables 11 and 12 show the Biomass Inventory acreage, Cft3, and tonnage values by
Access Class. Of the total estimated area of 1,254,636 acres in the Galena Working
Circle about 70% of the area is designated as the Lowland Class, about 29% is
designated as the Upland Class, and the remaining 1% of the area is designated as the
Yukon River Slope Class. Of the total biomass of 7,820,554 tons 49.5% or 3,874,000
tons are located within the “Unreserved” Lowland Class areas while 34.9% of the
biomass or 2,727,000 tons are located within the “Unreserved” Upland Class areas.
Only 1.5% of the total biomass or 115,000 tons are located within the “Unreserved”
Yukon River Slopes area. The Upland Class acres average 7.8 tons/acre, the Lowland
acres average only 4.9 tons/acre, and the Yukon River Slopes acres average 13.7
tons/acre.
Biomass Inventory by Transportation Cost Projections
Transportation Cost is modeled by combining Distance from Galena and Access Class
information. Access Class costs were estimated at $2/ton/mile within the Upland Class
(summer/all-season access) and $4/ton/mile within the Lowland and Yukon River
Slopes classes (winter access). Cost estimates were additive for Upland areas which
require transportation across a combination of Upland and Lowland areas when
transporting biomass from the harvest location to Galena. In addition, transportation
distances in each Upland area were estimated based upon the distance of each harvest
location to a centralized collection point (log deck) located in each Upland area near its
boundary with a Lowland area across which the biomass would eventually be
transported to Galena. It must be noted that all of this information is an estimate and
used for the purpose of modeling relative transportation cost. All of these estimates of
relative cost will need refinement as better information regarding specific equipment,
means of transportation, and access become known in the future. The resulting
Transportation Cost estimates and approximate Upland collection point locations are
shown in Figure 14. Tables 13 and 14 show the Biomass Inventory acreage, Cft3, and
tonnage values by estimated Transportation Cost classes.
Table 11: Volume (Cft3) and Area By Access Type ‐ as of 1/1/2012Species or Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper Balsam Other/ Total Grand Percent Access ZoneGroup/FeatureSpruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof Total1 ‐ LowlandUnreserved795,648 1,203,396 351,246 2,496 1,557,138 648,923 233,551 13,124 42,130 937,728 2,494,865 49.4%Reserved83,200253,47841,621538295,636165,57554,9018,08815,131243,695539,33110.7%Reserved83,200 253,478 41,621 538 295,636 165,575 54,901 8,088 15,131 243,695 539,331 10.7%Subtotal878,848 1,456,874 392,867 3,033 1,852,774 814,498 288,452 21,212 57,261 1,181,422 3,034,196 60.1%2 ‐ UplandUnreserved348,024 910,037 423,419 480 1,333,936 365,802 73,865 5,635 7,876 453,177 1,787,113 35.4%Reserved19,030 93,650 18,483 97 112,230 37,390 5,392 415 712 43,910 156,140 3.1%Subtotal367,054 1,003,686 441,902 577 1,446,166 403,192 79,257 6,050 8,588 497,087 1,943,253 38.5%3 ‐ Yukon RiverUnreserved8,419 34,644 3,684 29 38,357 26,857 1,441 1,716 262 30,277 68,634 1.4%SlRd3152 91419213 1079267937111 0524 15901%SlopesReserved 315 2,914 192 1 3,107 926 79 37 11 1,052 4,159 0.1%Subtotal 8,734 37,558 3,876 30 41,464 27,783 1,520 1,753 273 31,328 72,793 1.4%Grand TotalTotal Unreserved 1,152,091 2,148,076 778,350 3,005 2,929,431 1,041,582 308,857 20,475 50,268 1,421,182 4,350,613 86.1%Total Reserved102,546 350,042 60,296 636 410,973 203,891 60,372 8,540 15,854 288,656 699,629 13.9%Grand Total1,254,636 2,498,118 838,646 3,640 3,340,404 1,245,473 369,229 29,014 66,122 1,709,838 5,050,241 100.0% 45
Table 12: Tonnage (Dry) and Area By Access Type ‐ as of 1/1/2012Species or Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper Balsam Other/ Total Grand Percent Access ZoneGroup/FeatureSpruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof Total1 ‐ LowlandUnreserved795,648 1,740,017 435,757 2,176 2,177,951 1,330,290 297,779 18,636 49,148 1,695,853 3,873,804 49.5%Reserved83,200 365,898 51,267 516 417,681 339,429 70,000 11,485 17,465 438,378 856,059 10.9%Subtotal878,848 2,105,915 487,025 2,692 2,595,632 1,669,720 367,779 30,121 66,612 2,134,231 4,729,863 60.5%2 ‐ UplandUnreserved348,024 1,325,251 538,803 531 1,864,586 749,895 94,178 8,001 9,889 861,962 2,726,548 34.9%Reserved19,030 135,048 22,257 131 157,437 76,650 6,875 590 840 84,955 242,391 3.1%Subtotal367,054 1,460,299 561,060 663 2,022,022 826,544 101,053 8,591 10,729 946,917 2,968,939 38.0%3 ‐ Yukon RiverUnreserved8,419 50,539 4,978 33 55,550 55,057 1,838 2,437 320 59,652 115,202 1.5%SlopesReserved315 4,209 266 2 4,476 1,898 100 52 13 2,063 6,539 0.1%Subtotal8,734 54,748 5,244 34 60,026 56,955 1,938 2,489 333 61,715 121,740 1.6%Grand TotalTotal Unreserved 1,152,091 3,115,807 979,539 2,740 4,098,086 2,135,242 393,795 29,074 59,356 2,617,467 6,715,553 85.9%Total Reserved102,546 505,154 73,790 649 579,593 417,977 76,975 12,126 18,318 525,396 1,104,989 14.1%Grand Total1,254,636 3,620,961 1,053,329 3,389 4,677,679 2,553,219 470,770 41,200 77,674 3,142,863 7,820,542 100.0% 46
e
e
Log Deck
Log Deck
Log Deck
Log Deck
Galena
Koyukuk
Figure 14: Galena Vicinity Transportation Costs
³0 10 205 Miles
Legend
Transport cost
$/Ton
0 - 0.01
0.01 - 19.99
20 - 29.99
30 - 39.99
40 - 49.99
50 - 59.99
60 - 69.99
70 - 79.99
80 - 89.99
90 - 100
47
Table 13: Volume (Cft3) and Area By Transportation Cost Class ‐ as of 1/1/2012Species or Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper Balsam Other/ Total Grand Percent Cumulat.TransportationGroup/Feature Spruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof Total% of TotalCost ClassUnreserved29,727 40,364 2,485 185 43,035 35,713 13,927 972 3,761 54,373 97,407 2% 2%≤ $19/DtonReserved2,392 7,022 371 19 7,412 6,182 4,265 408 1,139 11,994 19,406 0% 0%Subtotal32,119 47,387 2,856 204 50,447 41,895 18,192 1,380 4,900 66,366 116,813 2% 2%Unreserved61,470 86,530 10,992 332 97,853 70,729 14,732 1,342 4,285 91,088 188,941 4%6%$20 ‐ $29/DtonReserved4,763 14,044 846 47 14,937 12,273 4,208 683 1,283 18,447 33,384 1% 1%Subtotal66,233 100,574 11,838 379 112,791 83,002 18,940 2,025 5,568 109,534 222,325 4% 7%Unreserved58,179 98,567 17,998 287 116,852 64,289 17,751 1,190 3,863 87,094 203,946 4% 10%$30 ‐ $39/DtonReserved6,062 17,891 1,659 62 19,611 15,036 4,276 537 1,340 21,189 40,801 1%2%Subtotal64,241 116,458 19,656 349 136,463 79,326 22,027 1,727 5,204 108,283 244,746 5% 12%Unreserved108,541 138,101 37,440 343 175,883 98,218 32,914 2,133 6,737 140,002 315,885 6% 16%$40 ‐ $49/DtonReserved10,575 31,588 4,028 81 35,697 24,031 6,325 1,132 2,028 33,516 69,213 1% 3%Subtotal119,116 169,689 41,468 424 211,580 122,249 39,239 3,265 8,765 173,517 385,098 8%19%Unreserved85,074 124,606 40,901 262 165,769 71,043 33,041 1,864 5,328 111,276 277,045 5% 21%$50 ‐ $59/DtonReserved7,547 21,107 3,291 52 24,450 15,863 4,868 729 1,303 22,763 47,213 1% 4%Subtotal92,621 145,713 44,192 314 190,219 86,906 37,909 2,593 6,631 134,039 324,258 6% 26%Unreserved198,035 436,756 184,355 450 621,561 202,462 52,022 4,073 6,855 265,412 886,973 18%39%$60 ‐ $69/DtonReserved17,414 57,632 12,072 101 69,805 32,720 7,671 1,563 1,754 43,708 113,514 2% 6%Subtotal215,448 494,389 196,427 551 691,366 235,182 59,693 5,636 8,609 309,120 1,000,487 20% 45%Unreserved 222,753 552,303 235,842 376 788,521 220,804 47,607 3,469 6,151 278,029 1,066,550 21% 60%$70 ‐ $79/DtonReserved 16,248 73,025 12,789 83 85,896 31,528 5,899 925 1,384 39,736 125,632 2% 9%Subtotal239,001 625,328 248,631 459 874,417 252,332 53,505 4,394 7,534 317,765 1,192,182 24% 69%Unreserved226,592 368,145 151,006 413 519,563 152,317 51,447 2,894 6,731 213,389 732,952 15% 75%$80 ‐ $89/DtonReserved19,363 65,850 13,655 103 79,608 34,075 10,886 1,219 2,379 48,559 128,166 3% 11%Subtotal245,955 433,994 164,661 516 599,171 186,392 62,333 4,113 9,110 261,948 861,119 17% 86%Unreserved110,888 204,003 62,534 259 266,795 84,868 30,879 1,453 4,303 121,503 388,299 8% 82%$90 ‐ $99/DtonReserved11,594 39,038 7,015 55 46,108 20,167 8,137 753 2,188 31,245 77,353 2%13%Subtotal122,482 243,041 69,548 314 312,903 105,035 39,015 2,206 6,492 152,749 465,652 9% 95%Unreserved50,651 98,732 34,801 99 133,631 41,154 14,537 1,085 2,254 59,030 192,661 4% 86%≥ $100/DtonReserved6,597 22,846 4,570 33 27,449 12,017 3,838 591 1,056 17,502 44,951 1% 14%Subtotal57,248 121,578 39,370 132 161,080 53,171 18,375 1,677 3,310 76,532 237,612 5%100%Grand TotalTotal Unreserved 1,151,909 2,148,107 778,352 3,005 2,929,463 1,041,596 308,857 20,475 50,268 1,421,195 4,350,659 86%Total Reserved102,553 350,042 60,296 636 410,974 203,892 60,372 8,540 15,854 288,658 699,632 14%Grand Total1,254,462 2,498,149 838,648 3,640 3,340,437 1,245,488 369,229 29,014 66,122 1,709,853 5,050,290 100% 48
