HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1678I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
J
J
HC
107
• .A.42
T3
v. 1
TANANA BASIN A
PHASE I
RESOURCE INVENTORY
August, 1983
FORESTRY ELEMENT
STATE OF ALASKA
Department of Natural Resources
4420 Airport Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
AN
CONTENTS
Chapter I Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Chapter2 Issues and Local Preferences .......................... 2-1
Chapter3 Demand for the Resource ............................. 3-1
Chapter4 Supply of the Resource ............................... 4-1
ChapterS Benefit-Cost Analysis ................................ 5-1
Chapter6 Demand vs. Supply .................................. 6-1
Chapter7 Recommendations .................................. 7-1
Appendices 4A. Mapping Procedures for Vegetation ............... .4A-1 ·
48. Linear Regression Analysis of the
Correlation of Vegetation Types .................. .48·1
4C. Estimated Timber Supply by Subunit ............... 4C-1
Bibliography
f-{C
jtJ7
, /ltfZ
13
y,f
FORESTRY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Tanana Basin includes 21 million acres of land along the
Tanana River stretching from the Canadian border on the east to the
Yukon River on the northwest. As shown in Figure 1, it includes the
most populated area of Alaska's Interior. The area which this plan
addresses includes all state selected, tentatively approved and
patented land within the Tanana Basin Boundary (exclusive of those
areas which have had area plans completed or which do not have state
in-holdings.)
1. SawtiDlber
The analysis presented here indicates that there are an
estimated 1.4 million acres of commercial forest land in the Basin
exclusive of the cross-hatched areas shown in Figure l. Of this,
an estimated 431 thousand acres are accessible. The accessible
allowable cut in the Basin on state-owned land is estimated to be 28
million board feet of sawtimber.
In contrast, the current demand for both seasoned and green
lumber and houselogs is estimated to be 24 million board feet within
the Basin. This is expected to increase to 36 million board feet by
the end ~f the century. It is not known how much of this demand is
for gre~n lumber and houselogs, which at the current time are the
only products available, but it is unlikely that the area would be-
come totally self-sufficient in sawtimber due to some consumer pre-
ferences for imported lumber.
This analysis indicates that the current net benefits of
sawtimber harvesting on state land in the Tanana Basin are
approximately $730,000 per year, or $20 per acre. Lumber and
houselog production also generate approximately $3.9 million in
income effects and about 115 jobs and have a positive fiscal effect
to the local government.
2.Fuelwood
The estimated supply of firewood is 164,000 cords per year.
However 1 since only a small area on either side of the roads is
actually accessible for fuelwood harvesting, it is iikely that the
supply is inadequate to meet the projected year 2000 demand of
approximately 63,000 cords per year unless new areas become
accessible for fuelwood harvesting.
The net benefits of fuelwood harvesting on state
about $1. 1 mill ion per year, or about $6 5 per acre.
~-----l"la~vest:~ng generates roughly $90,000 in income effects
~ small positive employment effect.
land total
Fuel wood
and has a
\,
_,
Chapter I
__ ;
_j
Introduction
j
---------------------_j
-~
lntroduetlon
This report completes Phase I of the Alaska State
Department of Natural Resources Tanana Basin Area planning
process. The report inventories and analyzes background
information on forestry in the Basin and will serve as the
basis for the continuing phases of the planning process.
Phase II will begin in February 1983 and was completed
by July 1983. It developed and evaluated a set of alter-
native scenarios for the management of state land in the
Basin. Phase III will result in a Draft Final Plan to be
completed by December 1983. The Final Plan will allocate
state owned land in the Basin to different uses and will
provide management guidelines for each use or combination
of uses.
The information in this report is part of a resource
inventory of seven resources including fish and game, agri-
culture, forestry, minerals, outdoor recreation, settlement
{land disposals) and water. The information included in
this report was gathered by the Tanana Basin Area Planning
staff of the DNR Division of Research and Development and
the.DNR Division of Forestry. People who participated in
the production of this report include Susan Todd {Project
Manager, Tanana Basin Area Plan); Steve Clautice {Assistant
District Forester, DNR Division of Forestry); Dan Wieczorek
(Timber Management Officer); and Delores 0' Mara {Natural
Resource Officer).
There are seven chapters in this report. Following
the introduction, the second chapter presents major issues
about forestry and land management. The third analyzes the
demand for forest products and the fourth discusses the
location of forests and estimates the volume of timber
available. The fifth chapter examines the benefits and
costs of forestry in the Basin and the sixth compares
demand and supply. Finally, the seventh chapter makes
recommendations concerning state land allocations which
would be preferable from an forestry standpoint.
l
' j
l
_j
.,
j
j
l
j
;
.J
=~ -.... = = = ~ ..... = ~ = = = = =
_j
Chapter2
Issues and Local Preferences
ISSUES CONCERNING STATE LAND MANAGEMENT
I. Introduction
Issues and local preferences are important pieces of
information which must be incorporated into the planning process.
Issues concerning the use of a specific resource provide a focus and
framework for the planning process: local preferences show how the
public feels these issues should be resolved. In this section of
this report, issues and local preferences are documented for
incorporation in the planning process through the work of the
Planning Team Members.
The issues identified in this chapter were collected and
summarized from three sources. The statewide plan was the first
source used. The Alaska Statewide Plan was done by DNR to inventory
the reosurces and concerns surrounding state lands in Alaska. The
issues included the statewide plan were identified by the division
or agency within the state responsible for managing a specific
resource.
The Tanana Basin Plan sketch elements were a second source used
to identify issues. The sketch elements were developed in 1981 'to
provide a starting point for the Tanana Basin Area plan. The iss·ues
from the sketch element are more tailored to the Tanana Basin than
the issues in the statewide plan. The issues identified in the
sketch elements were based on conversations with agencies, resource
experts and public interest groups.
The public meetings that w.ere held in the Tanana Basin during
the spring of 1982 was the. third source of issues used for this
chapter. Planning team members, after reading the comments from the
public meetings developed a series of issues concerning the resource
they represent.
Local preferences about how these issues should be addressed
were determined frqm various sources. ORe of the sources which will
be used in the planning process for developing local preferences is
a series of community originated land use plans. Several
communi ties are currently working on proposed plans for state iand
in their area: others have already submitted proposals to DNR.
These local land use plans provide a clear indication. of what a
community prefers. This is particularly true when a proposal
receives endorsement of village councils, city councils, native
corporations, and other interest groups in the area.
The possibility of doing land use plans was mentioned at the public
meetings and in a newsletter that was sent to all communities. Only
a few of the communities, however, have decided to submit
proposals. .. Most of these proposals will not be completed un!;.j,.J,. ___ _ :-~ ~~-----February; -but--some--h-ci"v_e_ -bee_n_ ~on-fffe -wfth-the-state-Department of
Natural Resources and are included in this report.
2-1
The Tanana Basin Public Meetings are the other source of
information on local preferences. Public meetings were held in all
communities in the Basin in the spring of 1982 to discuss the Tanana
Basin Area Plan. The notes from these meetings were then given to
members of the planning team who then developed the summaries
included here. The summaries represent the planning team members'.
understanding of how residents want state land in their area managed
for a specific resource.
2-2
ISSUES CONCERNING FORESTRY
The following issues concerning forestry were drawn
from the public meetings, sketch elements and interviews
with agency representatives:
ISSUE 1. The amount of state land classified and managed
primarily for forestry.
ISSUE 2. Cooperative forest management.
ISSUE 3. The use of forest resources on agricultural land.
ISSUE 4. Development of transportation to forest lands.
ISSUE 5. The level of fire protection to be given to
different forest areas.
ISSUE 6. The .effects of land disposals on forestry.
ISSUE 7. The effect of agriculture on fore~try.
ISSUE 8. The effects of mineral exploration and development
on forestry.
ISSUE 9. The effects of land classified for habitat on
forestry.
ISSUE 10. The effects of recreation
classifications on forestry.
·activities
ISSUE 11. The effects of forestry on land disposals.
and
ISSUE 12. The effects of forestry on mineral development.
ISSUE 13. The effects of forestry on fish and game
resources.
ISSUE 14. The effects of forestry on recreation.
ISSUE 15. The effects of forestry on agriculture.
2-3
-'
LOCAL PREFERENCFS -FORFSTRY
The following comments summarize forestry concerns expressed at a
series of public meetings on the Tanana Basin Area Plan held in spring
of 1982. Comments are transcriptions from the meetings.
ANDERSON 5 persons in attendance
It's too much hassle to get houselogs permits.
It is important to have timber near remote disposals.
~le don't have enough woodcutting areas.
burn 10 cords/per year.
Disposals eliminate woodcutting areas.
75% of the houses here
This area could support a sawmill if the trees were for sale.
CANTWELL 6 persons in attendance
We need to drive 25-30 miles for fuel wood.
I would not like to see state forest land.
of commercial quality.
These forests are not
There should be an option to harvest timber but state forests
aren't necessary to allow this option. There will be enough land
leftov~r that isn't disposed of that can be used for forestry.
People, mostly from McKinley, keep coming to Ahtna asking to cut
firewood. Let them go to state land. Tell them to cut BLM and
state land.
I would like to see more money for management in forestry and range
management.
DELTA 9 persons in attendance
Timber appropriate for lumber, and commercial value needs to be
sold.
Inventory -There is some discrepancy between what forestry and
timber operators think are commercial stands. Some people bought
timber based on Division of Forestry forecasts but the buyers were
misled~ they couldn't recoup their expenses. Other stands the
Division of Forestry says are "commercial stands" never are
bought. Buyers couldn't harvest the timber".
= ----~ -----------------~~--~~--
f
2-4
DELTA (coot)
If timber on land disposals isn't sawtimber, let parcel owner use
the resource for posts, and firewood, as they wish.
Firewood is largely used as heating supplement in Delta. I'd say
much more than 10% burn wood ONLY. But 90% probably have standby.
Firewood is becoming less available in the area.
The wood supply fluctuates. Some people advertise and· let people
cut .on their land.
Some people are going 30-40 miles away to get firewood, but most
people don't go that far.
DOT LAKE 6 persons in attendance
Forestry and habitat play hand and hand with subsistence.
three of these can be compati}.)le_. _
HEALY 5 persons in attendance
All
Comments from the ·Healy meeting did not include forestry concerns.
LAKE MINCHUMINA 18 persons in attendance
Since 1979, the Association members have been much concerned that
the forest classification, which we need to protect noncommercial
woodlot use by local residents, has not yet been approved. We are
hereby urging that the areas thus marked on the encloE~d map
receive this classification, in order to be assured of a continuing
supply of heating and cooking fuel.
Forest and .habitat q.re the key concerns here.
MANLEY HOT SPRINGS 8 persons in attendance
I personally think it's a good idea of the State Forest Resource
Management areas. They will stop disposals and protect trapping.
Firewood is likely to be a problem in the future.
Give preference to small scale forest operators, not large
commercial ventures. Firewood should be a consideration. 90% or
more of the people here heat with wood.
2-5
MANLEY HOT SPRINGS (cont)
Encourage small commercial sawmills that can help provide building
materials, firewood and sawlogs for local use.
Make it easy to get through the bureaucracy to get small commercial
permit. With one guy in Manley it took so long the guy had to
fold. The state shoved him out of business. The state should give
people a chance.
Firewood, people cut where they want. It makes a mess of things.
It'd be better if they did it in one area, but, _you know if there
aren't areas designated, well ••••
Is there a source for getting tree seedlings for private people to
use in the area? Get answer from DNR in Fairbanks.
MENTASTA LAKE 5 persons in attendance
we don't want a sawmill up Bone Creek or Lost Creek. Leave the
wood there for firewood. We wouldn't like to see development of a
timber industry.
Make forest areas up in the hills from Clearwater.
MINTO 40 persons in attendance
Forest areas -leave alone.
State is rich enough. Why develop timber and forests. Just leave
them.
Don't cut timber. We know where to get wood. No need to set wood
areas aside.
I don't have nothing against timber if it's going to keep disposals
out of here.
NENANA 26 persons in attendance
Would like fire~mod cutting area nearby for long-term.
Use timber cleared off agricultural land.
Would like to see a plywood mill.
State should make forest land available for private use.
2-6
~
I
I
I
!
i I - -
!
!
I
I
i
NENANA (coot)
Need more access to timber.
Timber sales should be regulated so that individuals can cor.1pete
with business for personal use timber.
Need more personal use permits for house logs and fuel \IOod.
Maintain timber industry jobs.
Fuel wood not a serious problem.
Don't clear cut forest areas.
Encourage tree farming.
Sell timber and utilize forest products on agricultural sales.
Don't classify lands only forest without leaving options open.
No problems with Fahrenkamp's forestry bill.
Local input should be gathered on decisions concerning specific
parcels of forest land.
NORTHWAY 27 persons in attendance
Hang on to land with forest potential.
Woodcutting pushes game out but the game comes back in later years,
so it must be okay.
Firewood is a problem. Ninety percent of the people burn \mod here
and it may become hard to find enough.
Utilize timber where it is close and accessible.
He' re getting wood nO'ir/ as close as possible.
TANACROSS 2 persons in attendance
I haven't got too much against them.
If a big logging mill starts up it depends on how close it is to
our land as to how much it will affect us and what, we feel about
it.
2-7
TANANA 5 persons in attendance
No problem yet getting firewood. Things are not to the point where
we see "no trespassing" signs pop up.
I would
timber.
like the state to lease land if there is enough good
One of.the ideas we've had is to set up a sawmill here.
How do you get to cut logs for a home on state land? There's no
office up here or anything.
We don't have a real problem getting firewood and house logs. Ue
just go get it along the rivers mostly.
A small sawmill could make it out here --but NO way could a big
operation.
State should cooperate with us in leasing wood sales.
We'd like to cut all our own lumber locally.
little mill. ~·le had a request from villages
bunch of lumber. Also, the city could
lumber. Someone's got to try it, someone
sure they could make it work.
Someone woud start a
(down river) to sell a
use only locally cut
should set it up; I'm
TETLIN 5 persons in attendance
Forestry might be OK in the area.
Some timber in certain areas is OK.
Good timber areas shouldn't be burned but game areas could be.
Take a little timber.
TOK 12 persons in attendance
I'd like to see a state forest in the whole area.
Forests are compatible with fish and game. Local mills can get
enough timber and still fish and game can be protected •.
People are going 30 miles for saw logs, houselogs and firewood.
People need areas identified closer.
Make forested areas forests; don't include little bitty areas, or
areas with little trees/black spruce, swamp, muskeg.
2-8
TOK (cont)
Don't look only at areas with big trees but also areas with
potential for growing and developing stands; spruce, birch, aspen.
The only feasible size for forests in this area are large ones --
so that you have a large enough volume of wood.
Forests lands should allow for multiple use.
Get coordinated with timber and high\ilay departments.
utilize timber on new construction sites.
Let people
FAIRBANKS · GENERAL 23 persons in attendance
With people buying land in immediate area and the population
increasing, and a continued reliance on firewood I see a real
crunch on firewood coming. Also a iot of the good wood lots are
being sold to ·private owners. The State Forest and Resource
Management Areas are a good idea, and a step in the right direction
to meeting future needs. .
Manage forest land on a sustained yield basis. Legislate the
areas, don't just classify them. Forest areas need more protection
than classification. State Forest Resource Management Areas are
far superior to classification.
If it is viable I support mandatory reforestation. Land
shouldn't be let go, and remain unproductive.
Problem I have with reforestation is that all the same size trees
grow up with no underbrush, and that isn't good for wildlife.
Sustained yield, has to be done on forest lands.
Consider impact of forest development on fish and game and
recreation.