Table 14: Tonnage (Dry) and Area By Transportation Cost Class ‐ as of 1/1/2012Species or Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper Balsam Other/ Total Grand Percent Cumulat.TransportationGroup/Feature Spruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof Total% of TotalCost ClassUnreserved29,727 57,301 3,169 209 60,679 73,212 17,757 1,381 4,331 96,679 157,359 2% 2%≤ $19/DtonReserved2,392 10,094 469 25 10,587 12,673 5,438 579 1,313 20,003 30,590 0% 0%Subtotal32,119 67,395 3,638 234 71,267 85,885 23,194 1,959 5,644 116,682 187,949 2% 2%Unreserved61,470 123,416 13,380 344 137,140 144,995 18,783 1,906 4,945 170,629 307,769 4%6%$20 ‐ $29/DtonReserved4,763 20,160 1,084 49 21,293 25,159 5,365 969 1,478 32,971 54,265 1% 1%Subtotal66,233 143,576 14,464 393 158,433 170,154 24,148 2,875 6,424 203,600 362,034 5% 7%Unreserved58,179 141,532 21,794 291 163,617 131,793 22,633 1,690 4,480 160,596 324,213 4% 10%$30 ‐ $39/DtonReserved6,062 25,702 2,044 63 27,809 30,825 5,452 763 1,543 38,582 66,392 1%2%Subtotal64,241 167,235 23,838 354 191,427 162,617 28,085 2,453 6,024 199,178 390,605 5% 12%Unreserved108,541 200,224 46,536 293 247,053 201,346 41,965 3,029 7,829 254,169 501,223 6% 17%$40 ‐ $49/DtonReserved10,575 45,646 4,957 79 50,681 49,264 8,064 1,607 2,337 61,273 111,953 1% 3%Subtotal119,116 245,870 51,492 372 297,734 250,610 50,030 4,636 10,166 315,442 613,176 8%20%Unreserved85,074 180,620 52,017 218 232,855 145,639 42,127 2,646 6,239 196,651 429,506 5% 22%$50 ‐ $59/DtonReserved7,547 30,549 4,080 48 34,677 32,518 6,207 1,035 1,504 41,265 75,942 1% 4%Subtotal92,621 211,169 56,097 266 267,532 178,157 48,334 3,682 7,743 237,915 505,447 6% 26%Unreserved198,035 635,908 234,513 358 870,779 415,048 66,328 5,783 8,289 495,448 1,366,227 17%39%$60 ‐ $69/DtonReserved17,414 83,136 14,715 100 97,951 67,076 9,781 2,219 2,036 81,113 179,063 2% 7%Subtotal215,448 719,044 249,228 457 968,729 482,124 76,109 8,003 10,325 576,561 1,545,290 20% 46%Unreserved 222,753 803,085 298,713 361 1,102,159 452,648 60,698 4,925 7,535 525,807 1,627,965 21% 60%$70 ‐ $79/DtonReserved 16,248 105,299 15,774 98 121,171 64,633 7,521 1,314 1,606 75,073 196,243 3% 9%Subtotal239,001 908,383 314,487 459 1,223,329 517,280 68,219 6,239 9,141 600,880 1,824,208 23% 69%Unreserved 226,592 534,307 188,508 339 723,153 312,251 65,595 4,109 7,999 389,954 1,113,107 14% 75%$80 ‐ $89/DtonReserved19,363 95,162 16,368 101 111,631 69,855 13,879 1,731 2,754 88,219 199,850 3% 12%Subtotal245,955 629,468 204,876 440 834,784 382,105 79,475 5,840 10,753 478,173 1,312,956 17% 86%Unreserved110,888 295,815 77,935 233 373,983 173,980 39,370 2,063 5,064 220,477 594,460 8%82%$90 ‐ $99/DtonReserved11,594 56,422 8,700 55 65,176 41,343 10,374 1,069 2,526 55,313 120,489 2% 13%Subtotal122,482 352,237 86,634 288 439,159 215,323 49,745 3,132 7,590 275,790 714,948 9% 95%Unreserved50,651 143,596 42,972 95 186,663 84,366 18,535 1,541 2,646 107,088 293,751 4% 86%≥ $100/DtonReserved6,597 32,989 5,602 32 38,624 24,635 4,893 840 1,219 31,587 70,211 1%14%Subtotal57,248 176,584 48,575 127 225,286 109,000 23,429 2,381 3,866 138,675 363,961 5% 100%Grand TotalTotal Unreserved 1,151,909 3,115,803 979,537 2,740 4,098,081 2,135,275 393,792 29,074 59,357 2,617,498 6,715,578 86%Total Reserved102,553 505,158 73,792 649 579,599 417,979 76,975 12,126 18,318 525,398 1,104,996 14%Grand Total1,254,462 3,620,961 1,053,329 3,389 4,677,679 2,553,254 470,766 41,200 77,675 3,142,8957,820,574 100% 49
50
Only 501,000 dry tons or 17% of the “Unreserved” dry tonnage is in Cost classes ≤
$49/ton. Approximately 39% of the total tonnage is in the “Unreserved” Cost classes
that are ≤ $69/ton and 60% of the total tonnage is in the “Unreserved” Cost classes that
are ≤ $79/ton meaning that the median transportation cost/ton falls within the $70-79/ton
Cost class. These relatively high transportation cost estimates reflect the results shown
by Distance Zone in which half of the “Unreserved” tonnage was located approximately
19 miles or more from Galena.
As transportation costs do seem to be relatively high, it is anticipated that these type
costs will comprise a significant component of the total cost of procuring biomass for
energy production in Galena.
Availability of the Biomass Inventory
The Biomass Inventory values listed in Tables 3 and 4 show an estimated total
inventory of 5,050,194 Cft3 and 7,820,554 dry tons that appear to provide a more than
adequate foundation for future biomass harvests of up to 20,000 dry tons per year.
However, this is a total Biomass Inventory and this entire inventory is not available for
harvest. Any planning applications like this project should be based on what is available
for use rather than the gross total values.
Showing the Biomass Inventory in Tables 5 through14 with respect to different
characteristics of the Galena Vicinity, such as ownership, accessibility, and distance,
helps one better understand the nature of this inventory and recognize potential
limitations or concerns regarding its future use. Based upon the information that has
been developed and potential limitations that GRS has identified, the Available Biomass
Inventory can now be estimated by constraining or removing biomass from the Total
Biomass Inventory by removing lands that for one reason or another are either
constrained from harvest or are believed to be undesirable or impractical to harvest.
The first step in determining the Available Biomass Inventory was actually performed
during the development of a Harvest Unit map data set. During this process, all non-
tree type stands with less than 2 tons/acre or 10% tree cover were excluded from the
harvest units that were developed. These stands were not included in harvest units as
it is unlikely these non-tree type stands will support future forestry operations or are
financially or environmentally impractical to harvest.
The second step in determining the Available Biomass Inventory is to constrain or
remove from consideration the biomass growing on lands that GRS believes are not
advisable to include in this planning effort. Biomass on lands that are environmentally
sensitive, economically impractical, or restricted from harvest should not be included in
the Available Biomass Inventory. These lands include all areas (102,554 acres) within
the water-feature protection zones previously categorized as “Reserved.” Biomass in
these protection zones is not available for harvest on publicly owned lands, and while
portions of the biomass on these type lands may be harvested on privately owned
51
lands, this would be undertaken at a greater effort and higher cost. For the purposes of
this study, all biomass within the water-feature protection zones will not be included in
the Available Biomass Inventory. Other biomass that will be removed from
consideration is that on all lands (259,773 acres) owned by USF&WS. Lastly, GRS
believes that biomass operations on private lands within USF&WS refuge boundaries
(202,050 acres) should not be considered for future harvest, as such operations may
face many environmental and regulatory issues that should only be undertaken if
absolutely necessary. In other words, all biomass on lands owned or administered by
USF&WS should not be included in the Available Biomass Inventory. Lastly, all lands
(8,734 acres) in the Yukon River Slopes access class should be withheld from the
Available Biomass Inventory due to their often steep terrain and proximity to the Yukon
River.
The Available Biomass Inventory, based upon the aforementioned land and biomass
removals is shown in Tables 15 and 16. These tables summarize Available acreage,
Cft3, and dry tonnage by Access and Distance classes. Distance Zones have been
collapsed into three Distance Classes representing near Galena (0-9 miles), mid-range
from Galena (9-18 miles), and far from Galena (19-25 miles). All Reserved and
otherwise constrained acres, Cft3, and tonnage have been removed from these figures.
Table 16 shows that the total amount of biomass considered to be available for harvest
and energy production is 5,137,991 dry tons or 65.6 % of the Total Biomass Inventory of
7,820,554 tons.
Of note is that only 611,990 tons or 12% of the available biomass is located within 9
miles of Galena and all of this biomass is in the Lowland access area. In addition, the
Available Biomass Inventory is split almost 50/50 between Lowland (2,511,865 tons)
and Upland (2,586,127) access areas. This inventory is also split nearly 50/50 between
harvest units within 18 miles of Galena (2,593,862 tons) and units 19-25 miles from
Galena (2,544,329 tons).
Given harvest level goals of as much as 20,000 tons/year this means that If
transportation to Upland areas is not going to be developed at some future time, then
biomass harvesting from the highest cost Lowland areas 19-25 miles from Galena will
be necessary to meet the maximum planned biomass needs. This would likely result in
higher total biomass procurement costs, as projected biomass transportation costs are
higher on the Lowland winter access areas 19-25 miles from Galena than they are on
the Upland summer access areas 10-18 miles from Galena. The potential impact(s) of
such management choices can be demonstrated now through simulation of the long-
term harvesting of the Available Biomass Inventory.
Table 15: Available Volume (Cft3) by Access and DistanceSpecies or Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper Balsam Other/ Total Grand Percent Access Area Group/FeatureSpruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof TotalLowland≤ 9 miles 47,809 179,955 26,792 575 207,323 132,688 29,546 2,047 7,397 171,678 379,001 11%10 ‐ 18 miles 82,662 299,460 86,362 648 386,470 171,871 44,478 2,649 7,923 226,920 613,390 18%≥ 19 miles 75,943 358,613 106,988 348 465,949 127,450 42,643 1,553 6,202 177,848 643,797 19%Total Lowland206,414 838,028 220,142 1,571 1,059,741 432,008 116,668 6,248 21,522 576,447 1,636,188 49%Upland≤ 9 miles‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%10 ‐ 18 miles 82,568 325,545 142,578 173 468,296 152,934 31,362 2,421 2,655 189,373 657,668 20%≥ 19 miles 133,984 543,049 267,012 198 810,259 190,726 31,361 2,386 3,505 227,978 1,038,237 31%Total Upland216,552 868,594 409,590 371 1,278,554 343,660 62,723 4,807 6,160 417,350 1,695,90551%Yukon River≤ 9 miles‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%10 ‐ 18 miles‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%≥ 19 miles‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%Total Yukon River‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Total ≤ 9 miles 47,809 179,955 26,792 575 207,323 132,688 29,546 2,047 7,397 171,678 379,001 11%10 ‐ 18 miles 165,230 625,004 228,940 821 854,765 324,805 75,841 5,070 10,578 416,293 1,271,058 38%≥ 19 miles 209,927 901,663 373,999 546 1,276,208 318,176 74,004 3,940 9,706 405,826 1,682,034 50%Grand Total 422,966 1,706,623 629,731 1,941 2,338,295 775,669 179,391 11,056 27,682 993,797 3,332,092 100%Percent of Total 100% 51% 19% 0% 70% 23% 5% 0% 1% 30% 100% 52
Table 16: Available Tonnage (Dry) by Access and DistanceSpecies or Acreage White Black Other/ Total Paper Balsam Other/ Total Grand Percent Access Area Group/FeatureSpruce Spruce LarchConiferBirch Poplar Aspen SalixHardwoodTotalof TotalLowland≤ 9 miles 47,809 257,617 32,583 647 290,847 272,011 37,671 2,906 8,555 321,143 611,990 12%10 ‐ 18 miles 82,662 433,592 106,127 526 540,246 352,335 56,710 3,761 9,262 422,068 962,314 19%≥ 19 miles 75,943 520,211 131,864 342 652,418 261,272 54,370 2,206 7,295 325,143 977,561 19%Total Lowland206,414 1,211,421 270,574 1,515 1,483,510 885,618 148,751 8,873 25,112 1,068,355 2,551,865 50%49%49%34% 77% 45% 56% 65% 57% 76% 57% 50%Upland≤ 9 miles‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%10 ‐ 18 miles 82,568 475,625 183,212 219 659,056 313,515 39,987 3,438 3,363 360,303 1,019,359 20%≥ 19 miles 133,984 789,839 337,808 245 1,127,892 390,990 39,985 3,389 4,514 438,877 1,566,768 30%Total Upland216,552 1,265,465 521,020 464 1,786,948 704,505 79,972 6,827 7,876 799,179 2,586,12750%51% 51% 66% 23% 55% 44% 35% 43% 24% 43% 50%Yukon River≤ 9 miles‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%Slopes10 ‐ 18 miles‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%≥ 19 miles‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%Total Yukon River‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Total ≤ 9 miles 47,809 257,617 32,583 647 290,847 272,011 37,671 2,906 8,555 321,143 611,990 12%10 ‐ 18 miles 165,230 909,218 289,338 745 1,199,302 665,850 96,697 7,199 12,625 782,371 1,981,673 39%10 18 miles165,230 909,218 289,338 745 1,199,302665,850 96,697 7,199 12,625 782,371 1,981,67339%≥ 19 miles 209,927 1,310,051 469,672 587 1,780,310 652,261 94,355 5,595 11,809 764,020 2,544,329 50%Grand Total 422,966 2,476,885 791,593 1,979 3,270,458 1,590,123 228,723 15,699 32,988 1,867,534 5,137,991 100%Percent of Total 100% 48% 15% 0% 64% 31% 4% 0% 1% 36% 100% 53
54
Harvest Projections
Harvest projection is a useful forest management tool, as it provides a means of
estimating long-term sustainable levels of harvest under different management
scenarios. Multiple scenarios may be developed and resource managers can evaluate
and compare the results to determine future management practices. Site-specific
harvest guidance can be provided, as well as estimates of benefits and costs
specifically associated with different management alternatives. However, it must always
be remembered that results are modeled estimates and are always subject to review
(human interpretation) and modification prior to their actual implementation.
The projection of a long-term non-declining yield or harvest projection involves the
application of a harvest strategy to an existing inventory that will be grown over time.
As harvest units are selected for harvest they are replaced by reforested stands of a
similar nature that will grow and develop to eventually be harvested again at some
future time. As harvest operations are forecast and implemented in the model, growth
is projected on remaining unharvested stands, and inventory levels are updated. In a
fully regulated forest, maximum harvest would be achieved when the forest acreage is
evenly distributed throughout the different age classes and the growth of the forest is
available for harvest in the oldest (mature) age class of the forest. Unfortunately, due to
past fire and logging history, Galena does not have anything close to a fully regulated
forest, and harvests will have to be managed to see that future harvest levels can be
maintained over time.
The non-declining aspect of such a projection means that current harvest levels will not
be decreased in the future, but will be planned so that they can be maintained at current
or higher levels in the future. Such decreases in harvest most often happen when old
growth or mature timber stands, which typically have high biomass/acre and whose
growth may have already peaked, are harvested more rapidly than the other stands of
the area are capable of growing, eventually resulting in a lower young growth based
inventory and eventual declines in harvest levels as the younger forest stands cannot
support the past higher levels of harvest. This situation can be avoided if the harvest
level that is implemented never exceeds the growth of the forest.
Inventory Projection
The starting inventory for all harvest projections is the Available Biomass Inventory as of
1/1/2012 shown in Tables 15 and 16. These values represent the total biomass
estimated to be present in the harvest units that are in the Harvest Unit map data set.
Growth Projection
One benefit of GRS’s field data collection methodology is that stand lists are developed
for every stand that is inventoried. This stand list information may then used to
generate inventory estimates for every stand in the Stand Inventory map data set. GRS
software can then grow this stand list data through time, recalculate the grown tree
55
volumes, and estimate growth on a stand by stand basis. In addition, GRS collected
radial growth, height, and age data from suitable site trees on sample sites to enable
modification or calibration of stand growth estimates.
GRS field sample data were initially used to forecast growth and site productivity. The
radial increment core data indicated average growth rates from as high as 20 rings/inch
(rpi) to as low as 80 rpi. Associated tree heights ranged from as much as 90 feet tall to
nearly 0 for trees that were often 80-90 years old. Our field assessment data basically
indicated three levels of productivity – good, average, and poor. On the basis of a very
limited set of field observation GRS estimated average levels of diameter and height
growth for the different productivity levels as shown in Table 17.
Table 17: Average Diameter and Height Growth Rates
Conifer Conifer Hardwood Hardwood
Site Rings/inch Height (ft/Year) Rings/inch Height (ft/Year)
Good 24 0.75 28 0.6
Average 32 0.50 36 0.4
Poor 40 0.25 50 0.2
Stand mortality was estimated at between 1 to 5% per 5-year period, depending on the
stocking levels and productivity of the stand. Mortality was projected to be higher in
more heavily stocked and lower productivity stands. GRS tested these growth and
mortality estimates and found that the application of these growth and mortality values
tended to result in tree stands of a comparable stocking and size to what we observed
in the field, when these rates were applied for 90-100 years. Initially, these growth and
mortality rates were used to grow existing and harvested/reforested stands. While
these values appear to represent very slow individual tree growth rates that represent
approximately 1-2% change per year over the course of a 90 or 100 year period, much
higher percent (%) cubic volume growth rates were observed when trees in existing
stand lists were grown and processed using the species-specific volume equations.
The 1-2% diameter and height changes equated to 6-12% increases in cubic volume
over a 5-year period (this is likely due to the manner in which volume functions work
and how cubic volume estimates are related geometrically to increases in diameter and
height growth; e.g. a 13” dbh tree might have four to five times the volume of a 6” dbh
tree). Such growth increases seemed much higher than anticipated! Not wanting to
project growth over the next 50-100 years at levels that some might consider
unreasonably high levels, and not wanting anyone to focus on these growth rates, as
opposed to the harvest projections, an alternate approach was implemented to grow
existing stands; cubic volume growth was limited to a 1% increase in cubic growth per
year. This growth level equates to an average of approximately 8 ft3/acre/year or 0.12
tons/acre/year for all grown stands. While this low level represents a very conservative
56
approach, by using it the growth projections used in this study will not yield results that
are overly optimistic and change the focus of this effort, or play a role in possibly
indicating that substantially higher harvest levels are possible when that may not be the
case. Growth can be adjusted upward in the future as more growth data are obtained
and analyzed that warrant such increases.
It is noteworthy that this low 1% cubic volume growth level, when applied to the Galena
Vicinity Available Biomass Inventory of 5,137,997 tons, amounts to an annual biomass
growth estimate of 51,380 tons/year, a level considerably higher than the maximum
targeted harvest level of 20,000 tons/year. As a result, even using this very low 1%
growth rate, the Available Biomass Inventory is actually experiencing a positive change
in total tonnage with each passing year during which growth exceeds harvest.
Lastly, as stands are harvested, they are replaced in the inventory with a reforested
stand of comparable species composition and growth potential that will be grown using
the stand table approach and the growth rates listed in Table 17.
Cost Projections
Cost projections used in this study are to a large degree based upon values presented
by Will Putnam in his 2010 Fort Yukon Biomass Resource Assessment with some minor
modifications. Galena does not have any timber harvest cost history and the projection
of such costs is rather nebulous at this point in time. What is important is that costs of a
correct relative magnitude are used so that costs, when compared, will tend to reflect
the relative total cost associated with different timber harvesting alternatives. For
example, summer season transportation and harvest costs may be significantly lower
than winter season transportation, as biomass may be hauled by truck over gravel or
dirt roads rather than on winter roads. Similarly, harvesting lower volume/acre stands
should cost more per ton than harvesting higher volume/acre stands and hauling
material a long distance should cost more than hauling the same material a short
distance. When developing cost estimates for alternatives we must assume that the
costs used will be sensitive to the different harvest activities, so that different
alternatives and scenarios may be ranked correctly based upon their relative benefits
(harvest levels) and associated costs. The costs shown in Table 18 were used to
develop the cost estimates for the harvest scenarios modeled in this study.