In Fairbanks we are having a real difficult time coming up with
firewood. Gas, hydro and electrical power is not that cheap. I·
think the demand for firewood in Fairbanks will continue in the
future. We need lands for that. ·
We need to ensure a continual supply of fuel wood.
We need to allow for reforestation.
2-9
. .i
•• ;1
FAIRBANKS· GENERAL (cont)
A forest products
as far as having
forest resources
developments.
based industry is more suitable than many others
a lot of potential in the area. Much of our
are being wasted as in the agriculture
The forest products industry deserves to get more attention.
Forestry can be compatible with trapping in many cases (as well as
other traditional uses such as trails).
We need to determine a priority -export or local use if there is
not enough for both.
At least personal uses should be allowed for.
Forestry is a very compatible way of managing other uses and
developments, but the Division of Forestry needs a bigger staff to
handle any increased activities.
Many of the Native Corporations feel that forestry is a good way ~o
manage their lands but there should be cooperation between Native
Corporations and the State for joint sales.
Don't maintain logging roads.
The state should tear up logging roads after area is logged to
limit access which affects fish and game.
Logging roads are OK but don't improve them.
Clear cutting shouldn't be allowed.
Replant. trees and take care of animals {mink and marten) •
Fuel wood should be available near town, a sustained yield.
Use forest lands for sawmill lumber and manage it on a sustained
yield basis.
Develop off-site facilities for processing wood.
Use winter roads in forest areas.
Respect trappig rights when logging.
2-10
FAIRBANKS · GENERAL (coot)
Heavy timber is not good habitat for fur.
trapping.
Opening it up helps
We need selective cutting and selective access to heavy timber.
Patch cuts are better for moose.
I support State Forests Resource Management Areas.
No permanent roads or trails should be established for logging
without a public hearing.
Don't use area for agriculture once trees are. cut dmm.
with seedlings.
FAIRBANKS· FORESTRY 11 persons in attendance
Reseed
Comments from public meeting on Forestry held at the Department of
Natural Resources, Fairbanks on April 29, 1982, in connection with the
Tanana Basin Area Plan.
You must define agriculture.
The state sells agricultural land and then tells you must cut the
trees. I could have a good wood lot if they would let me. If
farming won't be feasible for five years, might as well use the
agricultural disposal as a woodlot in the meantime.
Clearing the land also costs too much to do it all at once. It's a
waste to cut wood when it's growing beautifully.
~lhatever land is feasible for a woodlot you should have the right
to leave it in wood lot. I'm a farmer, but I need wood, too.
This way of managing a farm for both agricultural and woodlots
would make the farm more profitable. The demand for firewood off
private land is very high and farmers could meet this off their
wood lots and it would be profitable. Why isn't raising trees
considered an agricultural use? More people "'wlill be wanting to
raise Christmas trees, fuel wood, and saw timber on their land as
the price of these increases.
Don't give just agricultural rights -we need. the right to buy and
sell the land fee simple title.
2·11
·-'
FAIRBANKS -FORESTRY (cont)
I'd like to see Spots of native grass in the Interior left for
grazing through our forestry department. We can work out a
multiple use deal between forestry and g~azing.
Some' forest practices are good for some wildlife Snd bad for
others. This should be studied before forest management practices
are det~rmined for an area. Are fish affected by forest logging in
the interior? I think ~ts a problem on the whole, except the Upper
Chena perhaps.
There has been little active role on the part of forestry to manage
for recreation in forests. I t~ink this would be advisable in a
forest management plan for picnics and campgrounds. This would be
active management for multiple use.
The forest should be managed basically for the primary use.
isn't necessary to actively manage for secondary use.
It
If there's a fire or whatever, it is hard to handle if you have
recreationists in there.
•
It isn't as important how it's classified but how it's managed. If
you just put a line around an area, you'll go just to primary uses
-we need more multiple use areas.
If you _want more than one use, you should reorganize state
government to do it.
Land and agriculture disposals are the only two uses which are
incompatible with other uses. I'd like to see the disposals
clustered near roads and settlements and not out in remote areas.
State forests allow for the most uses hunting, trapping, fishing
and timber cutting.
Farmers agree -they • d rather have farms near roads. The reason
farms are located farther away is population density. As Fairbanks
grows, it's necessary to go farther and farther. You should let a
guy have 40 acres for forestry. There should be areas set aside
for woodcutting.
Recreation areas should be left close to the road. Small areas
close to town should be primary uses, but large areas far from town
should be multiple use and allow other purposes.
2-12
.,
_j
FAIRBANKS · FORESTRY (cont)
Chena recreation area should be open for other uses besides just
recreation. The forest division should have a hand in managing it
for logging, trapping, etc. We don't want to see intensively
developed recreational areas. I don't like to see big trees going
to waste.
Birch trees go to waste in a lot of areas out Chena Hot Springs
Road. We do not manage these now. Parks won't even allow you to
remove these, but they need to be removed selectively.
If you're going to mine in forest areas, you should harvest the
area first -then there won't be a problem.
A disposal could be used as a tree farm.
Fish and game should be secondary to forestry.
It's possible to have it both ways -in some areas, forestry could
be secondary to fish and game, in other areas it should be the
other way around.
Let the farmer manage part of his land for forestry.
If the state wanted someone to get into the private forestry
business, they should allow someone to develop 180 acreas or more
for. forest land. Lots of farmers in this area would like the
timber rights in addition to agriculture rights.
If you let the small guy develop 40 acres for forestry, it would be
much more efficient timber production than large forest iridustries.
We have a forest industry staring us in the face and nobodies doing
anything about it. They want industry, but they can't see that
forestry would be the answer.
All the other uses should be allowed on private forest such as
trapping, etc.
Maybe the state should consider some sort of leasing program for
forest development.
Fares ts should be managed for local use only because there isn' t
enough for both local and export.
2-13
FAIRBANKS · FORESTRY (cont)
We don't even have a kiln here to dry wood and we don't nearly meet
local demand and this is because the state stops the small guy from
getting into business. Meanwhile, the trees are rotting in .the
woods.
Leasing forest land would be horrible.
you a loan for that.
The bank would never give
I disagree. Anyone can get a load on leased land.
Private ownership leads to loss of many uses due to trespassing.
Leasi~g could maintain land in forest production.
If the best use is to subdivide, great, so be it.
private enterprise?
Don't we trust
I endorse the idea that private ownership is a bad thing in remote
areas. If 40 acre tracts were leased, people wouldn't manage for
forestry after all. I'~ not anti-development or anti-agricultures,
but I think those ought to be concentrated. How else are we going
to pay all these bureaucrats?
I'd rather see the state manage the timber, but if they do sell it,
I'd rather see small woodcutters own it.
Exports should be emphasized for state balance of payments, but I't
rather see the local people get their wood first.
I'd like to see natural fires burn unlAss there's commercial tir11ber
in the area. If there's only a few cabins out there, let them
burn.
Do away with remote parcels and fire won't be a problem.
Let people take care of themselves. If a fire comes -he takes his
chances.
I wouldn't want a subdivision in forest areas because the services
aren't there that people are looking for. Don't put a large number
of houses in a good forest area.
Utilize forests even around disposals.
Let private enterprise develop subdivisions and roads.
2-14
-"'
FAIRBANKS · FORESTRY (coot)
Logging roads should be closed to other uses until the logging is
done.
After the
Citizen's
plan is prepared, the
Advisory Council
2-15
Commissioner
to ensure
should appoint a
implementation.
l
; _,
....
1
l
l
l
l
l
.J
. .J
Chapter3
Demand for the Resource
--'
-'
Introduction
This chapter discusses the current production and consump-
tion of wood products in the Tanana Basin and forecasts the
demand for these products to the year 2000. It is based
primarily on the Forestry Paper prepared for the Interior
Transportation Study (Todd, 1982).
PART I
CURRENT PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF WOOD IN THE
INTERIOR
Currently, timber is used to produce a wide variety of
wood products in the Tanana Basin. The major products in
terms of volume are lumber, houselogs, and fuelwood. Other
products, such as hardwood lumber for furniture, paneling,
and many crafts, are produced on a smaller scale. Round-
logs and cants have been produced for export in the past
few years from Fairbanks and Nenana, but no long-term ex-
port agreements have been signed.
1. Lumber and Houselogs
A. CURRENT PRODUCTION OF LUMBER AND HOUSELOGS
Eight commercial sawmills are currently operating in
the study area. These are located in Nenana, Tok, Delta
Junction, Manley Hot Springs, and Fairbanks (where there
are four sawmill operations). There is also a privately-
owned mill in Tanana.
In those villages in the Doyon region which do not
have a sawmill, TCC provides a portable mill for short-term
use. Four sawmills are operated on this basis in the
region. Since Tanana Chiefs ·instituted the program in
1975, interest in sawmilling has increased dramatically and
the number of village owned mills in the Doyon region has
doubled. The director of the Tanana Chiefs program expects
that each Native village in the Basin will have at least
one sawmill by 1985.
Estimated average production of the principal sawmills in
the Tanana Basin is shown in Table 3.1
3-1
Table3.1
Estbnated Average Production of
SaWIIIills in the Tanana Basin 1
(Thousand Board Feet)
Delta ,Junction
Fairbanks
Northland
Four-Star
Gtls tafson
Olson
Hall
Eberhardt
Polan
Chena Hot Springs
Fairbanks Subtotal
Hanley Hot Springs
Nenana
Tanana
Tok
Total
MBF
300
3,000
1,000
500
15
200
30
200
5,245
Employment in
Mill and
Logging
Person years2
5
30
12
5
4
4
l
3
l
65
2
4
l
4
76
lThese figures were provided from interviews with local
suppliers. Round logs are not included in the
calculations.
2Many of these jobs may actually be seasonal.
Source: Todd, s. 1982 Demand and Supply of Forest Products
in the Interior. (Interior Transportation Study~
B. CURRENT CONSUMPTION OF LUMBER AND HOUSELOGS
Due to the lack of data, total consumption can only
be approximated for the study area. Therefore, per capita
consumption estimates were used to derive an estimate of
total demand.
3-2
In 1971, the U.S. Forest Service estimated national
per capita consumption of lumber to be 189 board feet
(USFS, 1971). =·This study also indicated that the long term
trend in per c~pita consumption had declined fairly stead-
ily since w:>rld War II. Factors involved in this decline
included the increase in substitutes such as plywood and
aluminum sheathing and the change in lifestyle from single
family homes to apartments.
In Alaska's Interior, the per capita consumption of
lumber and houselogs is likely to be higher than the
national average for three reasons: 1) fewer substitutes
are available; 2) single family homes remain by far the
most common; and 3) a large portion of homes, especially in
the villages, are log houses which require higher volumes
of wood than frame houses of the same size (excluding ply-
wood) •
As a result, the per capita consumption of lumber
and houselogs in the Basin was estimated to be substan-
tially higher than the national average. These consumption
figures were based on the estimated current consumption in
Delta, Tok and Fairbanks. The local suppliers in Tok and
Delta estimated total consumption for those areas at
500thousand board feet. In Fairbanks, several suppliers
were interviewed. Their estimates for total Fairbanks
consumption (excluding trans-shipments) varied from 20 to
25 million board feet per year, thus bringing the per
capita consumption estimate to about 400 board feet per
year.
This per capita estimate was used to approximate the
consumption of lumber and houselogs in the study region.
The results shown in Table 3.2 indicate that current
consumption in the study area is in the range of 24 million
board feet, most of it in the Fairbanks North Star
Borough. Almost 25 percent of this consumption is now
produced locally, while the rest is imported from Canada
and the Pacific Northwest. These figures do not include
plywood consumption.
The estimates of current annual consumption represent
average levels. For each village, they will vary
substantially from year to year depending upon the number
of houses constructed. Therefore, these figures should be
used as the average over several years or in the aggregate
for the study area.
C. POTENTIAL MARKET AREAS FOR LUMBER AND HOUSELOGS
There are three potential markets for lumber,
timbers, and houselogs from the Tanana Basin. First, there
----.,----------rs--a--slibS-tantial ·1o-c-a:1 d-ejll.and -which ___ co--u-1-d ab-s-orb much ·more
local production than is currently available. Second,
there may be a market outside the region in the· villages of
3-3
-~
=
LJ
Table3.2
Est:bnated Annual Consu~nption of LUJDber and
Houselogs in the Tanana Basin
(both Locally-Produced and Imported)
in Thousand Board Feet
Rounded to Nearest 5 MBF
Community
Anderson
Cantwell
Delta Junction/Ft Greely/Delta
Delta Junction/Delta
Dot Lake
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Healy
Lake Minchumina
Livengood
Manley Hot Springs
Mentasta Lake
Minto
Nabesna/Northway
Nenana
Tetlin
Tanacross
Tanana
Tok
Source: Todd, 1982.
Total
3-4
Estimated
Consumption
205
40
1,145
490
25
21,595
160
10
5
30
25
60
75
190
45.
45
155
235_··
24,540
[
[
the Yukon and Kuskokwim deltas where timber supplies are
scarce. Third, there is a market for local wood products
in oil, mining, and agricultural developments both within
the region and on the North Slope and western coast of
Alaska. The Anchorage area is also a potential market.
The local market has the greatest potential for
growth. There is at present more demand for rough, green
lumber than local producers can supply. In addition, a
large market for surfaced and seasoned spruce continues to
expand and may be captured by local producers if an assured
source of timber is available.
Currently, most of the loc·ally milled material is
sold rough-surfaced and green. There are only a few plan-
ers being used and a small amount of their output is air-
dried. If dried long enough, air-dried material can
achieve the same quality and moisture content as kiln-dried
lumber. However, much of the lumber produced locally is
not dried long enough, particularly when the weather is
cold or humid. Despite this variation in quality, local
suppliers are able to sell all they can produce.
According to local suppliers, over half (or more
than 10 million board feet) of the lumber and houselogs
used in the Fairbanks market is spruce. There is also a
large market in Anchorage where suppliers estimate that 40%
of all lumber and house logs sold are spruce. This repre-
sents a dramatic change from the recent past when Douglas
fir was the preferred building material. Spruce is usually
less expensive than fir and, though not as strong, it is
easy to work with and is a very acceptable substitute for
mos.t purposes.
Large amounts of Canadian spruce are currently
supplied to Alaskan markets for two reasons. First, there
are inadequate timber supplies for local producers to meet
the demand for spruce. Second, for some uses, lumber must
be dried to a specified moisture content, which is control-
led easily in a kiln. Since locally produced, air-dried
lumber is not graded for quality control, graded kiln dried
spruce is obtained from Canada. If local lumber were grad-
ed, there would be considerable potential for producers in
the Basin to capture part of this expanding market.
In addition to the local market for spruce, there
may be a market for interior lumber and houselogs in the
villages of the Yukon delta. This area has 1 it tle or no
forest resources and the more than 5,000 residents rely on
imports for most of their building needs. If lm1-cost
transport rates were available, a major market could
-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~G1eve1Gp ~ ~f0r~ -l·umb~r-~ ~anG1 -~ -houseJ.og-s~ ~p100duGeG1 ···-on ~ tl:le · ~u-ppe-r~·· -· ~ ~-·· -·
Kuskokvlim, middle Yukon, and th~ Nenana areas. This market
could absorb more than 1.5 million board feet per year if
the residents have similar per capita consumption rates.
3-5
Finally, a market exists for timbers and ~orne lumber
in developments such as the North Slope oil fields and min-
ing ventures. Two to three million board feet of large
timbers are shipped to the North Slope by truck from Fair-
banks and many miners also obtain their timbers from Fair-
banks. Any large mining venture would require large vol-
umes of timbers and these \vould probably be supplied from
the Fairbanks-Nenana area.