Costs concerned with equipment purchases or road development and construction have
not been included in these cost estimates. These costs reflect biomass harvest
investments that will be amortized over the life of the equipment or roads and their costs
will be charged to the volume that is produced. Costs per ton for such expenses may
be developed, once these costs are known, by spreading these costs over the total
number of tons of biomass harvested. Consequently, the higher the harvest level, the
lower the cost per ton for equipment and road construction.
57
All cost projections developed for the
harvest projections will be expressed
in terms of 2012 values with no
discounting of future costs for time.
As a result, all cost estimates are in
terms of 2012 values.
Selection Priorities
The development of harvest projections must involve the development of priorities that
can be used to select harvest units from a pool of available units; these selected units
then comprise annual and periodic harvest plans. Three different selection criteria were
used to develop the harvest projections for the Galena Vicinity. All of these criteria were
selected because they will tend to decrease the costs of harvest operations over the
entire harvest projection period. These criteria were:
1. Biomass/Acre – harvest units with the highest volume/acre will be selected
before stands with lower volume/acre. This strategy works in two ways. This
criterion tends to select harvest units comprised of more mature stands first, but
it also tends to select harvest units comprised of the Spruce-Hardwood Mix,
hardwood, and White Spruce type stands, rather than Black Spruce stands that
may be harder to regenerate. This strategy will also allow lower volume/acre
stands to grow and develop into higher volume/acre stands before they are
harvested.
2. Direction from Galena – harvest units will be selected within a geographic
direction from Galena rather than using a shotgun approach and letting the
model select units from any region of the Galena Vicinity. Transportation costs
will tend to be less if harvest units are selected in a similar direction from Galena
that may be accessed by the same transportation system(s), as this will require
less overall development and maintenance of the transportation system(s) than if
Table 18: Biomass Procurement Costs
$$ $$
Cost Category Per Acre Per Ton
Stumpage $ ‐ $ 5.00
Harvest $ 250.00 $ 10.00
Transportation
Winter Access $4.00/mile
Summer Access $2.00/mile
Reforestation $ 100.00
Administration $ 10.00 $ 1.00
58
transportation systems are needed to access the entire Galena Vicinity during
each year or harvest period.
The biomass available for harvest will be tracked within areas centered around
Galena. Harvest units will be selected for operation during any given 5-year
harvest period from the area with the highest available biomass at the start of the
harvest period. The available biomass per area will be recalculated at the start of
each 5-year harvest period based upon past harvest activity and growth.
3. Distance from Galena – harvest units within a geographic direction from Galena
will be selected so they are balanced with respect to the distance that the
harvested biomass must be transported back to Galena. Implementation of this
distance criterion will tend to balance transportation costs from period to period
for each option, rather than having high variability in periodic transportation costs
because the model selects units that are geographically clustered either closer to
Galena or farther from Galena than the average distance the biomass is located
from Galena.
The harvestBiomass Application
GRS has developed and used harvest modeling applications since 1999 when GRS
developed the harvest application and used it in California to model harvest levels for
Sustained Yield Management Plans required by the California Forest Practices Act.
GRS’s harvest application integrates stand inventory information, growth projections,
harvest level options, and selection criteria to model harvest projects. GRS has
modified the harvest application to perform site-specific biomass harvest modeling such
as is required to develop harvest projections for this project. The modified application is
called harvestBiomass.
Harvest Alternatives
Harvest alternatives were developed using harvestBiomass to determine whether or
not the maximum annual target level of 20,000 dry tons could be maintained (if this level
can be achieved, then all lesser levels of harvest can also be achieved). In order to
provide a long-term harvest perspective, GRS developed projections that extend to the
year 2111. Five different harvest scenarios were developed, based upon the major
goals and objectives of this study and the characteristics of the Available Biomass
Inventory. Options included different approaches with respect to land accessibility, as
well as distance from Galena, as these are both significant landscape characteristics of
the Galena Vicinity that will influence the Available Biomass Inventory and overall cost
of procuring biomass during future biomass procurement efforts.
59
The five harvest scenarios that were modeled using harvestBiomass are:
1. Acc1-Dist4 - Harvest biomass only within 18 miles of Galena on the Lowland
Access Class lands. The initial available biomass for this option totals 1,574,304
dry tons.
This option would concentrate harvest activities nearer Galena in Lowland
Access areas at a lower transportation cost, without having to access biomass in
more distant areas or in Upland Access areas. The potential detriment of this
plan would be the intensive level of harvest that would occur in the immediate
vicinity of Galena, as significant amounts of available biomass would be
harvested during the 100 year projection period. In addition, the more intensive
approach would require the harvest of areas of lower biomass/acre, including
some harvest units with greater amounts of black spruce.
2. Acc1 - Harvest biomass only on the Lowland Access Class lands. The initial
available biomass for this option is 2,551,865 dry tons. This option was selected
to determine if operations could be concentrated on Lowland Access areas
without having to access biomass on Upland Access areas.
This scenario would decrease the intensity of harvest activities within the
immediate vicinity of Galena and provide a larger pool of stands/harvest units for
selection, resulting in harvesting areas having higher biomass/acre. The
potential detriment of this plan is the higher cost of transporting biomass that
would be incurred by conducting Lowland harvest operations in areas 19-25
miles from Galena.
3. Acc1&2 - Harvest biomass from both the Lowland and Upland Access Class
lands. The initial available biomass for this option is 5,137,991 dry tons.
This option would decrease the reliance on harvesting only Lowland Access
areas with higher per ton transportation costs and replacing some of those
harvest areas with Upland Access areas that may have lower transportation
costs. The larger pool of available biomass and dramatically larger area under
forest management would enable greater selectivity in choosing harvest areas,
potentially leading to lower environmental impact of harvest operations. The
average biomass/acre harvested would likely increase. In addition, some harvest
activities and environmental impacts would be shifted from the Lowland Access
areas near the Yukon River into the surrounding Upland Access areas. The
potential detriment of this plan is that development of the transportation system in
the Upland Access areas would have to be undertaken at the start of the
planning period and would contribute significant startup costs in additional to
equipment, facility, and personnel startup costs. Upland road system
development would likely result in greater environmental impacts in the Upland
Access areas. In addition, the significant inventory and higher biomass/acre of
Upland stands added to the harvest pool might tend to shift some operations
60
farther out from town, as the model harvests biomass proportionate to its
distribution in the Galena Vicinity. This might possibly result in higher
transportation costs associated with the biomass harvested in Upland Access
areas.
4. Acc1D3/20-Acc1&2 – Harvest biomass only within 16 miles of Galena on the
Lowland Access Class lands for the first 20 years of the projection period, then
harvest biomass from both the Lowland and Upland Access Class lands. The
initial available biomass for this option is 1,574,304 dry tons for the first 20 years
of the plan; upon initiation of operations in Upland units, the available biomass
pool jumps to 5,137,991 dry tons for the duration of the plan.
This option would focus harvest operations on the closer Lowland Access areas
for the first 20 years and then switch to a combination of Lowland and Upland
Access areas after the biomass procurement program has become well
established. Upland transportation development costs would be delayed for 20
years and funds could be collected over the first 20 years of harvest operations
to support subsequent Upland transportation system development efforts (for
example, $1,000,000 of transportation development costs spread over 400,000
tons of biomass harvested during the first 20 years would result in adding an
additional fee of $2.50/ton to the biomass procurement costs in order to collect
sufficient funds necessary to support subsequent transportation development
needs in the Upland areas). The alternative’s large amount of available biomass
would enable greater selectivity in choosing harvest areas potentially leading to
harvesting higher biomass/acre harvest units. Spreading harvest operations over
such a large area would likely result in less environmental impact near Galena.
The potential detriment of this plan is similar to Option 3 above (Acc1&2) that
operations will be spread throughout Lowland and Upland areas as far as 25
miles from Galena possibly resulting in higher transportation costs. In addition,
Upland road system development would likely result in greater environmental
impacts in the Upland Access areas.
5. Acc1D3/20-Acc1&2Dist5 – This option is very similar to Option 4 above, but
with one deviation. As with option 4 biomass is harvested only near town (within
16 miles) on the Lowland (winter) Access Class lands for the first 20 years of the
projection period. After 20 years biomass is harvested from both the Lowland
and Upland Access Class lands that are within 21 miles from Galena (4 miles
less than Option 4). The initial available biomass for this option is 1,574,304 dry
tons for the first 20 years of the plan; upon initiation of operations in Upland units,
the available biomass pool jumps to approximately 2,862,000 dry tons for the
duration of the plan.
This option would focus harvest operations on the closer Lowland Access areas
for the first 20 years and then switch to a combination of Lowland and Upland
Access areas within 21 miles of Galena after the program has become well
established. Upland transportation development costs would be delayed and
61
funds could be collected over the first 20 years of harvest operations to support
subsequent Upland transportation development efforts similar previously
described under Option 4. The somewhat larger amount of available biomass
would enable greater selectivity in choosing harvest areas potentially leading to
lower environmental impact near Galena and along the Yukon River than for
Options 1 and 2. Transportation costs should be lower than Options 3 and 4, as
transportation would not be required out to 25 miles from Galena. Road building
in the Upland areas would be more limited than in Options 3 and 4. The potential
detriment of this plan is that harvest operations may still be too intensive near
Galena and in Lowland areas along the Yukon River leading to potentially higher
environmental impact in these areas. Road system development in the Upland
Access areas would be considerably less than in Options 3 and 4 resulting in
less environmental impact(s) under this option.
Harvest Projection Results
Biomass and Acreage
The harvestBiomass model results of all five harvest scenarios demonstrate that all
five options are viable with respect to procuring the maximum target biomass harvest
level of 20,000 tons/year. Therefore, as stated previously, lower annual and periodic
levels of biomass harvest can be undertaken and sustained in the Galena Vicinity
(higher levels were not modeled). The periodic average annual flow of biomass, for all
five modeled harvest scenarios, is shown in Figure 15, along with the number of acres
harvested by 5-year period for each modeled option. All options tend to demonstrate
that after the initial 10-15 years of harvesting, the number of acres harvested gradually
declines over time to about half the initial number of acres harvested. This decline in
acres harvested is because there is a surplus of available biomass, the biomass
inventory is growing (growth exceeds harvest), and biomass/acre levels are gradually
increasing over time in stands that have not been harvested. Harvesting units having
higher levels of biomass/acre means fewer acres need to be harvested per year to
generate the same level of biomass harvest.
While the ability to achieve the maximum harvest biomass target level of 20,000
tons/year was met by all five scenarios, each scenario was undertaken with different
selection criteria and constraints. The site-specific harvest locations for each modeled
scenario are mapped in Figures 16-20. Each figure shows the locations of the harvest
units that would be harvested to meet the target harvest level. Harvest units are color
coded to represent their different harvest levels in terms of tons/acre. Of particular note
is that the mapped results for Options 1 and 2, which are more limited in their area of
available biomass, show a higher concentration of operations (more intensive) in those
specific areas. In addition, these mapped results for Options 1 and 2 show that far
more harvest units of lower biomass/acre (as indicated by the area of yellow, orange,
and red colored harvest units) are being harvested under these alternatives, than do the
mapped results of Options 3 – 5, which all represent less intensive approaches due to
the larger areas and pools of biomass available for harvest under these options.
0200040006000800010000120000500010000150002000025000300002012
2016
2021
2026
2031
2036
2041
2046
2051
2056
2061
2066
2071
2076
2081
2086
2091
2096
210121062111Periodic AcreageDry Tons per Year YearFigure 15: Long-term Sustained Biomass and Acreage Harvest Projections 2012-2011Projected HarvestTarget Harvest LevelOption 1 Acreage (Periodic)Option 2 Acreage (Periodic)Option 3 Acreage (Periodic)Option 4 Acreage (Periodic)Option 5 Acreage (Periodic) 62
eeGalenaKoyukukFigure 16: Option 1 Modeled Harvest Units and Biomass/Acre³09184.5MilesOption 1:A1D4TONS Per ACRE0.00.01 - 4.04.01 - 10.010.01 - 15.015.01 - 20.020.01 - 25.025.01 - 30.030.01 - 35.035.01 - 40.0>= 40.01 63
eeGalenaKoyukukFigure 17: Option 2 Modeled Harvest Units and Biomass/Acre³09184.5MilesOption 2:A1TONS Per ACRE0.00.01 - 4.04.01 - 10.010.01 - 15.015.01 - 20.020.01 - 25.025.01 - 30.030.01 - 35.035.01 - 40.0>= 40.01 64
eeGalenaKoyukukFigure 18: Option 3 Modeled Harvest Units and Biomass/Acre³09184.5MilesOption 3:A1_A2TONS Per ACRE0.00.01 - 4.04.01 - 10.010.01 - 15.015.01 - 20.020.01 - 25.025.01 - 30.030.01 - 35.035.01 - 40.0>= 40.01 65
eeGalenaKoyukukFigure 19: Option 4 Modeled Harvest Units and Biomass/Acre³09184.5MilesOption 4:A1D3_A2TONS Per ACRE0.00.01 - 4.04.01 - 10.010.01 - 15.015.01 - 20.020.01 - 25.025.01 - 30.030.01 - 35.035.01 - 40.0>= 40.01 66
eeGalenaKoyukukFigure 20: Option 5 Modeled Harvest Units and Biomass/Acre³09184.5MilesOption 5:A1D3_A2D5TONS Per ACRE0.00.01 - 4.04.01 - 10.010.01 - 15.015.01 - 20.020.01 - 25.025.01 - 30.030.01 - 35.035.01 - 40.0>= 40.01 67
68
The projected decadal inventory, growth, and harvest levels for each of the five options
are shown in Tables 19-23 and displayed graphically in associated Figures 21-25. All of
these tables and figures show the same general trend under all five harvest options that
biomass growth on Available Biomass Inventory acres in the Galena Vicinity is
exceeding the targeted biomass harvest level of 20,000 dry tons/year and that the total
Available Biomass Inventory is increasing over time. Of note is that biomass harvested
under Options 1 and 2 that involve only Lowland Access areas have a higher
percentage of hardwood composition (44% and 39% respectively) than does the
biomass harvested under Options 3-5, which average 32%, 33%, and 37% respectively.
In addition, one aspect of these results not shown in these summary data, but included
in the harvest unit specific detailed listings generated by harvestBiomass, is that
during the 2101-2110 decade of Option 1 the model actually begins to harvest for a
second time acres that were previously harvested and reforested during the first decade
of Option 1. This indicates, as shown in Figure 16, that the modeled harvest operations
are intensive enough that by 2101 most of the higher biomass producing forestlands
have now been harvested and managed reforested forestlands are now being selected
for subsequent harvests into the 2100’s, even though there has been a very sizable
accumulation of biomass on other nearby lands not included in this harvest scenario.
A summary of the total biomass harvested, acres logged, and average tons/acre
harvested by option is included the leftmost portion of Table 24. A summary of the
average annual biomass harvested, acres logged, and average ton/acre harvested by
option is included the leftmost portion of Table 25. All five options show a total biomass
harvest of nearly 2,000,000 dry tons during the 2012-2110 projection period. Total
harvest acreages for the Lowland only harvest Options 1 and 2 are approximately
8,000-17,000 acres higher than the harvested acres of the combined Lowland and
Upland harvest options. These higher levels of harvested acres correspond with the
lower average tons/acre levels for units harvested under Options 1 and 2 that average
of 2.5 to 5 tons/acre lower than the tons/acre values for the combined Lowland and
Upland harvest options. Some might think this means that Lowland areas support lower
stand biomass, but instead this simply demonstrates that the larger area of available
harvest under Options 3-5 enables greater opportunity to be more selective harvesting
the higher biomass/acre harvest units while dispersing harvest operations over a larger
area and potentially decreasing harvest intensity in the areas subject to harvest
procurement operations.
Biomass Procurement Cost Estimates
Biomass procurement costs for each option were developed by applying the Forest
Management Cost estimates listed in Table 19 to the site-specific harvest unit acreages
and biomass values of harvest units selected and harvested as harvestBiomass
processed each alternative harvest scenario. Table 24 contains the total estimated cost
by category for each modeled option, as well as cost/ton estimates. Figure 26
illustrates these biomass procurement costs by category and option.
Table 19: Option 1 ‐ Projected Periodic Total Available Biomass Inventory, Growth, and Harvest Levels
by Decade from 2012‐2110
Inventory ‐ Dry Tons Growth ‐ Dry Tons Harvest ‐ Dry Tons
Period Conifer Hardwood Total Conifer Hardwood Total Conifer Hardwood Total
2012‐2020 3,270,458 1,867,534 5,137,991 343,893 200,225 544,118 101,349 60,093 161,442
2021‐2030 3,513,002 2,007,666 5,520,668 400,382 235,391 635,773 120,571 81,598 202,169 0 030 3,5 3,00 ,00 ,666 5,5 0,668 00,38 35,39 635, 3 0,5 8 ,598 0,69
2031‐2040 3,792,813 2,161,459 5,954,272 427,396 241,875 669,272 102,876 97,216 200,092
2041‐2050 4,117,333 2,306,119 6,423,451 470,051 273,671 743,722 110,501 88,869 199,370
2051‐2060 4,476,883 2,490,920 6,967,803 518,678 300,614 819,293 100,609 99,203 199,812
2061‐2070 4,894,952 2,692,331 7,587,283 584,987 349,930 934,917 116,052 84,790 200,842
2071‐2080 5,363,887 2,957,471 8,321,358 644,688 408,063 1,052,752 103,668 97,676 201,343
2081‐2090 5,904,908 3,267,859 9,172,767 736,822 480,630 1,217,451 123,487 79,742 203,229
2091‐2100 6,518,242 3,668,747 10,186,989 821,930 554,116 1,376,045 114,679 85,001 199,680
2101‐2110 7,225,493 4,137,861 11,363,354 900,698 627,537 1,528,235 112,556 87,707 200,263
2111 8,013,635 4,677,691 12,691,32621118,013,635 4,677,691 12,691,326
Totals 5,849,526 3,672,052 9,521,578 1,106,349 861,895 1,968,243
56% 44%
Figure 21: Option 1 Projected Periodic Available
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
Figure 21: Option 1 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000 Dry TonsFigure 21: Option 1 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2012 2020 2021 2030 2031 2040 2041 2050 2051 2060 2061 2070 2071 2080 2081 2090 2091 2100 2101 2110 2111Dry TonsFigure 21: Option 1 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2012-2020 2021-2030 2031-2040 2041-2050 2051-2060 2061-2070 2071-2080 2081-2090 2091-2100 2101-2110 2111Dry TonsDecade
Figure 21: Option 1 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
69
Table 20: Option 2 ‐ Projected Periodic Total Available Biomass Inventory, Growth, and Harvest Levels
by Decade from 2012‐2110
Inventory ‐ Dry Tons Growth ‐ Dry Tons Harvest ‐ Dry Tons
Period Conifer Hardwood Total Conifer Hardwood Total Conifer Hardwood Total
2012‐2020 3,270,458 1,867,534 5,137,991 342,660 200,073 542,733 108,633 51,557 160,190
2021‐2030 3,504,485 2,016,050 5,520,535 397,470 235,630 633,100 121,145 79,345 200,489 0 030 3,50 , 85 ,0 6,050 5,5 0,535 39 , 0 35,630 633, 00 ,5 9,3 5 00, 89
2031‐2040 3,780,810 2,172,335 5,953,145 420,654 249,316 669,970 136,677 65,011 201,688
2041‐2050 4,064,787 2,356,641 6,421,427 470,720 286,002 756,722 135,459 65,411 200,870
2051‐2060 4,400,047 2,577,232 6,977,279 512,846 312,410 825,256 110,775 80,849 191,624
2061‐2070 4,802,118 2,808,793 7,610,911 583,453 363,309 946,762 117,531 77,371 194,901
2071‐2080 5,268,041 3,094,731 8,362,771 646,405 418,998 1,065,402 131,569 68,735 200,304
2081‐2090 5,782,876 3,444,993 9,227,869 731,728 494,707 1,226,435 117,903 81,303 199,206
2091‐2100 6,396,702 3,858,397 10,255,098 785,678 536,751 1,322,429 110,841 89,404 200,244
2101‐2110 7,071,539 4,305,744 11,377,283 895,859 623,055 1,518,915 105,509 94,564 200,073
2111 7,861,890 4,834,235 12,696,12521117,861,890 4,834,235 12,696,125
Totals 5,787,473 3,720,250 9,507,723 1,196,041 753,549 1,949,590
61% 39%
Figure 22: Option 2 Projected Periodic Available
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
Figure 22: Option 2 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000 Dry TonsFigure 22: Option 2 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2012 2020 2021 2030 2031 2040 2041 2050 2051 2060 2061 2070 2071 2080 2081 2090 2091 2100 2101 2110 2111Dry TonsFigure 22: Option 2 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2012-2020 2021-2030 2031-2040 2041-2050 2051-2060 2061-2070 2071-2080 2081-2090 2091-2100 2101-2110 2111Dry TonsDecade
Figure 22: Option 2 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
70
Table 21: Option 3 ‐ Projected Periodic Total Available Biomass Inventory, Growth, and Harvest Levels