Agricultural developments may also increase the de-
mand for lumber and fence posts and these materials would
probably be supplied from a nearby source such as Delta or
Nenana. It should· be noted that there are problems in
treating spruce with creosote without a pressurized sys._
tern. Currently such a system is uneconomical in the Inter-
ior, but surface treatment of poles and timbers appears to
be sufficient for most purposes in this climate. It should
also be noted that agricultural development potentially re-
duces the forest base while increasing the demand for for-
est products.
In summary, the market for Interior lumber and
houselogs is much greater than the current supply. The
local market alone could absorb much more locally produced
green, air-dried, and graded material and there are also
good prospects in the nonforested deltas as well as in
large-scale mining and agricultural developments. The lim-
iting factor on production is not the size of the market,
but rather the quantity of long-term timber supplies.
D. CURRENT TRANSPORT OF LUMBER AND HOUSELOGS
The transportation of lumber and houselogs is a two-
step process. First, the raw material must be taken to the
mill. In the Fairbanks area, timber can be trucked from as
far away as Delta Junction. Generally, the distance does
not exceed 40 miles, however, and the price of stumpage
depends principally on the tran$portation required to
convey the logs to the mill. Stumpage in the Delta area
may sell for as little as $16 per thousand board feet,
while logs near a road in the Fairbanks area may go for
over $100 per MBF.
In the Fairbanks region, the logs are trucked to the
mills and the finished products are usually trucked to mar-
ket. Two to three million board feet go by truck to the
North Slope each year and an unknown amount of lumber is
shipped by barge or by plane to the villages of the inter-
ior. Exports to Japan were shipped by rail to tidewater.
3-6
In the villages located off the main roads, rivers
become the major arteries. Some fuel wood, house logs and
saw timber is rafted downriver to the villages. A river-
boat is used to guide the raft rather than p~ll it, and in
this way, 40 to 50 logs can be transported. If the logs
are used for saw timber, they are debarked first by hand
(which is easily done early in the spring) before float-
ing. Peeling the logs helps to prevent silt from b~coming
embedded beneath the bark and ruining the saw blade. (Silt
does penetrate the wood to some extent anyway.) A major
supplier in Fairbanks felt however that the silt problem
would not prevent him from floating unpeeled logs. He
believes that he would use this means of transport if roads
were not available.
II. Current Production and Cons'ii.Dlption of Fuelwood
In the past, fuelwood was a major source of energy in
the Basin and, during the gold rush, the effects of har-
vesting more than the sustained yield of fuelwood were evi-
dent as the forests receded. Fortunately, coal was avail-
able from the Healy area to supplement the dwindling supply
of fueh.rood.
Today people are once again using large quanti ties
of fuelwood as the price of heating oil rises. However,
the total volume of fuelwood used is difficult to deter-
mine, particularly for the Fairbanks area.
There are two sources of information concerning
fuel wood consumption in the Fairbanks area. First, the
State Department of Natural Resources provides permits to
obtain fuel wood on state land. The number of permits
increased 700 percent from 197 6 to 1981. During the same
period, the population actually decreased by about 5 per-
cent, indicating that many households must have converted
to fuelwood.
Records on the amount of fuelwood collected by each
permit holder are not available. However, a DNR survey of
permit holders indicated that an average of 4 cords \/ere
taken. This would indicate that about 12,000 cords were
obtained by 3,000 permit holders in 1981 from the state
lands alone.
Another survey of fuelwood use indicates that much
greater quanti ties may be utilized in the Fairbanks area.
The results of the survey indicate that a total of 69,000
cords are utilized for fuelwood in the Borough and that 25%
of the households burn wood (Laroe, 1982). However, this
_______ ·-· _ -· __ w.ould_ ._m.e.aJ:L _th_a_t_ each o_f __ thes.~ bousen_o.ld~ .. us_e Q'le:r::: _40. cOI;:ds
a year, which is extremely high.
3-7
...
For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed
that 30 percent of Borough residents use wood and that they
burn 8 cords per year. In fact, many more households may
use small amounts of wood in fireplaces or to supplement
other fuels, but on the average, this estimate is reason-
able. These assumptions indicate that slightly more than
32,000 cords are utililized in the Borough. Some 12,000 t6
15,000 cords of this may be obtained from state land while
ithe rest is obtained from private land and discarded
iumber.
The use of fuel wood in the other Basin communi ties
depends on the accessibility of the village for imports of
alternative fuels. The percentage of fuelwood users in
each type of community is based on informal personal inter-
views. In villages not connected to the road system, it
was found that approximately ·go to 100% of the households
burn wood. Villages at the ends of the road system which
are not mining towns have approximately 70 to 80% of their
households burning wood. Mining communi ties and those
connected by minor roads have 50 to 70% of the households
burning wood, and in ciommunities with highway access, 10 to
30% of the households burn wood. Those households which
use wood are estimated to burn an average of 8 cords per
year. The resulting fuelwood .consumption estimates are
shown in Table 3.3. They are intended to indicate only the
order of magnitude of fuelwood use in the Basin.
Future fuelwood consumption depends on a numl;:>er of
factors including: (1) the price of alternative fuels; (2)
personal income and population; and (3) the availability of
fuelwood.
Coal and heating oil are the principal alternative
fuels in the Interior. Coal is relatively inexpensive for
communi ties along the railbel t and if a coal deposit is
developed in the Delta area (Jarvis Creek), the communities
along the Alaska and Richardson Highways will also have a
ready source of coal. Heating oil is now produced in the
Fairbanks area, but this has not yet had a major impact on
the increasing demand for f~elwood. Other possible altern-
atives include geothermal energy and biogas generation.
Finally, there is potential to use wood in wood gasifica-
tion or steam generation. Wood gasification is being con-
sidered in Eagle and Nulato (outside the Basin) but it is
still in an experimental stage.
------------------------------------------------------~---------------------~--
3-8
Table3.3
Estbnated Annual Fuelwood ConsUJDption
(Rounded to Nearest Five Cords)
Fuelwood Cords
Community UseFactor1 Used
Anderson .3 310
Cantwell .1 20
Delta Junction .3 735
Dot Lake .9 120
Fairbanks NSB' 0.3 32,390
Healy .3 240
Lake Minchumina .9 40
Livengood .1 5
Manley .7 115
Mentasta Lake .9 105
Minto .8 240
Nebasa/Northway .9 335
Nenana .4 375
Tetlin .9 195
Tanacross .5 120
Tanana .9 695
Tok .4 470
Total 3 6, 510
1 Percent of households using wood
Source: Todd, 1982.
""""--=-= = =-= = ~ = ~--=---=~~-----=---------------------------------------------------------------------
3-9
Personal income is another factor. If their income
allows, people often switch to highly convenient fuels such
as heating oil. This is modified to some extent by the
value people place on obtaining· their own firewood and the
aesthetics of a wood fire.
The availability of fuelwood is also a major
factor. In the Fairbanks area, the allowable cut on state
land may be reached in 1982 if permit holders collect the
maximum allowance of 10 cords. However, there is a 11 break-
even 11 point for each community where the cost of going
further to obtain wood equals the cost of an al terna ti ve
fuel. After this point, people would be expected to con-
vert to the al terna ti ve. In the Fairbanks area, many
people may convert to coal, despite its relative inconven-
ience, if wood supplies become. more difficult or expensive
to obtain. More dunnage (pallets and crates) and discarded
construction materials can also be expected to be used as
substitutes for cordwood.
Fuelwood is transported principally by truck or
raft. In the Fairbanks area, logging roads have been con-
structed by the state at a cost of $8,000 per mile and by
the borough at a cost of up to $50 ,000 per mile for the
principal purpose of providing access to fuelwood cutting
areas. Much of the fuelwood is hauled at least 40 miles,
though some loads have been transported over 100 miles from
Delta to North Pole.
III. Cant and Roundlog Export
Currently there are no exports from the region of
either cants or roundlogs. Exports from the Basin have
occurred only when the demand in Korea and Japan was
unusually high, as costal areas of Alaska are more likely
to be the major sources of supply under normal demand con-
ditions. Until the spring of 1981, Toghotthele Corporation
in Nenana had a contract to export 30 million board feet of
round logs to Japan at the rate of 5 million board feet per
year. About 15 million board feet were exported before the
contract was terminated; the termination due to both a dec-
line in Japan's demand and a dwindling supply of local tim-
ber. ·
In the countries of the Pacific Rim, demand for
imported round logs is increasing slowly. Japan is the
currently the major market for Alaskan sawtimber, but the
demand in Japan is not expected to increase significantly
in the foreseeable future. This is due to Japan's policy
.., of increasing reliance on domestic timber production, a
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9~£!fggt§g~ ~!,I)~ ~1;[l~j,s~~~P~J:'~~~.<;£2iti:!~~"!l.QQ<i~ _C~O~Q§~\,lll!Rt~i9~n~,~ ~9-Jl~:L ~g.~~-~~~~~~~~
declining housing market (USFS, 1982).
3-10
If there are future exports of cants or round logs,
their effec::t on the transportation system would depend on
their location. If timber in the Healy Lake area were ex-
ported, it would probably be shipped by truck to Anchorage
or Valdez. Other areas in the Basin would be more likely
to ship by truck to Nenana or Fairbanks and from there by
rail to Anchorage.
IV. Hardwood LUJDber and Paneling
There are two principal outlets for hardwood lumber in
Alaska: Poppert Milling in Wasilla and Mastercraft Kitch-
ens in Anchorage. The owner of Poppert Milling processes a
little more than 20 MBF per year of birch and cottonwood.
He pays about $150/MBF delivered and has some difficulty
obtaining enough timber. He PFOduces hardwood flooring and
tongue and groove paneling. He can sell all he produces
but has no plans for expansion.
Mastercraft Kitchens in Anchorage processes approxi-
mately 290 MBF per year of Alaskan hardwood and spruce.
They obtain green hardwood lumber from a nearby sawmill and
produce kitchen cabinets, hardwood flooring, and some
paneling. They sometimes have difficulty obtaining the raw
material. Their principal market is Alaskan homeowners,
but they have shipped several loads of birch lumber and
cabinets to Washington state. They are not sure how large
the Washington market is, but would be interested in
expanding if adequate raw materials could be obtained.
Northland Wood in Fairbanks will custom sa~1 birch and
cottonwood. A few years ago they sent more than 40 letters
and samples to wholesalers in the contiguous u.s. to pro-
mote the sale of birch lumber but they did not receive a
single reply. They were able to offer a competitive price
due to a negotiated freight rate to Seattle on the Alaska
Railroad, but even so, the wholesalers were apparently un-
interested. This is the only large-scale Il)arketing re-
search which has been done for hardwood products and the
results are rather discouraging.
Yellow birch, however, which grows in the upper midwest
of the u.s. and makes a very attractive veneer, is becoming·
difficult to obtain. Therefore, a market may ope'n for
paper birch as asubsti tute. For the near future however,
exports are unlikely to be significant. This analysis will
therefore concentrate on the Alaskan market for hardwood
lumber, paneling, and cabinets. Northland Wood believes
~ that the Interior market for theSe products is too small to
, warrant a large-scale operation, but smaller ones, ~uch as
..; ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ,~ ~ ~ tt~ o! ~~Q1~:QEi_£~~s. mi.l.l, . would be . conceivable. ___ ~~~~-~~~~~~~~
3-11
V. Prefabricated Housing
Two lumber yards in Fairbanks are importing spruce lum-
ber from Canada and the Pacific Northwest for use in pro-
ducing prefabricated houses. One lumber yard is just com-
pleting a major expansion to increase its capacity to pro-
duce the kits. The market for these house kits is princi-
pally in the villages along the Yukon. The kits are nor-
mally shipped by truck to Nenana and by barge from Nenana
to the villages. One supplier shipped 10 houses to
villages along the Yukon. He estimated that the total
shipped from all prefab suppliers was 40 houses in 1981.
Prefabricated house production has considerable poten-
tial. Due to the new availability of loans for nonconform-
ing houses, many more people will be able to finance homes
in the villages. Also, the ·demand for community halls,
post offices, schools and other public buildings has in-
creased. One supplier expects his demand to double in 1982
compared to last year. The suppliers also indicated that
they would prefer to use local, graded lumber rather than
imported material if it were available.
VI. Other Potential Products
There are several other potential products which might
be produced ih the area. Wood chips, pulp, particle board,
and plywood are not considered feasible at this time.
(Reid, Collins Alaska, Inc., 1980 a.) Other products such
as biogas generation, are still in an experimental stage.
Therefore, these products will not be analyzed in detail in
this report.
3-12
PART II
FORECAST DEMAND FOR WOOD PRODUCTS
1. Forecast De~nand for LUJDber and Bouselogs
The demand for lumber and houselogs depends on many
factors. Product prices, the price of substitutes, income,
housing starts and interest rates are some of the most
significant variables affecting the demand for these pro-
ducts. However, there is very little information .available
to determine the trend of these factors over time in Inter-
ior Alaska. For this reason, the model presented here
relies on estimated per capita consumption rates.
As discussed in Part I of this chapter, the·per capita
consumption of lumber and h·ouselogs in the Interior is
estimated to be 400 board feet. During the next few
decades this factor will tend to rise with increasing real
personal income, but decrease as the number of multiple-
family dwellings increases. The net effect of these
factors is not expected to be significant and therefore the
same per capita consumption factor was used to. forecast
demand. Population forecasts were obtained from the Socio-
economic Paper of the Tanana Basin Area Plan.
The forecasts are shown in Table 3.4. These indicate
that demand for lumber and houselogs within the region is
likely to increase by over 75% in the next twenty years to
a total of over 42 million board feet. Most of this demand
will be centered in the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
In addition to the demand within the region, there are
also potential markets in the Yukon Delta and the North
Slope oil fields. The Delta's 5,200 residents would
currently require 1. 5 mill ion board feet ( 2, 50 0 tons) if
their consumption rate is similar to that estimated for the
Tanana Basin. By the year 2000, this demand will have
increased to 2.2 million board feet if the Delta population
increases as projected in the Western Arctic Alaska Trans-
portation Study (Louis Berger and Assoc., 1982).
Another major demand center is the North Slope oil
field developments, which have been using two to five
million board feet of timber per year since 1975. This de-
mand is expected to increase slightly during the Kuparuk
oil field development and then level off at 3.5 million
board feet per year.
3-13
... -"'
II. DeDland for Fuelwood
There is a significant demand for fuelwood
Interior. Many households depend exclusively on
while others use it in combination with other fuels.
in the
wood,
As discussed in Part 1 of this chapter, the demand for
fuelwood permits from the State Department of Natural
Resources has increased dramatically over the past five
.years in the Fairbanks area. The rest of the region also
exhibited large increases in fuelwood consumption.
The large increase was due largely to people converting
from oil to wood stoves in response to the large increase
in the price of oil. Now that oil prices have stabilized a
bit and the price of fuel wood is rising, some people may
convert to coal, but this is not expected to have a signi-
ficant effect on total fuelwood demand because many con-
sumers find coal very inconvenient to use. Therefore, the
demand for fuelwood is expected to stabilize over the next
several years. Consequently, the "fuel wood use factors"
discussed in Part 1 are expected to remain relatively
constant.
The expect'ed demand for fuelwood is shown in Table
3 • 5. Population forecasts were obtained from the Socio-
economic Forecasts of Tanana Basin Area Plan and an average
household of four was assumed. It was also assumed that 8
cords per year were used per household.
Ill. DeDland and Supply of Cants and Roundlogs froDI the Interior
Japan has been the major market for cants and roundlogs
from the Interior. This market has been very vola tile, hov-
ever, leading to a rather erratic pattern of exports from the
railbelt area.
In the fu.ture, Japan is not expected to be importing
significant quantities from the study region on a steady
basis. From records of Alaska's exports to Japan, it appears
that Japanese demand peaked in 1973 and has slowly declined
since (USDA Forest Service, 198 2) • The Japanese pol icy of
increased self-sufficiency in timber supplies and the growing
popularity of multiple-family dwellings in Japan indicate
that this trend will continue.
Other Pacific rim countries such as Korea and Mainland
China may take up some of the gap left by Japan's declining
~ ~. ~ ~ ~ aemana: ~ ~ However;~·~r.nrs~Ts· ~nof ~erx~pect:ea~ ~to~ ~r~e~SUlc~ ~i~n~ ·~a~ ~·s·c€!crdy ~·~ ~ ~· ~ ~ ·
flow of timber from the basin. Shipments of as much as 8,500
3-14 ALASKA RESOURCES LI'P"RARY
U.S. DEPT. OF Il.Jl'ERIOR
-~
tons per year (over 5 million board feet) can be expected
in certain periods, but are not likely to last more than a
few years. For this reason, no major new transport
corridors would be warranted and most of the production
would be confined to the railbelt area.
IV. Other Potential Products
Hood gasification and hardwood lumber are two potential
products which may come on line during the forecast peri-
od. Iiowever, these products are not expected to utilize
significant quanti ties of wood relative to sawtimber and
fuelwood requirements and are therefore not analyzed in de-
tail.
Other products, such as particle board, wood chips,
etc. have been analyzed sever~l times for their viability
in the Interior. These are unlikely to be feasible within
the forecast period (Reid, Collins, Alaska, Inc. 1981).
3-15
'. ..• I ,j ~ l . l ' J \_, J J ,J
Table3.4
Forecast Dem.and for Lum.ber and Bouselogs in the Tanana Basin
(In thousand board feet, rounded to nearest 5 MBF)
Year
Community 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Anderson 205 240 280 305 340
Cantwell 40 45 55 65 75
Delta JctAFt. Greely/Delta 1,145 1,295 1,4 65 1, 630 1,770
Delta Jet/Delta 490 625 780 925 1,045
I Dot Lake 1 25 30 35 40 45
Fairbanks !North Star Borough 21,595 2 6, 600 29,7 60 33,080 3 6, 5 60
Healy I
I 160 205 275 380 540
Lake Minc~umina 10 15 20 35 40
w Livengood 1 5 10 10 15 15
• .... Manley Hot Sprin~s 30 50 60 75 80
~ Mentasta Uake 25 25 25 25 25
Minto 60 60 65 65 65
North~1ay 75 90 100 115 130
Nenana 190 240 300 355 400
Tetlin 45 45 45 50 50
Tanacross 45 55 60 60 70
Tanana 155 160 165 165 170
Tok 23 5 320 4 60 600 695
Subtotal 24,540 30,105 33,9 60 37,985 42,115
North Slop1e Oil Fields 4,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Yukon Del t1a Comutuni ties 1,500 1 i 675 1,850 2,025 2,200
. Total 30~040 35,280 39,310 43,510 47,815
Source: Totld, 1982.
w
' ... .....
II , ,._.,j J L J . l I !.,,)1 . ·)
Table3.S
F~recast Annual Fuel:wood Demand
(Round~d to Nearest 5 Cords)
(% of households Year
·I
Community: using wood) 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Anderson ' 30 310 3 60 415 4 60 505
Cantwell ' 10 20 25 30 35 40
Delta Jct/Deltal 30 735 935 1,170 1,305 1,570
Dot Lake 90 120 140 160 105 205
Fairbanks 1N.S. Borough 30 32,390 39,900 44,640 49, 620 54,040
Healy 30 240 310 415 570 810
Lake Minchumina 90 40 65 100 150 190
Livengood • 10 5 5 5 5 5
Manley Ho~ Springs 70 115 170 210 2 60 205
Mentasta [iake 90 105 110 110 115 115
Minto 80 240 250 255 2 60 270
Northway ' 90 335 400 4 60 520 575
Nenana 40 375 480 600 '710 805
Tetlin 90 195 200 205 215 225
Tanacross 50 120 135 150 155 170
Tanana 90 695 715 735 750 770
Tok 40 470 705 920 1,200 1,395
Total 36,510 44,905 50,580 56,595 62,775
1
Ft Greely· \las excluded as it is not expected to utilize significant quantities of fuelwood.
I
I
Source: Todd, 1982.
,
;
j
;
_j
' i
_j
l
i
_j
j
l
1
l
_j
1 ;
j
j
1
d
j
j
T----
j
Chapter4
Supply of the Resource
l.lntroduetlon
This chapter discusses the supply of timber in the
Basin. The chapter is divided into two subsections--the
first is "Physical Capability" and the second is
"Suitability". Physical capability concerns the supply ·of
the resource without reference to ownership, access, or
land use policies. It represents the ability of the land
to "produce" a particular resource.
Suitability refines this capability by taking such
things as land ownership, accessibility/e·conomic
feasibility, and minimum parcel size into account.
4-1
PART I. PHYSICAL CAPABILITY
I. CRITERIA USED TO PRODUCE THE MAPS OF PHYSICAL
CAPABILITY
The maps showing lands of high, medium and low value
for sawtimber and fuelwood were based on a vegetation map
of the Tanana Basin. The vegetation map used was produced
by Ray Kreig and Associates under contract to the Division
of Geological and Geophysical Surveys in the fall of 1982.
The vegetC\tion map is based on information avaivalble to
date. The different sources used to produce this vegeta-
tion map are as follows:
Viereck, L.A., Dyrness, C.T., and Batten, A.R., 1982,
Preliminary Classification System for Vegetation in
Alaska, 64 p.
Vegetation maps and reports.
U.S.G.S. 1:250,000 topographic quadrangle.
LANDSAT imagery.
Aerial photography.
For a detailed discussion of the method used to integrate
this information, refer to Appendix 4A and to the Susitna
River Basin Automated Geographic Information System; Land
Capability and Suitability Analysis, published by Environ-
mental Systems Research Institute in 1981. This document
explains how maps were developed for the Susi tna River
Basin, and the process used to produce the vegetation map
for the Tanana Basin was the same.
The basic vegetation map identifies coniferous,
deciduous, mixed forests and scrub vegetation. Each of
these categories is subdivided to indicate whether the
trees are tall, intermediate or dwarf, and whether the
vegetation makes a closed or open canopy cover. Also
incJ.uded in the P.lap are areas that are primarily one type
of vegetation (50-75%) but also have 25 to 49% of the area
covered with a secondary type of vegetation.
Before the vegetation map is of use in the planning
process, these various vegetation types contained in the
map legend must be categorized as to their value for fire-
wood or sawtimber. This was done by both Division of
Forestry and Resource Allocation Section personnel.
~ The rankings of primary and primary-plus-secondary
7~ ~ -~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~· ~· ~v,eq~t-ert~ic:r~~tyi?es~a.F-e-~sl'l0WR--~in--'±!a-t>.±.e-s~:3---l~a.nd---:'3---2-~f.or-sa.w--·------·------·--·
-timber and fuelwood, respectively.
4-2
Table 4-1
Criteria for Sawtbnber when both Prin1ary and Secondary Vegetation are Present
Primary
veg.
Type
Conifer
Conifer Inter-
Tall mediate
Conifer
Tall
Closed
Conifer
Tall
Open
Mixed
Tall
Closed
Mixed
Tall
Open
Conifer
Tall
.Woodland
Mixed
Tall
W.oodland
H
H
H
Conifer Tall
or Inter-
mediate
Regrowth
Closed H
Deciduous
Tall
Closed H
Deciduous
Tall
Open
Deciduous
Inter-
H
mediate M
Scrub and
Conifer
Dwarf L
Conifer Inter-
mediate Regrowth
Open M
H
II
H
H
M
M
M
L
M
SECONDARY VEGETATION TYPE
Mixed
Tall
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
L
M
Deciduous
Tall
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
Deciduous
Inter-
mediate
H
H
H
H
L
L
M
M
L
M
Regrowth
Cutting/
Areas
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
M
H = H1gh1 M = Medium1 L = Low1 and U = Unsu~table for sawt~mber.
4-3
Conifer Scrub
Dwarf
M M
M M
M M
M M
L L
L L
L L
L M
L L
L L
u u
u u
Table4-2
Criteria for DeterDlining Fuel wood if both PriDlary and Secondary Vegetation
are Present
SECONDARY VEGETATION
Primary Conifer
Veg. Conifer Inter-Mixed Deciduous Deciduous Cut Conifer Scrub
Type Tall mediate Tall Tall Intermediate Areas Dwarf
Conifer
Tall
Closed M M M M M M L L
Conifer
Tall
Open M M M M M L L L
Mixed
Tall
Closed H H H H H [, [, [,
Mixed
Tall
Open H B H H H [, [, [,
Conifer
Tall
\'loodland M [, M M M [, VL VL
Mixed
Tall
Woodland M L M M M L VL VL
Conifer
Inter-
' mediate or
Regrowth L L M M [, L VL VL
·-'
Deciduous
Tall
Closed H H H H H H M M
Deciduous
Tall
Open H H H Il H H M M
De.ciduous
Inter-
; mediate M [, H H M M VL VL
--' Scrub or
Dwarf
Conifer L [, M -·:;. M [, [, VL VL
Conifer
Inter-
mediate
or
Regrowth L [, M M [, [, VL VL
--------
H = Hlsh: M = Medium: [, = Low, VL = Ver'l. low value for hrewood.
4-4
-'
"'CT-------~--------
..1
PART 2. SUITABILITY
This portion of Chapter 4 is divided into two sections:
1) criteria used to determine suitability and 2) a summary
of the acreage and estimated supply of the resource by plan-
ning unit.
I. CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE SUITABILITY
A. Sawtim.ber
Criteria used to·determine suitability of_ land for saw-
timber include accessibility and ownership. As discussed in
Chapter 5, sawtimber can be transported economically from up
to 246 miles from the mil 1 assuming travel on surfaced roads
or up to 82 miles from the mil.l by dirt or winter roads. The
sawtimber access map takes into account combinations of paved .J
and unpaved roads, where combined travel costs for each portion
do not exceed the maximum feasible transport cost for sawtimber.
It is assumed that a logging road up to a maximum of 10 miles
in length can be built off the established paved and dirt roads
if there is at least 1 millionboard feet of timber available
at the location. This is currently the case in the Fairbanks
area (D. Wieczorek, ADNR, Division of Forestry, personal com-
munication; 1982).
The second criterion of suitability is ownership. Only
the acres owned or selected by the state are included in the
acreage summaries of suitable areas (other landowners have
not been included due to the difficulty of determining acreage
through manual processing).
These two criteria were combined with information on the
physical capability of the land for sawtimber production to
arrive at supply figures for each subunit. Lands with high or
medium potential for sawtimber were counted.
In order to estimate the actual volume of timber available
on these areas, it was necessary to estimate the allowable cut.
There are several ways to estimate the allowable cut, which is
simply the sustainable yield. The preferred approach to calcu-
lating the allowable cut is to take into account the ~ge of the
timber; if all of the timber is mature, a faster cutting rate
should be used than if most of the stand is of sapling or pole
size. However, because age-class information is not available
to relate to the timber type map, it was necessary to use a
simpler estimate of allowable cut which is the average produc-
tivity in cubic feet per acre per year.
To obtain this estimate, the timber type map prepared by
this plan was compared to the timber type map of the Fairbanks
are a by the D i v i s i on of Fore s t r y ( D 0 F} for w h i c h the prod u c t i v i t y
of 11 high 11 and ;•medium•• value stands is known. The two timber
type maps were shown to have a high degree of correlation, with
an R2 of 0.7) (see Appendix 48). Because of this close similarity
·between the two maps, it was reasonable to use the productivity
estimates established on the DOF map of high and medium value
4-5
_j.
-'
-'
.J
areas which correlate with like timber types on the Tanana
Basin map. The DOF has estimated that high value areas
·have an average current productivity of 20 cubic feet per
acre while medium value areas produce an average of
12/cfjacre/year. This is lower than their potential --due
probably to poor stocking, fire damage, and /or overmature
stands --but it does provide a reasonable estimate of the
current allowable cut.
Areas. of "low" value on the physical capability map
are principally black spruce which not only has very poor
productivity, but also is of poor quality for use as
sawtimber. Therefore, these areas were not included in the
supply estimates.
Table 4-3 shows the acreage and total
summaries for state TA'd and patented land.
are presented by subunit.
timber volume
The summaries
This information indicates that 1,377,600 acres of
high and medium value sawtimber are TA'd or patented and
lie within the area covered by the Tanana Plan. The
estimated allowable cut on this area is 91.5 million board
feet, about a third of which is likely to be spruce
sawtimber. This includes an allowable cut of about 164,000
cords of fuelwood and roughly 23 million board feet of
spruce sawtimber. Of this area, an estimated 431,000 acres
of land are actually accessible at the current time, and
the allowabl~ cut on these areas for all products is
estimated to be 27.8 million board feet (see Appendix 4C
for the allowable cut calculations by subunit).
4-6
_,
UNIT
Patented
andTA'd
I
II
III
IV
v
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XI!
XIII
TOTAL .
Selected
I
II
III
IV
v
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
TOTAL
TOTAL ALL
(a) Assumes
foot.
(b) Assumes
foot
Table 4-3
Supply by Subunit
Supply Totals by Unit
STATE OWNED STATE OWNED AND ACCESSIBLE
ACRES .A.LLOWABLE CUT ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT
thousands thousand BF thousands thousand BF
high med. high med. TOTAL high med. high med. TOTAL
(a) (b) (a) (b)
115.9 91.5 9318 4415 13.733 0 2.6 0 125 125
109.4 84.7 8795 4081 12,876 6.4 3.2 516 154 670
37. 1 37.8 2983 1824 4,807 14.7 23.7 1185 1144 2329
30.8 60.8 2466 2931 5.397 21.1 25.6 1688 1235 2923
9.0 12.8 720 617 1. 337 9.0 12.8 720 617 1337
SUS I TN! AREA P AN
9.0 64.6 720 3117 3,837 4.5 31. 3 360 1512 1872
260.5 62.1 bo,944 2996 23,940 33-3 1. 2 2677 58 2735
]3.0 30. 1 5869 1453 7322 71.1 30. 1 5716 1453 7169
8.3 20.5 668 989 1. 657 4.4 4.5 354 217 571
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
126.6 133. 1 0.179 6422 16,601 53.0 78.7 4262 3797 8059
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--f--·
779-6 598.0 p2,662 28,845 91.507 217. 5 213.7 7,478 10,312 27,790
.
16.0 16.6 1287 801 2088 0 0 0 0 0
12. 1 8.2 979 400 1 379 0 0 0 0 0
18.6 35.2 1495 1698 3193 8.3 26.3 668 1269 1937
6.4 22.4 516 1079 1595 6.4 19.8 516 956 1472
7.0 22.4 566 1079 1645 7.0 21.8 566 1050 1616
sus TNA ARE PLAN
4.4 10.3 360 495 855 .6 1.3 51 63 114
27.5 16.0 2211 772 2983 9.6 7.7 772 371 1143
12.8 3.8 1029 183 1212 12.2 5.2 981 250 1231
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9.0 0 724 0 724 1.9 0 153 0 153
33-9 61.9 2723 2994 5717 23.7 47.2 1903 2285 4188
0 1.9 0 92 92 0 0 0 0 0
147.7 198.7 11 ,885 9593 21.483 69.7 129. 3 5610 6244 11 ,854
927.3 796.7 74,547 38,438 112, 99C 287.2 343.0 23,088 16,556 39.644
20 cubic feet per acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic
12 cubic feet per acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic
---------------------
4-7
__j
__ )
' -~
_j
l
l
.J
' _,
ChapterS
Benefit · Cost Analysis
-= ~--------~ --------- --------------------~-----~-----------------~ ---------------------~-----------------------------~--------------------·-·-_.