by Decade from 2012‐2110
Inventory ‐ Dry Tons Growth ‐ Dry Tons Harvest ‐ Dry Tons
Period Conifer Hardwood Total Conifer Hardwood Total Conifer Hardwood Total
2012‐2020 3,270,458 1,867,534 5,137,991 344,457 203,072 547,529 113,280 48,396 161,676
2021‐2030 3,501,634 2,022,210 5,523,844 399,291 238,710 638,001 133,685 67,606 201,291 0 030 3,50 ,63 ,0,0 5,5 3,8 399, 9 38, 0 638,00 33,685 6 ,606 0,9
2031‐2040 3,767,241 2,193,313 5,960,554 439,382 264,899 704,281 137,647 62,561 200,208
2041‐2050 4,068,976 2,395,651 6,464,627 467,389 289,379 756,768 137,206 65,676 202,882
2051‐2060 4,399,158 2,619,354 7,018,512 510,432 324,087 834,519 136,935 65,006 201,941
2061‐2070 4,772,656 2,878,434 7,651,090 568,943 373,095 942,038 144,315 55,388 199,704
2071‐2080 5,197,284 3,196,141 8,393,424 624,847 422,116 1,046,963 129,374 74,610 203,984
2081‐2090 5,692,757 3,543,646 9,236,403 707,375 499,856 1,207,231 133,589 68,871 202,460
2091‐2100 6,266,543 3,974,631 10,241,174 802,170 575,999 1,378,169 139,777 63,481 203,258
2101‐2110 6,928,936 4,487,149 11,416,085 887,754 650,187 1,537,941 132,838 69,145 201,983
2111 7,683,852 5,068,190 12,752,04221117,683,852 5,068,190 12,752,042
Totals 5,752,040 3,841,398 9,593,438 1,338,645 640,742 1,979,387
68% 32%
Figure 23: Option 3 Projected Periodic Available
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
Figure 23: Option 3 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000 Dry TonsFigure 23: Option 3 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2012 2020 2021 2030 2031 2040 2041 2050 2051 2060 2061 2070 2071 2080 2081 2090 2091 2100 2101 2110 2111Dry TonsFigure 23: Option 3 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2012-2020 2021-2030 2031-2040 2041-2050 2051-2060 2061-2070 2071-2080 2081-2090 2091-2100 2101-2110 2111Dry TonsDecade
Figure 23: Option 3 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
71
Table 22: Option 4 ‐ Projected Periodic Total Available Biomass Inventory, Growth, and Harvest Levels
by Decade from 2012‐2110
Inventory ‐ Dry Tons Growth ‐ Dry Tons Harvest ‐ Dry Tons
Period Conifer Hardwood Total Conifer Hardwood Total Conifer Hardwood Total
2012‐2020 3,270,458 1,867,534 5,137,991 340,386 202,043 542,430 96,270 65,569 161,839
2021‐2030 3,514,574 2,004,008 5,518,582 398,596 230,204 628,800 115,398 84,680 200,078 0 030 3,5 ,5 ,00 ,008 5,5 8,58 398,596 30, 0 6 8,800 5,398 8 ,680 00,0 8
2031‐2040 3,797,772 2,149,532 5,947,304 443,523 261,401 704,924 140,747 59,997 200,743
2041‐2050 4,100,548 2,350,937 6,451,484 478,107 289,549 767,657 145,907 54,555 200,462
2051‐2060 4,432,748 2,585,931 7,018,679 519,004 324,262 843,267 135,103 65,131 200,233
2061‐2070 4,816,649 2,845,063 7,661,712 545,242 354,856 900,097 130,569 70,636 201,205
2071‐2080 5,231,322 3,129,282 8,360,604 632,667 427,863 1,060,530 145,019 55,866 200,885
2081‐2090 5,718,970 3,501,280 9,220,249 718,852 506,709 1,225,561 133,825 66,708 200,533
2091‐2100 6,303,997 3,941,281 10,245,278 796,077 577,327 1,373,404 149,830 56,859 206,689
2101‐2110 6,950,243 4,461,750 11,411,993 885,711 643,840 1,529,551 130,131 74,122 204,253
2111 7,705,824 5,031,468 12,737,29121117,705,824 5,031,468 12,737,291
Totals 5,758,165 3,818,055 9,576,220 1,322,799 654,121 1,976,920
67% 33%
Figure 24: Option 4 Projected Periodic Available
ItGthdH tbDd
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
Figure 24: Option 4 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000 Dry TonsFigure 24: Option 4 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2012 2020 2021 2030 2031 2040 2041 2050 2051 2060 2061 2070 2071 2080 2081 2090 2091 2100 2101 2110 2111Dry TonsFigure 24: Option 4 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2012-2020 2021-2030 2031-2040 2041-2050 2051-2060 2061-2070 2071-2080 2081-2090 2091-2100 2101-2110 2111Dry TonsDecade
Figure 24: Option 4 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
72
Table 23: Option 5 ‐ Projected Periodic Total Available Biomass Inventory, Growth, and Harvest Levels
by Decade from 2012‐2110
Inventory ‐ Dry Tons Growth ‐ Dry Tons Harvest ‐ Dry Tons
Period Conifer Hardwood Total Conifer Hardwood Total Conifer Hardwood Total
2012‐2020 3,270,458 1,867,534 5,137,991 340,392 201,914 542,305 94,755 65,899 160,654
2021‐2030 3,516,094 2,003,548 5,519,643 398,475 229,841 628,316 116,448 83,951 200,399 0 030 3,5 6,09 ,003,5 8 5,5 9,6 3 398, 5 9,8 6 8,3 6 6, 8 83,95 00,399
2031‐2040 3,798,121 2,149,439 5,947,560 439,957 257,780 697,737 127,978 69,562 197,540
2041‐2050 4,110,100 2,337,657 6,447,757 469,898 282,414 752,312 132,318 60,118 192,436
2051‐2060 4,447,679 2,559,953 7,007,632 523,639 323,352 846,991 118,979 72,701 191,680
2061‐2070 4,852,339 2,810,604 7,662,943 570,289 361,642 931,931 120,410 79,148 199,558
2071‐2080 5,302,218 3,093,098 8,395,316 640,663 424,598 1,065,261 128,758 72,301 201,059
2081‐2090 5,814,123 3,445,395 9,259,518 718,764 497,262 1,216,027 126,700 72,973 199,673
2091‐2100 6,406,187 3,869,685 10,275,872 797,987 569,110 1,367,097 130,238 58,595 188,832
2101‐2110 7,073,936 4,380,200 11,454,136 884,109 636,176 1,520,285 121,961 78,754 200,715
2111 7,836,085 4,937,622 12,773,70621117,836,085 4,937,622 12,773,706
Totals 5,784,172 3,784,089 9,568,260 1,218,545 714,001 1,932,546
63% 37%
Figure 25: Option 5 Projected Periodic Available
ItGthdH tbDd
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
Figure 25: Option 5 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000 Dry TonsFigure 25: Option 5 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2012 2020 2021 2030 2031 2040 2041 2050 2051 2060 2061 2070 2071 2080 2081 2090 2091 2100 2101 2110 2111Dry TonsFigure 25: Option 5 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
2012-2020 2021-2030 2031-2040 2041-2050 2051-2060 2061-2070 2071-2080 2081-2090 2091-2100 2101-2110 2111Dry TonsDecade
Figure 25: Option 5 Projected Periodic Available
Inventory, Growth, and Harvest by Decade
- All Species
Inventory
Growth
Harvest
73
Table 24: Total Cost, Biomass, and Acreage Summary by OptionOption Harvest Total Total Average Harvest and Reforestation Transportation Administrative Total TransporationNumber Option Acres Biomass (Tons) Tons/Acre Stumpage Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs $/Ton Miles/Ton1Acc1‐D487,995 1,968,244 22.37 51,516,798$ 8,797,257$ 90,162,030$ 2,847,969$ 153,324,055$ 77.90$ 12.35 % of Total34%6%59%2%2Acc183,864 1,949,590 23.25 50,204,946$ 8,384,439$ 121,322,644$ 2,788,034$ 182,700,063$ 93.71$ 16.67 % of Total27%5%66%2%3Acc1‐Acc270,979 1,979,387 27.89 47,435,536$ 7,097,891$ 131,166,274$ 2,689,176$ 188,388,877$ 95.18$ 19.71 % of Total25%4%70%1%4Acc1D3‐Acc271,129 1,976,920 27.79 47,435,898$ 7,112,839$ 129,470,359$ 2,688,204$ 186,707,300$ 94.44$ 19.26 %ofTotal25%4%69%1%% of Total25%4%69%1%5Acc1D3‐Acc2D575,501 1,932,546 25.60 47,863,341$ 7,550,062$ 109,604,486$ 2,687,552$ 167,705,442$ 86.78$ 16.30 % of Total26%4%59%1%$200,000,000 AdministrationAdministration$2 689 176AdministrationFigure 26: Total Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and Option$120,000,000 $140,000,000 $160,000,000 $180,000,000 $200,000,000 Transportation$121,322,644Transportation$131,166,274Transportation$129,470,359TransportationAdministration$2,847,969 Administration$2,788,034 Administration$2,689,176 Administration$2,688,204 Administration$2,687,552 arsFigure 26: Total Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and Option$60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 $140,000,000 $160,000,000 $180,000,000 $200,000,000 Reforestation$8,797,257 Reforestation$8,384,439Reforestation$0989Reforestation$ 2 839Reforestation$7 550 062Transportation$90,162,030Transportation$121,322,644Transportation$131,166,274Transportation$129,470,359Transportation$109,604,486Administration$2,847,969 Administration$2,788,034 Administration$2,689,176 Administration$2,688,204 Administration$2,687,552 Cost in DollarsFigure 26: Total Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and Option$‐$20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 $140,000,000 $160,000,000 $180,000,000 $200,000,000 12345Harvest & Stumpage$51,516,798 Harvest & Stumpage$50,204,946 Harvest & Stumpage$47,435,536 Harvest & Stumpage$47,435,898 Harvest & Stumpage$47,863,341 Reforestation$8,797,257 Reforestation$8,384,439 Reforestation$7,097,891 Reforestation$7,112,839 Reforestation$7,550,062 Transportation$90,162,030Transportation$121,322,644Transportation$131,166,274Transportation$129,470,359Transportation$109,604,486Administration$2,847,969 Administration$2,788,034 Administration$2,689,176 Administration$2,688,204 Administration$2,687,552 Cost in DollarsFigure 26: Total Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and Option$‐$20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 $140,000,000 $160,000,000 $180,000,000 $200,000,000 12345Harvest & Stumpage$51,516,798 Harvest & Stumpage$50,204,946 Harvest & Stumpage$47,435,536 Harvest & Stumpage$47,435,898 Harvest & Stumpage$47,863,341 Reforestation$8,797,257 Reforestation$8,384,439 Reforestation$7,097,891 Reforestation$7,112,839 Reforestation$7,550,062 Transportation$90,162,030Transportation$121,322,644Transportation$131,166,274Transportation$129,470,359Transportation$109,604,486Administration$2,847,969 Administration$2,788,034 Administration$2,689,176 Administration$2,688,204 Administration$2,687,552 Cost in DollarsHarvest Option Figure 26: Total Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and Option 74