PART 1. METHODS
I. GENERAL APPROACH TO ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Before discussing in detail the method used to evaluate
forestry some background is necessary on the general
approach to the consistent evaluation of all of the land
management al terna ti ves and the reasons for examining the
economic value of these alternatives.
There are three basics reasons for examining economic
value. First, economic information complements the
physical information presented in Chapter 4 of this report
and gives perspective on both what is happening now in the
Basin and what the potential is. Secondly, economic data
supply important information concerning the profitability
of resource developnent; if a resource cannot be developed
profitably, it probably will not have a lasting effect on
the economy. Finally, because two objectives of the state
are economic development and diversification, economic
information is needed to make decisions which may benefit
the economy.
The economic value of a resource has several meanings.
Economists define economic value as the worth of an item or
activity to society. This value can be measured in
monetary prices in the market place or it can be
non-monetary. In the case of a business, its econonic
value can be measured in a relatively straight-forward
way, in the form of a financial analysis of the profit-
abi!ity of the enterprises. In other cases, such as
recreation or hunting activities, there are economic values
to the society which are not measured directly in monetary
terms, but are imputed in people's behavior and spending
patterns.
Economic analysis attempts to measure people's values,
or the worth they place on different things, in the terms
of their behavior. It assumes that if people cherish some-
thing their economic behavior will reflect this, and thus
their behavior can be used to indicate the worth which the
people attach to something. In this respect, economic
analysis is analogous to an attitude survey which attempts
to measure people's values.
For example, a view of Ht. r1cKinley may be considered a
priceless experience. However, many people place a great
deal of worth on this experience and expectedly, this worth
is reflected in their economic behavior: the prices of
homes with a good view of Mt. McKinley are significantly
higher than those ~ithout such a view. Thus, the
difference in the value of these homes compared to others
of similar quality can indicate the minimum worth which
3 - -----··----peopTe-at-tac11-£o--t'fie--vrew~ ---Tfthe -v-rew --were --oos-tr-ucted--by --- ----
some development, the property value decreases signifi-
cantly.
5-1
-'
A. Evaluation Techniques
There are two common methods available for deter-
mining the economic effects of public policy decisions.
The first is referred to as cost-effectiveness and the
second is benefit-cost analysis.
Cost-effectiveness is simply a method for finding
the least cost alternative for meeting a single objective.
For example, if ~he objective is to improve public health
there may be several alternative ways to meet this: more
hospitals, better health instruction in schools, etc. Each
approach would be costed out and the least cost alternative
would be chosen. Unfortunately, this method is not of use
in choosing between objectives. If there is not enough
money to meet all objectives, then choices between object-
ives will have to be made and ·this method will not be of
assistance.
For this purpose, benefit-cost analysis has long
been the preferred approach. First developed by the Corps
of Engineers in the 1930's, the method has become increas-
ingly common to all types of public policy decisions. In
the 1950's, it was adapted to private sector decision-
making and is now used by most of the major corporations to
make investment decisions.
It is not a panacea, but it does provide a syste-
matic approach and there is extensive literature which
documents the ways in which benefit-cost analysis has been
used to examine a vast variety of public policy questions.
Therefore the benefit-cost approach is used in this report.
B. Benefit-Cost Analysis Applied to Land ManageJDent.
Alternatives
The approach used below determines net benefits
(benefits minus costs) of each of six al ternti ve ways to
manage land (mineral development, recreation, agriculture,
fish and game, settlement and forestry). Each of these
alternatives is examined separately at this stage, and com-
binations will be discussed ·during the next phase (Alter-
native Development) in order to evaluate the benefits of
multiple use.
First it is necessary to define who gains and who
loses from a particular land management alternative. Three
groups are generally identified: producers, consumers and
government. Producers are those who provide goods and/or
services for ·a monetary return. Consumers purchase these
goods and services. The government often incurs a cost for
:::; ---------any--1-a-n-d-marra<Jem-en-t-app-rcYa-ch-----an-d-th_i_s_·_is-of-EEH:'l-of-f s e t-5~y~------
revenue~ received from user fees. For each of these three
groups, it is necessary to know what their situation is now
and what the effect of a change in land management policy
would have.
5-2
For example, recreational users are receiving some
benefit from the use of state land. Hhat effect would a
decrease in the amount of state land open to recreation
have on these "consumers"? Likewise, what: would be the
effect on local sawmills of an increase in the state's
allowable cut? Also, how much would it cost the state to
increase the amount of land disposals and what would be the
return to producers and consumers of doing so? menefi t-
cost analysis attempts to answer such questions. 1
The results of the analysis are aggregated over a
period of 20 years. This period of time was used for three
reasons. First, the time horizon of the plan is twenty
years. Secondly, for~casting for a period beyond 20 years
is very speculative and thirdly, the operation of the time
value of money renders cash flows after 20 years insignifi-
cant. For example, $1000 received 40 years from now is
worth only $22 today at a discount rate of 10%.
The net benefits of any action must be discounted
to arrive at their present value. The need to discount the
net benefits arises from the fact that a dollar received
several years from now is not worth as much as a dollar
received today. Before the dollars received in different
years can be added together, they must be converted to
today's dollars by discounting. This process is similar to
converting measurements in yards and feet, into inches
before adding them together.
The discount rate is generally set at the interest
rate on borrowed funds. For this study, a discount rate of
10% was used which is the average interest rate charged on
agricultural loans. Because it is important to be consist-
ent, this rate was also used for the other resource evalu-
ations.
Each major step of the analysis is described be-
low. Producers, consumers and the state government are
examined separately first and then the results are totaled.
1. NET BENEFITS TO PRODUCERS
First it is necessary to define who the . pro-
ducers are. In this study, they are defined as those who
expect to make a financial return on the use of a re-
source. For many resources, more than one product may be
involved, in which case the producers of each product are
examined separately first and then the results are summed.
For example, there are producers of lumber and producers of
~ fuehmod. The profits of each are examined separately and
~----------then -the_ resuLts __ ar_e __ S_Uimne_d_. ______________________________ _
5-3
For each type of producer, net benefits are
measured as profits.l The profits of an operation, such as
a sawmill or farm, are measured in purely monetary terms.
The first step in the analysis, is to determine if the re-
source development is financially feasible. If the devel-
opment has been taking place for many years, this step is
very straightforward: what are the estimated profits of
the venture right now and what is the capacity for expan-
sion?
If, however, there is no current operation or if
the development is expected to expand beyond current capac-
ity, then a detailed financial feasibility analysis must be
done to determine if the venture would be financially prof-
itable.
For example, if local sawmills have been turning
a profit for many years, they can be assumed to be feas-
ible. The next step is to determine the likely timber
supply if all available forest land· were managed for tim-
ber. If the sawmills can already handle this increase in
supply, then it is simply necessary to estimate profits.
If they could not handle the supply, then it would be
necessary to do a financial analysis of the expected costs
and revenues to a new sawmill. •
A brief summary of the financial analysis re-
quired for each resource is given below:
Settlement is unique as the purchase of a home-
site is assumed to be "financially feasible". It is
assumed that a person would not buy a parcel for more thar:
its financial value to him.
Hith forestry, preliminary estimates indicated
that current capacity is likely to be able to handle the
foreseeable increase in timber supply and therefore no de-
tailed financial feasibility analysis was necessary. Only
current and projected profits of existing operations were
used. ·
vli th fish and game, the producers were defined
as those whose "principal" objective was financial re.turn
(guides, commercial fishermen, and trappers). These ven-
tures are expected to be able to handle the foreseeable
supply and therefore no detailed financial feasibility ana-
lysis was necessary. Only current and projected profits of
existing operations were used.
~ __________ !'l'h Ei _ '!X"l~ J,_y_sj,_§ ___ i_ g____g_q_mg_l_i c c:l ted _Q_y __ t_hJ:L_f_a c t_t_h a_La_prod_i! r.~L---~-~--------~
_;. may also be contributing to the econoray by such things as
hiring people who may otherwise be unemployed. Due to
limited time and data, these opportunity costs were not
evaluated in this study.
5-4
"4,
In mineral development, some types of minerals
may be developed or expanded and a preliminary financial
feasibility analysis was performed to estimate the likely
returns to this industry.
With agriculture, the Delta farming area is now
operating so it is assumed to be feasible for present oper-
ators. Other areas in the Basin may not be feasible so it
was necessary to perform a detailed financial feasibility
analysis.
For recreation, there is currently no large
group of producers dependent on state land for recreational
enterprises. There is some interest in commercial alpine
skiing ventures, and a preliminary examination of the
financial feasibility of this type of venture has been in-
cluded.
2. NET BENEFITS TO CONSUMERS
Consumers also stand to gain or lose due to
changes in public policy. Consumers are defined in this
study as those who purchase goods, services or "experi-
ences" (as in the case of hunting or recreation). Benefits
to consumers arise from two factors: 1) a decrease in the
price of a good or an experience and 2) an increase in the
quantity available of the good or of the experience. As in
the analysis of producers, it is necessary to determine the
status quo and/or potential and then the effect of a change
in policy on consumers.
The benefit to consumers is an increase in the welfare
or standard of living of the State's citizens (benefits and
costs to non-Alaskans have not been counted in this analy-
sis since state policies are generally aimed at only the
citizens of this state). If a state policy changes either
the price of a good or experience or the quantity avail-
able, then the welfare of the consumers is affected.
The analysis of consumers' net benefits requires an
understanding of the demand curve for a resource. As an
example, consider the market for fuelwood in Fairbanks.
You may find someone who would be willing to pay $120 per
cord for a few cords because it is that valuable to them.
Someone else might pay up to $110 per cord for a few cords,
but if the price went any higher, they would burn another
fuel. · Yet another person would consider $90 their upper
limit. If you could find each of these people and graph
their maximum willingness to pay against the cumulative
number of. cords they would buy, the curve might look like
the one shown in Figure 1. If_t_l'!_~___§_l.lpp_].y~~r~_~_Q_LOQ_Q_ __ ------------~
~-----------c-orcrs~--th-en-a-r1-oE-tlie-peopTe-~iho would pay $70 or more
would have purchased wood. The person who considered the
wood to be worth only $69 per cord would not buy wood until
the supply expanded and the price fell to what she consid-
ered the wood to be worth.
5-5
• \
The most difficult aspect of the analysis of the
benefit to consumers is to estimate the demand curve.
Ideally, information could be obtained on different
people's willingness-to-pay (their upper limit) and this
would be graphed against the quantity of the good or exper-
ience which they purchase. However, in many cases this in-
formation is not available.
Willingness to pay information is geherally
obtained from one of two sources: ( 1) through direct
questions in a statistical survey and (2) indirectly
through records on how much people actually paid for
dif~erent quantities.! No accurate survey of the willing-
ness-to-pay was available for any of the resources. How-
ever, it was possible to estimate the willingness-to-pay
for hunting in the Basin through analysis of fish and game
records.
For the other resources, a less desirable but
necessary substitute was used, called replacement cost.
This technique assumes that people would be willing to pay
an amount equal to the cost of the next best alternative.
For example, if no firewood were available, people may have
to switch to fuel oil and the cost of an equivalent amount
of heat in the form. of oil could be used as a proxy for the
willingness-to-pay.
This technique is less than ideal for two major
reasons. First, it will underestimate what some people
would be willing to pay. Someone may want to burn wood for
aesthetic reasons and they will pay a lot for this plea-
sure. The willirtgness-to-pay approach should reflect such
lifestyle or asthetic values which people obtain from a re-
source. The replacement cost method assumes that only
financial reasons are involved in the value consumers place
on an activity or item, and is therefore a less desirable
approach.
Secondly, the replacement cost value is not
accurate for those who would not switch to the assumed
alternative but who would use some other replacement.
Therefore, the replacement cost is not a precise estimate
of the true benefit to consumers (which is reprented by
triangle ABO in Figure 2) • However, it is often the ·only
alternative short of a detailed and expensive survey and it
has been used in this study to estimate the benefits to
consumers for each resource except fish and game (which
adequate data available to use the willingness-to-pay
approach).
::;-------·-----·--LTh-i-s--o·e·ctl-rs-on-:1..-y--whe-n-pe·o·p±-e-p-ay--d-i-f-f-e-re-n-t--amounts---to--------------
obtain the same good, service or experience, as in the case
of hunting or recreation when non-residents generally pay
much more to enjoy the same experience which Alaskans can
enjoy everyday.
5-6
_j
-=; ---
~
3. NET BENEFITS TO THE STATE
The net benefit (or net cost) to the state was
also estimated in order to give decision-makers an indica-
tion of what it costs the state, if anything, to provide
benefits to producers and consumers.
The net return to the state from the land dis-
posal program, for example, is determined from the revenues
obtained from the sale of land less the costs of adminis-
tering the program and surveying the land.
If the costs of a program exceeded the revenues
to the state, then the decision maker should examine the
total net benefits or costs (the sum of net benefits to
producers, consumers and the state) to determine if the
program has a positive effect overall.
C. Other l~nportant Indicators of Econo~nic Effects
Although benefit-cost analysis is th~ most thorough
single method available for determining the benefits and
costs to society, it does not cover all of the important
economic effects which decision-makers need to consider in
allocating land to different uses. Other important meas-
ures of the economic impact of resource use are also evalu-
ated in this study in order to give a more complete picture
of the contribution of each resource to the economy.
1. INCOME EFECTS
Income effects are an important measure of the
impact of a particular industry on the economy. These
effects are important for the economic development of a
region, which in many cases is an objective for the manage-
ment of a resource. Therefore, these effects have been
estimated for each resource.
2. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS
Another concern of many decision-makers is the
effect on employment of a change in policy. Estimates of
these effects are therefore included in the evaluatio·n of
each resource.
3. NET FISCAL EFFECTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Although this study focuses on the benefits and
costs to Alaskan consumers and producers, the effects of
state decisions are also felt by local governments.
----r-n-cre·a-s-e·s-or-aecre-a-s-e-s-tn--t-a·x-reve-rrue--t:<::r-roca 1-g 6v-er-nm-ent:~:r-;----------
balanced against changes in costs due to the policy, give
an indication of the net fiscal effects to local govern-
ments.
5-7
_,
4. EXTERNAL COSTS AND BENEFITS
External benefits and costs are defined here as
those social, environmental and economic effects which are
not quantifiable but which are very important to decision-
making.
No analysis is ever truly complete in document-
ing every possible effect ahd evaluating each of them in
some standard unit of measurement. This inadequacy is no-
where more evident than in the evaluation of external costs
and benefits. These include the effects which even the
most sophisticated analysis cannot quantify with ease. Yet
they are as important, if not even more important, than the
effects which are more easily quantified.
This study includes qualitative discussions of
some of the possible effects of resource use which must be
considered by decision-makers in determining land use allo-
cations. These discussions are inevitably inadequate
because the effects cannot be measured in dollar terms and
therefore it is not possible to indicate their magnitude
relative to the effects discussed earlier. Also, it is not
possible to predict all of the possible external effects of
resource use.
However, we have attempted to document what some
of the possible non-quantifiable social, environmental and
economic benefits and costs may be for each resource and we
hope that this serves at a minimum to indicate the impor-
tance of these considerations.
5-8
:J
_:i
.,
II. APPLICATION OF THIS METHOD TO FORESTRY
Forestry is defined here as the management and har-
vesting of trees for human use. Forests have many other
uses, including watersheds, fish and wildlife, and recrea-
tion, but these multiple uses are being examined in separ-
ate elements first and they will be combined at a later
stage to show the potential effects of multiple use.
The ·first step in the application of the method to
forestry is to determine which products should be analyzed
in detail. From the chapter on current and projected use
(Chapter 2 of this report), the principal products from the
Basin are likely to be sawtimber and fuelwood for local
use. The log export market is likely to be small and Vola-
tile, and capital intensive developments, such as pulp
mills and particle board plants, are very unlikely in view
.of the great distance from potential markets, the low pro-
ductivity per acre in the Interior compared to areas such
as the southeast u.s., and the high cost of production in
the area. Therefore, sawtimber and fuel wood are analyzed
in detai1 and the results for these two products are shown
separately.
The discussion for each product is divided into two
sections: current benefits and potential benefits. The
first section deals with the status quo. The purpose of
this section is two-fold: it estimates the current contri-
bution which the forest products industry is making to the
local economy and secondly it serves as the baseline which
will assist in estimating impacts of proposed land classi-
fications during the next phase of the Tanana Basin Area
Plan (the Alternative Development Phase).
The second part deals with the potential contribution
of forestry to the economy of the Basin. This section
estimates the effects of doubling the amount of state land
classified for forestry and also looks at the potential
effects of cooperative agreements with private landowners
to increase the total timber supply.
A. Application of the Method to Sawtbnber
1. NET BENEFITS TO PRODUCERS OF SAWTIMBER
The first step is to define who the producers
are. In this case, they are defined as sawmill owners who
sell their products commercially. Producers also include
gypo loggers, but in the Basin, sawmill owners do their own
logging for the most part or have it done on contract and --tl1e re_f_o-re -rog-g-ers-ana-s a wnHTr-o-pErr_a_t_o_r_s--are--tre-a-ted--to-- -------
gether.
5-9
Net benefits to producers are defined as net
profits after taxes and no allowance was made for the
opportunity cost of inputs such as labor or machinery.
Analysis of current operations was used to estimate annual
profits and these were discounted over 20 years to get net
benefits to producers.
2. NET BENEFITS TO CONSUMERS OF SAWTIMBER
Consumers are those who purchase lumber and
houselogs from the producers. Their benefits would ideally
be estimated from the demand curve as explained in the pre-
vious section. However, a lack of data necessitated the
use of the replacement cost approach instead. Consumer
benefits are defined as the difference between what consum-
ers would have to pay if no local products were available
and what they are actually paying for local lumber and
houselogs.
The personal use permit program for sawtimber
and houselogs was not analyzed here because the volume sold
under this program is insignificant relative to that sold
for commercial use.
3. NET BENEFITS TO THE StATE
This section delineates how much it costs the
state to administer the sawtimber management program,
exclusive of fire protection costs, and how much revenue
this program provides.
4. TOTAL NET BENEFITS
The sum of net benefits to producers, consumers
and the state represents the net benefits to society as a
whole from the sawtimber management program.
5. INCOME EFFECTS OF SAWTIMBER
Another measure of the bene£ it to Bas in res i-
dents from sawtimber is the amount of money that circulates
in the economy as a result of local sawmill production (the
income effects of locally produced wood products) • · To
""" determine the income effect, it is necessary to know what
the gross revenues are for the industry. From gross reve-
nues, it is possible to estimate the indirect income
effects of the industry. These indirect effects are due to
both the purchases which the industry makes from local sup-
pliers and the value added to the economy from secondary
manufacturing (such as cabinet making). To determine in-
direct effects, it is necessary to carefully study the
.~· _----------amount -pbl-L"Gl:la-secl-ay--eaeh--indtls-t-ry-from-a-1-l--oth-e-r--indusi:rte·s------
~ per dollar of revenue. The result of such a study is a set
of "multipliers" for each of the principal industries in
the economy. Total revenues for an industry are then fac-
tored up by the multiplier to give an estimate of the total
dir~ct and indirect income effects.
5-10
-"
Such a study of the Alaskan economy was conduct-
ed in 1975 (Logsdon, et. al., 1977). This was a prelimin-
ary examination and, because it uses. the state as a ~~hole
as its boundary, it is not perfectly applicable to Alaska's
Interior. How.ever, due to the lack of alternative informa-
tion, this study was used to provide an estimate of the in-
come effects of the lumber industry in the Tanana Basin.
6. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS OF SAWTIMBER
The employment effects of an industry include
both the employees hired directly by that industry and
those hired "indirectly" by related industries. For
example, if one company builds a factory in town, the com-
panies which sell products to the new factory will add per-
sonnel as will secondary manufacturing companies and retail
services. Thus the employment effect is "multiplied".
7. NET FISCAL EFFECTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Local governments incur both revenues and costs
due to new developments. Property taxes and other sources
of revenue can increase total receipts, but developments
can also .increase expenditures in the form of schools,
roads or other services.
Fiscal effects have been estimated from the
property tax records of the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
8. EXTERNAL BENEFITS AND COSTS
External effects are those which are d iff icul t
to quantify but which need to be considered by decision
makers.· A qualitative discussion of the potential social,
environmental and economic effects of both the current and
potential timber harvest has been included.
B. Application of the Method to Fuelwood
The analysis of fuelwood is complicated by the fact
that there is a substantial personal use program as well as
a commercial program. These two fuelwood programs ·were
therefore analyzed separately.
Current and potential effects are estimated for
fuelwood but due to both the importance of the price of oil
in determining fuel wood demand and the difficulty of pre-
dicting oil prices, only a very preliminary estimate of the
potential benefits of fuelwood is presented.
---------------------------------
5-11
.,
I. PERSONAL USE PERMITS
a. Net Benefits to Producers·
There are no commercial producers of personal
use firewood due to the regulation that wood collected on
such a permit cannot be sold.
b. Net Benefits to Consumers
Consumers are defined as those who purchase
and use personal use firewood permits. Due to lack of
information on consumer willingness to pay for the wood
collected, it was necessary to use the replacement cost
approach as a proxy for willingness to pay. In this case,
the next best alternative was assumed to be fuel oil. This
assumption was necessary because it is not known which
alternative fuel these people would utilize if the firewood
were not available. This provides an order of magnitude
estimate of the benefit to consumers.
c. Net Benefits to the State
Estimated as discussed under sawtimber.
d. Total Net Benefits
Estimated as discussed under sawtimber.
e. Income Effects
A very rough estimate of income effects can
be determined by approximating the number of dollars spent
by fuelwood c6llectors on chain saws, gasoline, etc. Using
the multiplier fo.r the trade industry, an estimate of the
number of dollars circulated in the economy due to fuelwood
collecting can be made.
f. Employment Effects
It was not possible, given the data ~vail
able, to estimate employment effects.
g. Fiscal Effects
Because the fuelwood cutting program evalu-
ated here qccurs only on state land, it was assumed that
the program has no direct effect on local government reve-
~ ~ -~ ~ .!l.!:l~~~E-!:19~ costs!_ ___ --~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~·~~~~~~~~~~~~~·~
5-12
-,
•,
h. External Effects of the Fuelwood Permit Program.
A qualitative discussion of the social/life-
style, environmental and economic effects of the personal
use program is included.
..-=~oo = = ~-= = = = = = = '-"= = = ~ = ~-==~ ===~~~--====~=--===~~-~=-~-==--=-===~~~~=-~--~=-~=--=-~-~~=-=-=-=--=-~==~-=-=--= = = = = ~
;;:..f
5-13
PART2.RESULTS
As discussed in Chapter 2 (Demand for Forest Pro-
ducts), there are likely to be two major products from the
Interior forest --sawtimber and fuelwood (recreation and
other multiple uses are discussed under those elements).
Therefore, this analysis examines the effects on producers
and consumers of sawtimber and on producers and consumers
of fuelwood.
I. CURRENT SAWTIMBER BARVFSTING
Sawtimber is used throughout the Basin to produce a
wide variety of products, including lumber and houselogs.
Although there are several small private sawmills in the
Basin, most of the production comes from the thirteen com-
mercial sawmills located in Delta (1), the Fairbanks area
(8), Nenana (1), Manley Hot Springs (1), Tanana (1) and Tok
( 1) •
A. Current Net Benefit to Local Producers
Currently, the thirteen commercial sawmills in the
basin produce approximately 5.2 million board feet (MMBF)
of lumber and houselogs annually. At the present time, the
only long-term source of timber in the area is State land,
although village corporations in Healy Lake, Nenana and
Tetlin have sold some timber in the last several years.
(see chapter 2)
To determine the current benefit of this sawtimber
supply to producers, it is necessary to determine the net
profit after taxes of all the producer~. Due tb a lack of
information on the profits of each producer, it was neces-
sary to assume that the estimated profits of one of the
.most efficient mills are fairly representative of all pro-
ducers' profits.
Currently, the largest mill in Fairbanks is selling
spruce lumber for an average of about $400 per MBF. Their
costs for milling (including overhead) average about $150
per MBF and for stumpage, approximately $ 65 per MBF (J.
Flodine, Northland Wood, and Dan Wieczorek, personal
communication, August 1982). Logging costs averaged $43.50
per MBF in 1979 and transport costs averaged $40 per MBF
(A. Richmond, u. of A. graduate student, personal communi-
cation, August 1982). At an assumed rate of price increase
of 7 percent per year, between 1979 and 1982, current log-
ging costs would average $53 per MBF and transport costs
would average $48 per MBF. Total costs are there.-f_o_r_e:___ __
~~~~~~~~~~--ap~pyox-inrat€Hy $3T5per M.B-F-Ieaving a net prof~i-t of $85 per
MBF. Total production of 5,245 MBF would then yield
approximately $446,000 net profit before taxes. The after
5-14
-,,
_,
tax cash flow should be approximately $326,000 (assuming
total taxes .. of approximately $70 ,000 and adding noncash
charges for depreciation of $50,000) or $31 per MBF. This
. is a rough approximation of the annual benefit to pro-
ducers. The present value of 20 years of this annual cash
flow (the average life of a mill) would be approximately
$2.8 million using a discount rate of 10%.
I
As discussed in Chapter 3, there are about 16.5
board feet allowable cut per "commercial" forest acre in
the Fairbanks area ("commercial" forest acres are those
which are capable of producing at least · 20 cubic feet per
acre per year). If this ratio is fairly constant-through-
out the Basin, then about 315,000 commercial forest acres
would·· be needed to sustain· the current harvest of 5. 2 MMBF
indefinitely. The net present value of the producers
profits would then be about $9 per· acre.
B. Current Net Benefit to Consum.ers
The principal benefit of local sawtimber supplies
to consumers would arise from a lower priced but equivalent
quality product to what consumers could obtain in the
absence of a local supply. However, in the case of lumber
produced locally, the product is not of perfectly equiva-
lent quality to imported graded lumber. Locally produced
lumber is not graded, much of it is rough sawn and often it
has a high moisture content. Also, the price of local pro-
ducts is only slightly less than imported products. In
1980, local air-dried lumber sold for 8% less than imported
lumber (M. Hartman, Northland vlood, December 1981).
However, in those cases where the higher quality
product is not desired, consumers are saving about $32 per
MBF (prices fluctuate seasonally so these estimates apply
to only one point in time). The savings to consumers for
the entire annual harvest is then roughly $170,000/year.
C. Costs to the State of Sawtbnber Manage~nent
The state currently manages forests for sawtimber
and fuelwood and it is also responsible for forest fire
management. These management tasks overlap, making it
somewhat difficult to allocate expenses to any one of these
th_ree activities. However, an estimate can be made by
allocating the costs and revenues which are principally due
to sawtimber management.
In calendar year 1981, the state received $167,911
in revenues from the sale of 4.25 MMBF of sawtimber
stumpage. State expenditures on salaries, equipment and
~~-----------travel to administer these sales and manage the forests
average $54,000 per year. (D. Wieczorek, Alaska DNR,
Division of
5-15
Forestry, personal communication, Sept. 1982). This leaves
a net return to the state of $113,911.
If this continued every year for 20 years, the
state's direct return from sawtimber management would be
$970,000 at a discount rate of 10%.
D. Current lncoJDe Effects of Local Production
Currently, the gross revenues of the industry are
on the order of $2.1 million (5,200 thousand board feet at
$400 per MBF). According to Logsdon, et. al., the income
multiplier for the lumber industry is 1.87 (Logsdon, et.
al., 1977). This would mean that the industry is indirect-
ly generating $1.8 million for a total income effect of
$3.9 mill ion. This figure is low relative to total Bas in
ihcome, but in the smaller communities, the income effects
may be very significant.
E. Current Elnploym.ent Effects of Local Production
According to Logsdon, the.employment multiplier for
the lumber industry is 1.47. As shown in Table 5-l, the 76
direct jobs result in approximately 114 total jobs for the
Basin as a whole due to the .lumber industry. (see Chapter
3.) This is less than 1% of the total estimated employment
in the Basin of 22,355.
In populated areas, such as Fairbanks q.nd Delta,
the jobs in forest production make up only a small percent-
age of total jobs in the community. However, in certain
small villages, such as Manley and Nenana, the percentage
of jobs contributed by sawmills relative to the total
number of jobs in the community is much larger.
F. Current Local Fiscal Effects
Sawmills in the Fairbanks North Star Borough con-
tributed $10,000 to the tax base, as a result of property
taxes (FNSB Assessors Office, Sept. 1982). Borough expend-
itures for services assoc.iated with timber harvesting and
local sawmills are not likely to be significant relative to
total Borough expenditures. Thus, the current net fiscal
effect on local governments is roughly $10,000.
G. External Benefits and Costs
One of the principal external benefits of the lum-
ber industry is import substitution. Currently, the indus-
try is supplying about one-fifth of the total amount of
lumber and houselogs consumed in the Basin. This is a
~~, "' ,, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Lgnilic~ani.~~eLC_eon,tagoe---par,t.LcllaxLy----S,ince----inocz::ease~se-cl~f,..-~. ~~·
~ sufficiency is one of the state's objectives for forestry.
5-16
l l . .J
Community
Delta
Fairbanks
(8 mills)
Nenana
" . . ,J \ ... jf L , ',,,) l j j .J
Table 5-1
Esti01ate!ld ED1ploy01ent Effects of the Lu01ber Industry
in the Tanana Basin (Both Woods and Mill Operations)
Estimated Total .. Lumber Industry Employment
Employment a %of all
All Sectors Direct Indirect Total Employment
-Person Years-
mo 5 2 7 1%
21,200 62 28 88 <1%
141 4 2 6 4%
Manley lbt Spgs. 39 2 1 3 8% .
Tanana ll5 1 -1 1%
'lbk 249 4 2 6 2%
Total 22,355 76 35 lll 1%
J
Closing an eupl.oyment llllltiplier of 1.4l fran I.Dgsdon, et al, Input-output Tables for
Alaska's Ecol'nlly: A First I.Dok. u. of Ak. h]ricultural Exper:unent Stat1on, 1977.
The industry also has social benefits in that it is
easy to enter the industry (the set-up costs are not exor-
bitant for small.sawmills) and therefore it allows many
people to become self-employed as small sawmill operators.
This in turn can have significant positive impacts on the
local employment situation in the smaller communities.
The possible environmental costs include site de-
gradation, stream siltation and aesthetic costs due to poor
transportation planning and silvicultural applications.
See Table 5-4, page 5-26, for a summary of current
economic effects.
5-18
·"
II. POTENTIAL FUTURE EFFECTS ON PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS OF
STATE SAWTIMBER SUPPLIES.
A. Potential Net· Benefit to Local Producers
To determine the potential of the forest products
industry in the Basin, it is necessary to examine three
principal constraints to expansion: l) the timber supply;
2) the demand for the products and 3) the financial feasi-
bility of expansion.