Table 25: Average Annual Cost, Biomass, and Acreage Summary by OptionOption Harvest Total Total Average Harvest and Reforestation Transportation Administrative Total TransporationNumber Option Acres Biomass (Tons) Tons/Acre Stumpage Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs $/Ton Miles/Ton1Acc1‐D4898 20,084 22.37 525,682$ 89,768$ 920,021$ 29,061$ 1,564,531$ 77.90$ 12.35 % of Total34%6%59%2%2Acc1856 19,894 23.25 512,295$ 85,556$ 1,237,986$ 28,449$ 1,864,286$ 93.71$ 16.67 % of Total27%5%66%2%3Acc1‐Acc2724 20,198 27.89 484,036$ 72,427$ 1,338,431$ 27,441$ 1,922,335$ 95.18$ 19.71 % of Total25%4%70%1%4Acc1D3‐Acc2726 20,173 27.79 484,040$ 72,580$ 1,321,126$ 27,431$ 1,905,177$ 94.44$ 19.26 %ofTotal25%4%69%1%% of Total25%4%69%1%5Acc1D3‐Acc2D5770 19,720 25.60 488,401$ 77,041$ 1,118,413$ 27,424$ 1,711,280$ 86.78$ 16.30 % of Total26%4%59%1%$2,000,000 AdministrationAdministration$27,441 Administration$27 431Figure 27: Average Annual Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and Option$1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,000,000 TransportationTransportation$1,237,986Transportation$1,338,431Transportation$1,321,126TransportationAdministration$29,061 Administration$28,449 Administration$27,441 Administration$27,431 Administration$27,424 arsFigure 27: Average Annual Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and Option$600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,000,000 Reforestation$89,768 Reforestation$85,556 Reforestation$72 427Reforestation$72 580Reforestation$77 041Transportation$920,021Transportation$1,237,986Transportation$1,338,431Transportation$1,321,126Transportation$1,118,413Administration$29,061 Administration$28,449 Administration$27,441 Administration$27,431 Administration$27,424 Cost in DollarsFigure 27: Average Annual Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and Option$‐$200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,000,000 12345Harvest & Stumpage$525,682 Harvest & Stumpage$512,295 Harvest & Stumpage$484,036 Harvest & Stumpage$484,040 Harvest & Stumpage$488,401 Reforestation$89,768 Reforestation$85,556 Reforestation$72,427 Reforestation$72,580 Reforestation$77,041 Transportation$920,021Transportation$1,237,986Transportation$1,338,431Transportation$1,321,126Transportation$1,118,413Administration$29,061 Administration$28,449 Administration$27,441 Administration$27,431 Administration$27,424 Cost in DollarsFigure 27: Average Annual Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and Option$‐$200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,000,000 12345Harvest & Stumpage$525,682 Harvest & Stumpage$512,295 Harvest & Stumpage$484,036 Harvest & Stumpage$484,040 Harvest & Stumpage$488,401 Reforestation$89,768 Reforestation$85,556 Reforestation$72,427 Reforestation$72,580 Reforestation$77,041 Transportation$920,021Transportation$1,237,986Transportation$1,338,431Transportation$1,321,126Transportation$1,118,413Administration$29,061 Administration$28,449 Administration$27,441 Administration$27,431 Administration$27,424 Cost in DollarsHarvest Option Figure 27: Average Annual Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and Option 75
76
Total Cost estimates for the entire projection period ranged from a low of approximately
$153 million ($77.90/ton) for Option 1 to a high of over $188 million ($95.18/ton) for
Option 3, a difference of approximately $33 million or $16.28/ton. The total estimated
cost of $168 million ($86.78/ton) for Option 5 falls between these two extremes,
whereas the $183 million ($93.71/ton) cost of Option 2 and $187 million ($94.44/ton)
cost of Option 4 fall very close to the highest cost level of Option 3.
Table 25 contains the estimated average annual cost by category for each modeled
option, as well as $cost/ton estimates. Figure 27 illustrates these average annual
biomass procurement costs by category and option. Total annual costs are estimated to
range from a low of approximately $1.6 million/year for Option 1 to a high of
approximately $1.9 million/year for Option 3. Option 5, the midrange costing option is
approximately $1.7 million/year. The average annual biomass procurement costs by
category that comprise the figures shown in Table 25 are shown by decade for each
option in figures 28-32.
The values in tables 24 and 25 indicate that the most significant cost category is the
Transportation Costs, as these costs range from 59% to 70% of the total biomass
procurement costs that have been modeled. Transportation Costs are projected to be
more than 59% percent of total procurement costs in all five modeled scenarios.
Harvest and Stumpage Costs were the next most significant cost category ranging from
25% to 34% of the total biomass procurement costs. Reforestation Costs were a
relatively small component of total costs comprising from 4-6% of total costs and
Administration Costs ranged from only 1-2% of the total costs.
Ranking options based upon Total Costs is directly related to the ranking of alternatives
based upon Transportation Costs. A comparison of these cost estimates make it
perfectly clear why Options 2-4 had the highest total estimated biomass procurement
costs and cost in terms of tons/acre. Options 2-4 have Transportation Costs that are
$31 to $41 million higher than Option 1 and $12 to $22 million more than Option 5. All
of these three higher cost options were based upon harvesting biomass from the most
distant parts of the Galena Vicinity, including the furthest Distance Zones located 22-25
miles from Galena. It is apparent that shifting harvest operations into the most distant
areas of the Galena Vicinity, in order to harvest higher biomass/acre stands and
potentially lessen the harvest intensity and environmental impact of harvest operations
near Galena and the Yukon River, certainly has a cost associated with this strategy; this
cost can be estimated as the difference in the estimates of biomass procurement costs.
Ranking options based upon other non-transportation costs yields a different ranking of
alternatives. Harvest and Stumpage Costs, Reforestation Costs, and Administration
Costs are lowest for Options 3 and 4 and slightly higher for Option 5. These costs are
related to both the acreage and biomass/acre harvested and not its location. Options 3
and 4, which involve the largest areas of available inventory, have the highest average
tons/acre values at 27.89 and 27.79 tons/acre. Option 5 is slightly lower at 25.60
tons/acre. Option 1 and 2 are considerable lower at 22.37 and 23.25 tons/acre.
$562,428 $562,567 $586,987 $544,966 $550,482 $493,414 $532,593 $529,088 $479,866 $421,774 $103,890 $103,725 $114,739 $98,365 $100,306 $76,860 $92,231 $89,698 $72,138 $48,552 $1,012,692 $974,682 $994,295 $814,448 $774,522 $1,064,589 $815,933 $1,103,022 $772,692 $891,866 $30,569 $30,589 $31,483 $29,773 $30,012 $27,770 $29,357 $29,293 $27,182 $24,881 $‐$500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 2013‐2020 2021‐2030 2031‐2040 2041‐2050 2051‐20602061‐20702071‐2080 2081‐2090 2091‐2100 2101‐2100DollarsDecade ‐YearsFigure 28: Option 1 Average Annual Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and DecadeAdministrative CostsTransportation CostsReforestation CostsHarvest & Stumpage Costs 77
$573,319 $622,855 $527,772 $515,138 $520,252 $503,677 $487,747 $479,022 $493,685 $411,692 $109,185 $128,848 $90,096 $85,533 $93,126 $84,530 $74,916 $72,085 $77,327 $44,633 $1,273,824 $1,206,399 $1,729,861 $1,377,839 $1,140,333 $1,128,750 $1,251,728 $1,024,710 $1,232,233 $1,021,353 $30,942 $32,934 $29,178 $28,640 $28,475 $27,943 $27,522 $27,129 $27,757 $24,471 $‐$500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 2013‐2020 2021‐2030 2031‐2040 2041‐2050 2051‐20602061‐20702071‐2080 2081‐2090 2091‐2100 2101‐2100DollarsDecade ‐YearsFigure 28: Option 2 Average Annual Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and DecadeAdministrative CostsTransportation CostsReforestation CostsHarvest & Stumpage Costs 78
$569,411 $558,396 $523,973 $503,803 $494,715 $448,729 $475,820 $453,958 $418,491 $410,140 $106,507 $102,584 $89,464 $79,792 $76,722 $59,669 $67,937 $60,107 $45,441 $42,866 $1,294,081 $1,248,446 $1,325,539 $1,417,050 $1,349,617 $1,360,370 $1,429,098 $1,323,901 $1,426,355 $1,200,987 $30,860 $30,387 $28,967 $28,267 $27,866 $25,937 $27,192 $26,257 $24,870 $24,485 $‐$500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 2013‐2020 2021‐2030 2031‐2040 2041‐2050 2051‐20602061‐20702071‐2080 2081‐2090 2091‐2100 2101‐2100DollarsDecade ‐YearsFigure 30: Option 3 Average Annual Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and DecadeAdministrative CostsTransportation CostsReforestation CostsHarvest & Stumpage Costs 79
$580,523 $582,334 $516,938 $489,758 $470,966 $484,111 $442,475 $461,877 $431,777 $398,937 $110,830 $112,887 $86,329 $75,626 $68,246 $72,921 $56,459 $64,431 $48,698 $37,023 $1,025,503 $973,645 $1,310,900 $1,454,023 $1,296,100 $1,500,795 $1,522,040 $1,228,273 $1,485,561 $1,355,298 $31,313 $31,296 $28,707 $27,609 $26,848 $27,413 $25,734 $26,496 $25,539 $24,128 $‐$500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 2013‐2020 2021‐2030 2031‐2040 2041‐2050 2051‐20602061‐20702071‐2080 2081‐2090 2091‐2100 2101‐2100DollarsDecade ‐YearsFigure 31: Option 4 Average Annual Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and DecadeAdministrative CostsTransportation CostsReforestation CostsHarvest & Stumpage Costs 80
$576,375 $581,053 $520,549 $502,197 $466,764 $487,105 $472,812 $473,924 $410,406 $410,423 $110,060 $112,182 $89,695 $85,417 $71,698 $75,107 $68,489 $69,766 $50,863 $43,741 $1,033,682 $974,292 $1,136,590 $1,181,027 $1,139,666 $1,189,230 $1,143,590 $1,080,348 $1,140,865 $1,147,895 $31,088 $31,258 $28,724 $27,785 $26,338 $27,467 $26,955 $26,944 $23,970 $24,446 $‐$500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 2013‐2020 2021‐2030 2031‐2040 2041‐2050 2051‐20602061‐20702071‐2080 2081‐2090 2091‐2100 2101‐2100DollarsDecade ‐YearsFigure 32: Option 5 Average Annual Biomass Procurement Costs by Category and DecadeAdministrative CostsTransportation CostsReforestation CostsHarvest & Stumpage Costs 81
82
These other non-transportation costs for Options 1 and 2 are from $5 to 6 million higher
than the same costs for Options 3 and 4 and approximately $5 million higher than
Option 5. Just as there was a difference in Transportation Costs associated with
shifting harvest operations farther away from Galena, there is also a difference in non-
transportation costs that is related to being able to select for harvest those units with
higher tons/acre levels which results in lower acreages being harvested per year and
most likely a corresponding decrease in the intensity of forest management operations.