Information concerning the timber supply in the
Basin is limited at best (see chapter 4). The only detail-
ed inventories conducted on the resource have been done by
Tanana G1iefs for village corporations and this information
is proprietary. Other inventories, conducted by the Forest
Service, have been done on a very large scale without tak-
ing accessibility or land ownership into account. The
information currently being collected for the Tanana Plan
will add to our knowledge of the vegetation and soils of
the Basin and this can be used to estimate the productivity
· of the forests. However, this information will not be
available until December of 1982.
1. PROPOSED STATE FOREST SCENARIO
In the interim, a rough estimate of the allow-
able cut on the proposed state forest was used to estimate
the state timber supply in the basin. This estimate was
prepared by Joe Wehrman of the DNR Division of Forestry as
part of the Division's proposal for a State Forest System
in Interior Alaska. Through examination of aerial photo-
graphs, he estimated the allowable cut in the Tanana Basin
to be 15 million board feet per year. This is probably a
conservative estimate, but until better information is
available, this estimate will indicate the likely range of
economic effects.
The estimated demand for lumber and houselogs
(see Chapter 3) is well above the 15 million board foot
supply on the State forest. Currently, demand exceeds 24
million board feet and by the year 2,000, this demand is
likely to exceed 42 million board feet. Since the demand
for wood products is greater than the supply, the local
supply is currently the limiting factor on expansion of the
lumber industry.
Local producers and existing facilities could
possibly expand to process 15 million board feet, because
current capacity of local producers is on the order of 15
mill ion board feet. If Northland WJod in Fairbanks added
an extra shift, they could expand to 6 million board feet
of producton and this alone would increase total production
to 8.2 million board feet.
-------------~--c----=---=---=-----=-
5-19
_.J
Assuming that about 8 MMBF in the State forest
is currently accessible and that current costs and revenues
remained constant per MBF, then the annual benefit to pro-
ducers would increase from $446,000 to roughly $680,000
before taxes.
2. COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT SCENARIO
If a cooperative agreement were made with
Native Corporations, and forested lands that belong to the
corporations were used for timber production, it is con-
ceivable that the allowable cut could be increased within
the near term to 15 MMBF. If this amount were accessible
at current costs, the profits to producers before taxes
would increase to roughly $1.3 million per year. The pres-
ent value of this harvest to producers over 20 years is
$11.1 million. This volume could be handled if the 6-8
MMBF of unused capacity existing in Nenana were put into
production and if Northland operated a double shift. No
additional costs would accrue to the state, since private
lands would be expected to provide the additional volume.
This value assumes that the products that are
produced from native and state land would be sold green or
air dried and that local products would substitute for some
of the currently imported supply. This assumption is
tentative because it is not known how much green and air
dried, non-graded lumber the market can absorb. However,
all local producers interviewed indicated that they believe
they could double or triple production of green and air
dried lumber and still sell all they produce.
B. Potential .Net Benefit to ConsuDiers
Because the total quantity of lumber on the market
in the. region is not expected to change (instead, local
producers would simply produce a larger share) the price is
not expected to be significantly affected. Consequently,
the benefit to consumers is assumed to be in the range of
the current benefit at about $30/MBF.
C. Cost to the State of SawtiDiber ManageDient
If the harvest expanded to 8-9 million board feet,
the state would have to add about 20 man-months to manage
this increase in production (based on the current staffing
to production ratio), thus increasing state costs to
$108,000 per year. Revenues would increase to about
$240,000 if the average stumpage cost were $30/MBF
(assuming that much of the timber would sell for $3/MBF due
to its remote location and some would sell for $65-75 due
to its proximity to the mill). The net revenue to the
state would then be $132,000 per year. -----------------.,::. .. ~
5-20
In the "Cooperative Management" scenario, the above
costs and revenues would also apply since the difference in
harvest is assumed to come from non-state lands.
D. PotentiallncoJDe Effects
As
expansion
million if
if m<C~.ximum
shown in Table 5-2, the total income effects of
of the industry would increase 62% to $6.3
8.2 MMBF were produced or 172% to $10.7 million
expansion took place.
E. Potential EIDploy~nent Effects
As shown in Table 5-3, the total industry
employment would increase 13% (to about 129 jobs) due t_o
expansion of the industry if 8.2 MMBF were produced or 39%
(to 188 jobs) if maximum expansion took place.
F. Potential Fiscal Effects
Currently, a mill the size of Northland Wood
(capable of producing 3 to 6 MMBF) pays $7,000 in property
taxes. If two more mills of this size were added to the
current estimated $10,000 in property taxes which are pairl
by sawmills to the Borough, local fiscal effects could
total $24,000. Borough expenditures for services to local
producers are not expected to increase significantly. (see
Table 4)
G. Potential External Benefits and Costs
The principal external benefit of a larger lumber
industry would be the import substitution effects. If the
industry supplied 8 million board feet by the year 1985,
the region vmuld be approximately 26 percent self
sufficient in lumber and houselogs.
If the industry produced 15 million board feet by
the year 1985 (and assuming that the market could absorb
this much ungraded lumber), then the region would be 50
percent self-sufficient in lumber and houselogs.
The potential social benefits of increased
production would be due to the possible lifestyle benefits
of operating a sawmill.
Potential environmental costs include
and disruption of scenic views. (The costs
other foregone resource developments will
during the alternative stage.)
5-21
site erosion
in terms of
be examined
l .] l J L , .. ;J j ' .. l l " J .• ,J
Table 5-2
EstiDlated Potential lneoDle Effeets of DevelopDlent Scenarios
For the LuDlber Industry in the Tanana Basin.
(Both Woods and Mill Operations)
Estimated· Estimated Estimated
Development Gross lndirectincaome Total Income %Change
Scenario Revenues Effects Generated From Existing
Millions of Dollars
Current Operatioos
(total production
5.2 MMBF) 2.1 1.8 3.9
62%
Proposed State Fbrest
(total ~uction
8.2 MMBF)b 3.3 3.0 6.3
Cooperative 172%
Management
(total pr:pduction
15 MMBF)b 5.7 5.0 10.7
Closir¥j an in<noe llllltiplier of 1.87 fnn IDgsdon, et al, 1977.
bAsswnil¥j .all ti.ntler is accessible and land owner IX>licies favor harvesting.
L I U
1.,:\ '' .i
I
I
' iJ l' ' j ,) 1: ' .) ' J ' J
Table 5-3
Estbnated Em.ployJDeot Effeets of DeveloJDent Scenarios
For the Lu10ber Industry in the· Tanana Basin
(Both Woods and Mill Operations)
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Development Direct Indirect a Total %Change
Scenario Employment Employment Employment From Existing
Person Years
Current Operations
(total production
5.2 MMBF) 78 36 114
13%
Proposed State Fbrest
(total production
8.2.MMBF)b 88 41 129
39%
Cooperative Management
(total ~uction
14.2 HMBF)b 128 8) 188
I J
ctusing an euployment llllltiplier of 1.47 fran IDJsdon, et al, 1977.
bAssi.IIling that all of the tinber is ~ib1e am that land owner {X)licies favor harvesting.
'
L .J l . ,.J '.J ,J .J
TABLE 5-4
CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE LUMBER AND HOUSELOG INDUSTRY
!I
NET BENEFITS
NET
DIRECT& DIRECT& FISCAL EXTERNAL
VALUE INDIRECT INDIRECT EFFECTS COSTS
NET RETURN PER INCOME EMPLOYMENT ON LOCAL AND
TO PRODUCERS TO CONSUMERS TO THE STATE TOTAL ACRE EFFECTS EFFECTS GOVERNMENTS BENEFITS
(+)
SCENARIO I
PRESENT VALUE PRESENT VALUE (+) PRESENT VALUE PRESENT VALUE PERSON (+)
$/YEAR OVER20YRS $/YEAR OVER20YRS $/YEAR OVER20YRS $/YEAR OVER20YRS $/ACRE $/YEAR YEARS $/YEAR
I (+) (+) (+)
Current Pr41duction 446,000 3,800,000 170,000 1,447,400 113,900 969;800 730,000 6,214,000 20 3,900,000 114 10,000 Lifestyle
! benefits ( +)
I
State Forest (+) (-) (+)
Scenario I 680,000 5,800,000 246,000 2,094,400 132,000 1,123,900 1,058,000 9,008,000 n/a 6,300,000 140 10,000 Import sub-
i
':
stitution ( +)
I
Possible erosion
and scenic
! costs(-)
I
Cooperativl! (+) (+) (+)
Management 1,300,000 11,100,000 450,000 3,831,000 132,000 1,123,900 1,882,000 15,346,000 n/a 10,600,000 188 24,000
Scenario
Ill. CURRENT FUELWOOD HARVESTING
Fuelwood is an extremely important source of energy in
the Interior. Many of the smaller villages burn wood
almost exclusively, but due to its large population, the
FNSB uses almost 90% of all the fuelwood used in the Basin
(see Chapter 2 for a discussion of the estimated demand).
I
State lands are the source of much of the fuelwood in
the Basin. The state offers personal use contracts which
allow a person to harvest up to 10 cords of wood. In addi-
tion, the state offers commercial firewood sales to fire-
wood cutters. This analysis will examine the benefits of
personal use contracts and of commercial firewood sales
separately.
Due to both the large proportion of total usage which
occurs in the Fairbanks area and the lack of information on
the total amount of harvesting which occurs just on state
lands in the Basin as a whole, this discussion is limited
to the Fairbanks area. It is possible that the benefit in
the surrounding area is similar on a per cord basis, but
the predominance of the ·Fairbanks area in total fuelwood
consumed make this simplification a reasonable approxi-
mation.
A. Personal Use Contracts for Firewood in The
Fairbanks Area
There are no producers under this category because
it is illegal to sell personal use firewood commercially
and this analysis defin~s producers as those who use a re-
source commercially.
1. NET BENEFITS TO CONSUMERS
Consumers benefit from state land being managed
and used for firewood cutting if the existence of that land
and opportunity to get firewood allows them to save money.
The money they save is an indication of the value of the
land to consumers. If you add up the total dollars saved
by each person who uses state land for firewood, and then
distribute those dollars over each acre of land managed for
firewood, you get an indication of the value of each acre
of land to the consumer.
For example, if 20 people cut wood on 10 acres
of land, and save $10 each by doing so, then the net con-
sumer benefit of those 10 acres is $200. Furthermore each
acre of land is worth $20 to the consumers. This is the
type of analysis used in the following section to determine
5-25
""='------_ _]
the net benefit of an acre of state forest land to the con-
sumer. The analysis requires the following steps:
1) Determine the current value of the total number
of cords of wood cut on state land (its
replacement cost).
2) Determine the amount of money the consumer and
state spent to obtain that total value.
3) Determine the net value of the wood as the
replacement value less the cost to the consumer
and to the state.
4) Calculate the net value of the harvest per
acre.
The state offers personal use permits throughout
the Basin, but the vast majority of these are offered in
the Fairbanks Working Circle (the area within 60 miles of
Fairbanks) • The permits are sold for $10 each and allow a
person to harvest up to 10 cords of wood. As discussed in
Chapter 4, the number of permits sold increased an average
of 48 percent per year from 1976 to 1981. During the same
period, the population actually decreased by about 5%, in-
dicating that many households must have converted to fuel-
wood.
Records on the amount of fuelwood collected by each
permit holder are not available. However, a DNR survey
conducted in both 1980 and 1981 indicated that an averaye
of 4 cords were taken by each permittee. (DNR, Division of
Forestry, Unpublished Report) This would indicate that
about 11,000 cords were harvested by 2861 permit holders in
1981.
This figure underestimates the total harvest
because firewood theft on state lands occurs both in the
Fairbanks area and throughout the Basin. HO\lever, only the
documented average harvest of permit holders was used to
estimate benefits below.
For this analysis, it is assumed that 100% of the
permit holders would switch to fuel oil in the absence of
personal use permits. This is an oversimplification, but
there is no information on the most likely alternatives
people would choose.
5-26
To estimate the replacement cost, it is first
necessary to convert the cords used into energy equiva-
lents~ or BTU's. Allowing for a stove with 55% efficiency,
if one-half of the wood is spruce and one-half birch, the
average net BTU's per cord is approximately 9.25 x 106
(Gasbarro and Fox, 1980). Then 2861 permitees h~rvesting 4
cords each would obtain a total of 105,860 million BTU's.
The cost per million BTU averages $16. 62 in the
Fairbanks area (Fairbanks North Star Borough Energy Report
( 1981)). The cost of personally collected fuel wood is
approximately $8.88 per· million BTU assuming use of a
pickup truck @ $0 .30/mile, averaging 48 miles round trip
capable of hauling 3/4 cord of wood, chain saw costs of
$7/cord of wood cut and labor costs of $7/hour for 8 hours.
The total replacement cost of the 105,860 MMBTU's
of fuelwood harvested on state land through personal use
permits would then be equal to the value of an equivalent
amount of oil (105,860 @ $16.62/MMBTU = $1,745,210) less
the amount saved by not collecting fuelwood ( 105,8 60 @
$8.88/MMBTU = $940,000) or $805,000 per year.
This value does not include the recreational
enjoyment which the fuelwood collector may obtain from the
experience. Each individual places a different value on
this. Some say that only the first cord is recreational,
but other hardy souls insist that there is nothing they
would rather do on a weekend. This report has attempted to
evaluate the "average" persbn who feels that the experience
is partly recreational, but who has some opportunity cost
for his 0r her time.
2. NET COST TO THE STATE
The costs to the state DNR, Division of
Forestry, of providing this fuelwood include road
construction costs, equipment costs and salaries. During
the past two years the state Division of Forestry has
constructed over 30 miles of logging roads in the area for
the purpose of fuelwood collection at an average cost per
year of $125,000. Equipment costs are low or insignificant
since the same equipment is also used for several other
tasks. Therefore, equipment costs were not included.
Salaries include two technicians at $2700/month for eleven
months per year and one at $3150 also for eleven months for
a total of $94,050. Total costs for roads and salaries are
then $219,050 per year. These are offset by permit fees of
$28,610 for a net cost to the state of $190,400 per year
and by multiple uses of the· roads for reciea tion, mineral
development, etc.
5-27
a) Net Present V aloe Per Acre.
The net present value per acre was determined
from the number of acres which would be required to produce
the 1981 estimated harvest of 11,444 cords on a sustained
yield basis. According to the allowable cut analysis done
by the Division of Forestry, 31,000 cords could be cut on a
sustained basis from 242,500 acres of commercial forest
land within the Fairbanks Working Circle (Wieczorek,
1980) • This is an average of 0.1278 cords per commercial
forest acre. Thus, if 11,444 cords were to be produced
each year, 89,550 acres would need to be managed for fire-
wood production. If $805,000 is saved each year, but it
costs the state $190,400 to fund the program, then the
total net benefit is $614,600 per year. The presen't value
over twenty years is $5,230,000, or about $60 per acre.
Because most of the stands in the Interior produce both
firewood and sawtimber, this value per acre reflects only
one of the two products and is not indicative of the total
value per acre.
3. INCOME EFFECTS
There are income effects to the retail trade and
service indusiries due to purchases made by consumers
(chainsaws, equipment repair, gasoline, etc. are pur-
chased). Excluding labor costs, consumers spend about
$2.83 per cord (see above section). For 11,444 cords, the
consumers would spend $32,400, which becomes income to the
trade sector. The multiplier for this sector is 1.69 which
means total income effects are in the range of $55,000.
4. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS
These effects were not evaluated due to the lack
of information.
5. FISCAL EFFECTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
These effects are probably not applicable to the
state fuelwood program.
6. EXTERNAL COSTS AND BENEFITS
There are many social and "lifestyle" benefits
of firewood harvesting. To many people, collecting fuel-
wood is intrinsic to the Alaskan way of·life. These values
are very difficult to quantify, but are nonetheless very
important.