While Option 1 has the lowest total biomass procurement cost, it may also have the
highest impact on the Lowland Access areas located along the Yukon River within 18
miles of Galena, as it results in a concentration of harvest operations and the highest
number of acres logged and reforested on Lowland Access areas near Galena. Option
2 extends harvest operations on Lowland Access areas out through the full 25-mile
Galena Vicinity at a significantly higher transportation cost, a slightly lower non-
transportation cost, and decreases in the intensity of harvest operations near Galena
and the number of acres logged and reforested. Option 3 further extends harvest
operations throughout the full 25-mile Galena Vicinity on both Lowland and Upland
Access areas resulting in the highest Transportation Costs, the lowest non-
transportation costs, the least intensive harvest operations near Galena, and the
smallest number of acres logged and reforested. Option 4 is very similar to Option 3
with very slight differences in costs and intensity of operations. Option 5 enables
operations in both Lowland and Upland Access areas, but only within 21 miles of
Galena, thereby somewhat decreasing transportation costs. This option has the second
lowest transportation costs while at the same time results in significantly less intensive
harvest operations near Galena and a smaller number of acres logged and reforested
than Option 1. This option does however require building of summer season roads
which may increase environmental impact of these biomass procurement operations in
the Upland Access areas.
Of the five alternatives presented, Options 1 and 5 appear to represent the best
alternatives for future biomass procurement efforts in the Galena Vicinity. However,
these alternatives only represent options considered during this study and are not the
only possible alternatives that may be developed in the future. While cost is significant,
it may not be the best measure of determining which harvest option best meets the
needs of Galena. Differences in harvest intensity near Galena, acres logged and
reforested, Lowland versus Upland operations, and potential environmental impacts all
represent non-market (social) values important to the Galena community on which a
dollar value may not easily be placed. Ultimately the community of Galena will need to
make this decision regarding how biomass procurement operations will proceed.
83
Harvest Projection Warning(s)
Each harvest projection of this nature is based upon best estimates of inventory,
growth, management options, and cost. The resulting projections are simply plans that
may be used to evaluate the feasibility of different alternatives and rank feasible
outcomes based upon some measure of the benefits and costs associated with each
alternative. Each projection has an associated list of site-specific harvest units to
harvest each year in order to implement that projection (plan) and hopefully achieve
planned results.
However, such plans undertaken with computer models are by no means all
encompassing of every possible management option, constraint, or regulation and are
always subject to interpretation, modification, management, and implementation under
the direction of a professional resource manager.
Recommendations
1. The maximum biomass target level of 20,000 dry tons per year is a harvest level that
is sustainable over the long-term future of 100-years in the Galena Vicinity. All lower
harvest levels are also feasible.
2. Biomass should be harvested from the higher biomass/acre stands that are most
often White Spruce, Mixed Spruce, Mixed Spruce-Hardwood, Paper Birch, Balsam
Poplar, Salix-tree, or Mixed Hardwood stands. Avoid operations in slow growing
lower biomass/acre stands comprised primarily of black spruce, as their stunted form
and slow growth is indicative of high procurement costs, low productivity, potential
reforestation problems, and possible moisture/permafrost issues.
3. Initiate biomass procurement efforts initially at lower harvest levels before
undertaking higher harvest levels, rather than attempting to undertake an initial
harvest of 20,000 dry tons in the very first year of operations.
4. Harvest biomass from the Available Biomass Inventory that reflects biomass on
areas that do not include USF&WS refuges, water-body and streamside protection
zones, and the steeper slopes located along the Yukon River approximately 10-25
upriver from Galena (the Yukon River Slopes Access area). To the extent possible,
avoid creating new environmental issues in the Galena Vicinity.
5. Consider harvesting Lowland (winter) Access areas using harvest unit shapes that
conform to the gently curved oxbow-like natural boundaries of the present stands
rather than implementing unnatural looking square or angular straight boundaries.
6. Thoroughly study the transportation of biomass under winter and summer
conditions. Transportation costs comprise such a significant part of the total costs of
all five projections developed in this effort that there appear to be significant potential
84
cost savings, if more efficient and effective means of transportation are found and
implemented.
7. Thoroughly evaluate Options 1 and 5. Current transportation costs do not likely
warrant harvesting material further out than Distance Zone 5 (19-21 miles).
Accessing Upland Access areas to the south will require road development efforts
and costs, but greatly decrease harvest activity and potential environmental impacts
near and around Galena and the Yukon River. As both Options 1 and 5 are based
upon harvesting biomass in Lowland (winter) Access areas no more than 18 miles
from Galena during the first 15-20 years there is more than adequate time in the
next 10-15 years to thoroughly evaluate whether or not to develop the Upland area
biomass resource.
8. Develop long-term forest management agreements with the major landowners on
whose property biomass harvesting will occur. These projections assume that
biomass will be available for harvest on these lands. Doyon, the State of Alaska, the
Gana-A’Yoo, and BLM are four such landowners who own sizable portions of the
Available Biomass Inventory in the Galena Vicinity. Long-term use agreements
could lock in stumpage values, access, management requirements, and harvest
regulations pertinent to the future harvest of biomass on these lands.
9. Continue to develop natural resource information that can be used to better forecast
individual tree volumes, as well as stand growth and yield. Participate in projects
and share data in order to develop better volume and growth models. This may
involve the establishment of some permanent growth plots, where growth may be
monitored over time and data may be collected to better estimate local growth and
yield.
10. Plan, plan, plan, and then plan some more!
Deliverables
1. 2 copies of the complete Galena Working Circle GIS (GWCGIS) data set in an ESRI
compatible ArcGIS format to The Louden Tribal Council on DVD. Files are
shapefiles and grid format files. All GWCGIS data layers are referenced to the
Alaska Alber’s Equal Area Projection, NAD83 with units of meters (m). The
GWCGIS is organized as an ArcGIS v10.x Project. The project .mxd file, as well as
layer definition files (.lyr) used to create graphics for this report are included
2. All field data files and associated digital photographs and GPS locations.
3. Landsat TM satellite imagery used during this project and referenced to the GIS data
set.
4. Four printed copies of this report.
85
Acknowledgment
A significant portion of this project was made possible by the additional funding provided
by the Bureau of Land Management through their Challenge Cost Share Grant
Program. These additional funds were instrumental in providing additional field crew
members, as well additional means of transportation to the field data collection sites.
Grant funds also provided for additional data analysis and evaluation.
Bibliography
AK-DNR. Purchasing Firewood in Alaska. Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Community Forestry Fact Sheet. (www.dnr.state.ak.us/forestry).
BLM-AICC. 2012. Alaska Interagency Coordination Center. Fire History layers.
(http://fire.ak.blm.gov/aicc.php).
BLM-SDMS. 2012. Alaska BLM Spatial Data Management System. Ownership and
Administration layers. (http://sdms.ak.blm.gov/isdms/imf.jsp?site=sdms).
CES-UAF. 2008. Wood Energy Content. Cooperative Extension Service –University of
Alaska, Fairbanks.
Doyon. 2012. Doyon, Limited. Doyon Land Ownership
(http://doyon.com/lands/lands_overview.aspx).
Doyon. 2012. Doyon, Limited. Lands and Natural Resource Department. Native Lands
in the Galena Area Map. (www.doyonlands.com).
DU-INNO. 2002. Ducks Unlimited. Innoko Earth Cover Mapping Project.
DU-MELO. 2002. Ducks Unlimited. Melozitna River and Koyukuk National Wildlife
Refuge Earth Cover Mapping Project.
DU-NINNO. 2002. Ducks Unlimited. Northern Innoko Earth Cover Mapping Project.
Francescato, Valter, et. al.. 2008. Wood Fuels Handbook. Italian Agroforestry Energy
Association. (www.biomasstradecentres.eu).
Gregoire, Timothy. 2004. Bibliography Volume Equations. Yale Biometrics Lab, Yale
University.
Larson, Frederic and Winterberger, Kenneth. 1988. Tables and Equations for Estimating
Volumes of Trees in the Susitna River Basin, Alaska. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Publication PNW-RN-478.
86
Putnam, Will. 2010. Fort Yukon Biomass Resource Assessment. Tanana Chiefs
Conference, Forestry Program. Fairbanks, AK.
Putnam, Will. 2011. Woody Biomass Supply Issues – A Case Study. Alaska Wood
Energy Conference. Fairbanks, AK.
Putnam, Will. 2012. Asssessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources: Galena,
Alaska.Tanana Chiefs Conference, Forestry Program. Fairbanks, AK.
Seifert, Richard. 2011. Heating Values of Fuels. University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Publication EEM-04253.
Stumpf, Kenneth. 1993. From Pixels to Polygons: The Rule-Based Aggregation of
Satellite Image Classification Data Using Ecological Principles. In: Proc. Seventh
Annual Symposium on GIS in Forestry, Environment and Natural Resources,
Vancouver B.C. Canada, (2):939-945.
Stumpf, Kenneth. 1999. Task Order #2 – Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve Land
Cover Mapping Report. Landcover Mapping Services Contract #1443CX991097005,
National Park Service, Anchorage, AK.
USGS-GLOVIS. 2012. USGS Global Visualization Viewer. 30-meter TM imagery
(http://glovis.usgs.gov/).
USGS-NHD. 2012. USGS National Map Viewer. National Hydrography Dataset layers.
(http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/).