The environmental costs due to the air pollution
:::;--------from-wood-st:oves-have-riYewTse-notbeen-evaJ.ua-tea-quant1ta=---------------
tively in this report. However, these are very real costs
particularly in areas where steep inversions augment the
problem.
5-28
There are also the potential environmental
effects of improperly-thinned stands (since people do ·not
always confine their cutting to the trees which are
supposed to be removed) and some erosion due to skidding
the logs and building and using roads to access the stands.
B. Potential Effects of Firewood Harvesting
The benefit of an increase in the fuelwood harvest
is difficult to determine due to the volatile nature of oil
prices. If these prices decline, then the value of fuel-
wood will also decrease, as will demand. ·
If the population grows as projected in the Socio-
economic Background Report ( DNR, Division of Research and
Development, 1982) and if oil prices remain stable, then
fuelwood demand is likely to double by the year 2000. (see
Chapter 3.)
If this occurred, then the value to consumers is
likely to remain on the order of $200-300 per person per
year (the amount saved in heating bills compared to burning
oil). However, it is likely that people will have to go
further for wood. The allowable cut in the area within 60
miles of Fairbanks is 31,000 cords and this limit may be
reached within the next few years. This additional travel
cost may eliminate some of the benefit of fuelwood harvest-
ing.
Due to the speculative nature of projecting any
value which is directly related to oil prices, this analy-
sis has not examined the potential effects of fuelwood har-
vesting.
C. CoDUDereial Sales of Firewood
I. CURRENT NET BENEFIT TO ·PRODUCERS
There are currently three people employed full-
time in commercial fuelwood production and another 15
employed part-time.Total person-months of part-time employ-
ment was estimated at 47 for part-time workers and 30 for
full-time workers (Dick Jackson, Division of Forestry, Per-
sonal Communication). This is equivalent to just over 6
person-years.
The average firewood producer may be making
about $20 per cord. In 1982, 9,070 cords were harvested
and in 1983, 8,000 cords were cut by commercial operators.
This is an average of about 8, 535 cords, and at $20 per
cord, the current producer benefits are roughly $170,700.
5-29
2. NET BENEFIT TO CONSUMERS
The benefit to consumers o_f commercial firewood
sales are nearly equivalent on a unit basis to that of per-
sonal use permits. As noted in the previous section, the
cost per cord of gathering wood is approximately $8.88 per
million BTU's when labor costs are added. According to
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Energy Report, the cost of
delivered wood is about $8.72 per million BTU's, which is
essentially equivalent given the margin of error.
Therefore, it can be assumed that the value per
cord is similar for wood purchased commercially. In the
last section, the value was estimated at $805,000 for about
11,500 cords, or about $70 per cord compared to buying the
same amount of heat in the form of fuel oil.
In 1981, 7,455 cords (5,648 hardwood and 1,807
spruce) were sold by commercial opera tors from. fuel wood
sales on state land OHeczorek, personal communication) •
At $70 savings per cord, this amounts to a total savings of
about $521,900 in heating bills each year.
3. INCOME EFFECTS
If producers spend· $2.83 per cord in equipment
and operating costs, then the direct income effect to re-
tail shops, etc. , would be about $21,000. Direct and in-
direct effects would then be about $36,000 per year.
4. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS
As mentioned above, there are approximately 6
person-years of employment due to commercial firewood
operations and this is not a significant amount relative to
the 21,000 person-years of employment in all industries in
the Fairbanks area.
5. FISCAL EFFECTS
It is likely that no direct fiscal effects stem
from this industry.
6. EXTERNAL COSTS AND BENEFITS
Commercial firewood operations are one of the
enterprises in the Interior which is very important to the
producers from a lifestyle point of view. Although the
financial rewards may not be particularly appealing to
some, for others, the independence and the enjoyment of
working outdoors is enough to com_Qensate for the sma=l=l __
~-----------f-i-nancial return. These effects have not been included in
this analysis.
.5-30
.J
Possible environmental costs of these operations
include the air pollution effects discussed earlier as well
as the potential for site erosion in cutting areas •
5-31
PART 3. CONCLUSIONS
As shown in Table 6, the Total Present Net Benefits of
the sawtimber and fuelwood programs are on the order of
$13,500,000. The forest products industry_also contributes
almost $4 million to the local economy each year and 120
jobs. There is also a positive fiscal effect of about
$10,000 pe~ year to the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
Possible external benefits include import substitution
and lifestyle benefits. External costs may include air
pollution, erosion, scenic costs, and poor stand manage-
ment if the general public is allowed to do the cutting.
= ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~-~--~·-----~----------
5-32
Cl1
I w w
1. •• L
PRODUCT
Sawtimber
Fuel wood
Total
~. j_,~ L
TO PRODUCERS
PRESENT VALUE
$/YEAR OVER20YRS
466,000 3,800,000
n/a n/a
446,000 3,800,000
.J J '"•·.J 'J
TABLE 5-6
SUMMARY OF CURRENT ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF FORESTRY
NET BENEFITS
DIRECT&
VALUE INDIRECT
NET RETURN PER INCOME
TO CONSUMERS TO THE STATE TOTAL ACRE EFFECTS
(+)
PRESENT VALUE (+) PRESENT VALUE PRESENT VALUE
$/YEAR OVER20 YRS $/YEAR OVER20 YRS $/YEAR OVER20YRS $/ACRE $/YEAR
(+) (+)
70,000 1,447,400 113,900 969,800 730,000 6,214,000 20 3,900,000
(-) (-)
1,326,900 11,298,000 190,400 1,621,000 1,136,500 9,676,200 65 91,000
(-) (-)
1,496,900 12,745,400 76,500 651,200 1,866,500 15,890,200 3,991,000
.,)
NET
DIRECT& FISCAL EXTERNAL
INDIRECT EFFECTS COSTS
EMPLOYMENT ON LOCAL AND
EFFECTS GOVERNMENTS BENEFITS
PERSON (+)
YEARS $/YEAR
(+)
114 10,000 Import Substitu-
lion benefits
' Lifestyle benefits
Possible erosion
and scenic costs
Access to new
areas
6 n/a Lifestyle benefits
Air pollution costs
Possible erosion
Possible improper
stand manage-
ment
Access to new
areas
120
]
j
"l
J
j
' J
-,
' J
------------~--------
~
..J
_j
Chapter 6
l)emand vs. Supply
I. SAWTIMBER
As shown in Table 6-1, demand for lumber and houselpgs
is forecasted to increase from 35,280 MBF in 1985 to 47,815
MBF in the year 2000. Demand includes figures for
communities in the Tanana Basin as well as figures for the
North Slope oil fields and the Yukon Delta communities.
The table shows the estimated allowable cut of
accessihle, state owned or selected timber compared to
demand. TI1is supply does not consider land use regulations
which may restrict timber harvesting; it assumes that all
of the allowable cut would be available for harvest. The
supply is also limited to state lands, although federal,
borough, and private lands could also contribute to the
sawtimber needs of the Basin.
As shown in Table 6-l, it is possible that there will
be a surplus of timber in the Basin if the State receives
most of the forested land it has selected and if there are
fev1 restrictions on timber harvesting.
This is especially true if the demand for upgraded
products is taken into account. Currently, local mills do
not produce graded lumber and, due to the expense of having
the lumber graded, it is unlikely that local products will
be graded in the foreseeable future. Although the quality
of local products may be equivalent to that of imported,
graded materials, some contractors insist on graded lumber.
At the current time, the limiting factor on local pro-
ductions is the supply of timber. However, if the state
increases the supply, local mills are likely to encounter a
new limitation: the demand for upgraded lumber. This
demand cannot be determined at the current time, but it is
almost certain to be lower than the total lumber demand.
Therefore, it is conceivable that the supply of state owned
timber will be adequate to meet ·the forecast demand.
6-1
=
Table 6-1
Sawtim.ber Supply Co~npared to Demand
-----.,.---------7-------·------------r--------------Accessible Timber Supply
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
on Stated
SeleCted
Land(a)
(MBF)
40,000
on Patented or
TA'dLand
(MBF)
28,000
(c)
----------·---
(a) See Chapter 4, page 4-7
(b) See Chapter 3, page 3-16
Total
Supply
(MBF)
68,000
Projected
Demand in
the Basin(b)-
BothLocal&
Imported
Products
(MBF)
35,280
39,310
43,510
47,815
(c) The amount of state selected and state.,-owned timber
will change as the land is conveyed. How much will
actually be state-owned cannot be predicted at this
time.
6-2
II. FUELWOOD
The supply of fuel\<KX:ld is estimated to be about 164,000 cords
per year in the Basin. fbwever, only a portion of this is
accessible at the current time and therefore the available supply is
likely to be much lower.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the demand for fuelwood is currently
about 37,000 cords arid this is likely to increase to CNer 62,000
cords by the end of the century. If IOC>re forest land is made
accessible, the available supply should be adequate to meet the
demand.
6-3
Chapter7
_)
_j
l
Recommendations
_j
~-------------------------------------------------------------------.....
I. STA TEWlDE GOALS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR FOREST
MANAGEMENT IN TilE TANANA BASIN
A.lntroduetion
The preceding chapters describe existing and expected demand for wood
products, the availability of forest lands to supply those products, and
the economic feasibility of forest development. These analyses, together
with the goals for forestry laid out in the FY83 Statewide Natural
Resources Plan, fonn the foundation for the forest managanent
recommendations that follow.
B. Relationship of Statewide Forestry Goals to the Tanana
Basin
'Ihe Statewide Natural Resources Plan is the broadest of the plans
developed by the Department of Natural Resources. It provides the
context for the area plans, sudl as the Tanana Area Plan, setting forth
goals and objectives for each resource. The Statewide Plan is used in
formulating ADNR's budget and setting inventory and planning priorities.
I. Statewide Goal: Economic Development
Contribute to Alaska's economy with an integrated forest
products industry that provides a range of job opportun-
ities, needed products and increased per capita incane, while
ensuring that personal use needs of all Alaskans are met
within the limitations of the land.
Forests in the Tanana Basin can make a contribution to this statewide
goal through both commercial forest development and personal use
permits. Forestry currently employs about 100 people and generates more
than $4 million in income effects. If a stable land base were available,
investment in forestry 'M:>uld increase and likewise the jobs and income
which this generates.
industry requ1r1ng only a small initial
entrepreneurs to easily enter the
source of employment in many rural areas
Fbrestry also contributes to economic
lumber imports.
Fbrestry is a competitive
investment, thereby allowing
business. Forestry provides a
where jobs are scarce.
self-sufficiency by reducing
By ensuring that the personal use needs are met within the
limitations of the land, the state's citizens benefit in the form of
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Jg~r~ ~fJlS!i~gills and less expensive houselQgs. An estimated benefit
~ of $65 is realized for every acre harvested for fuelwood.
7-1
In the Tanana Basin, the goal of eoonomic developnent oould be
assisted by designating land for forestry use. This is because a stable
timber supply is needed to enoourage investment in the industry. '!he
State Fbrest already allocates considerable land for forestry, but it has
omitted some excellent timber stands, which should be protected through
this plan. Also, the State Forest is not accessible to several
communities which oould have small forestry enterprises if a stable
forest land base were accessible t.o them.
2. Ensure a Land Base for Forestry
Statewide Goal: Maintain a forested land base in public
ownership adequate to meet the eoonomic development goal
and dedicated to the production of a full range of forest
products and associated resources such as recreation, wildlife,
soil, water and range.
Approximately 1.7 million acres of state land in the study area have
high or moderate capability for producing wood for personal or commercial
use. Of this, roughly 1.26 million have been set aside in the State
Forest. Although the State Forest provides for much of the Basin's
timber needs, it does not allocate land near all communities nor does it
include all of the highest value timber lands for forestry.
The emphasis in the Tanana Basin Plan should therefore be to
ensure that some larrl near communities is allocated for forestry and
also to protect the forest values in high value timber stands not
included in the State Forest.
3. Manage Alaska's Forest Resources
Statewide Goal: Manage the public and private forested land
for long-term productivity and the continuous availability of
forest products while maintaining arrl enhancing other valuable
resources and the opportunity to use and enjoy them. Protect
the rost valuable forest lands and human improvements and all
human life from wildfire and other destructive agents.
Active multiple use management of Tanana Basin forests could improve
forest productivity, enhance other uses (such as recreation and wildlife
habitat) and encourage mining in appropriate areas.
In the Basin, emphasis should be placed on research concerning the
costs and benefits of such management practices as planting and
_, _________ !:bl,nnin<l. ___ ]\l§Q_~~_ggi(ie~ines_ ___ g,'f_g~_Q_er _ _J.Ises _ _g_K _ _!:.h~ __ fe>_r~§t§__ffiUSJ: __ qe ___________ _
established so that the maximum benefit can be derived while minimizing
7-2
conflicts with other uses.
Managing the forests also involves proteetion and wise utilization.
A new fire plan should be prepared when the Tanana Basin Plah is
completed. In crldition timber should be salvaged before converting land
to other uses such as agriculture, grazing, mining or transportation or
rights-of-way.
Management will also entail both protection of access and development
of roads. IDgging roads are used for many purposes, including
recreation. '!he Tanana Basin Plan should provide rights-of-way to
protect access to all areas designated for forestry.
Another implication of this goal is that the plan should make
recomnendations regarding cooperative forest management with other land
owners. It is likely that I:byon, Toghotthele, Tetlin and Healy Lake
Corporations may be interested in such arrangements.
U. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
A. ReeoJDJDendations for Designations
I. Retain High Value Forest Lands Near Communities
Areas designated 302 on the forest cover map (see Chapter 4 of the
Forestry Element), have white spruce and birch greater than 30 feet tall
and are located near existing towns fall into this category. · Forestry
should be at least a co-primary use on these areas. 'Ihese regions· do oot
include lands already designated in the State Forest. Additional high
value areas were added basedon the experience of local foresters. 'Ibese
sites also are located within 25 miles of a community and within 15 miles
of a ~ad. The following guidelines are presented for the management of
these :l:anjs.
a. These areas will be open for comnercial arrl personal
use.
b. These lands should also
with Division of Forestry consultation.
entry, but the miner will be required
negotiated sale.
be available for material sales
Areas will be open to mineral
to salvage the timber under a
c. A3ricultural sales and leases will not be allowed on
these lands. Grazing might be permitted, depending on the specific site
and with DOF consultation.
7-3
_,
--"
d. New IDW's, utility o::>rridors and trails will be allowed,
with DOF consultation.
e. Trapper cabins, conmercial leasing arrl habitat
enhancement also would be allowable where compatible with forestry
management. fbwever, rerrote cabin permits am scattered tract disposals
would not be allowed.
Wlile the new State Forest provides oonsiderable forest land, it
does not include several high value areas. In addition many communities
are located too far from the State Forest to use it for a local \\Qed
supply.
Twenty-five miles was chosen as a reasonable distance for wood supplies
from oommunities as it is currently the estimated average distance people
in Fairbanks travel for personal use fuelwood.
Allocating all of the larrls described above to forestry would help
to meet the goals of economic developnent and a stable long-term land
base.
2. Retain High Value Forest Lands in Remote Areas
'I'hese areas are designated as "302" on the recommendation map but
are more than 15 miles fvom the nearest road or more than 25 miles from
the nearest town. These areas should include forestry as a primary or a
secondary use. Management guidelines are the same as in those lands in
this same category but located nearer to oommunities or the road system.
These areas are currently fairly remote or inaccessible, but as
demand for v.DOd products increases in each community, the need for the
resources of these areas will increase. Roads may be extended to many of
them by that time aoo therefore the forest values should be protected.
This recommendation would assist in developing a long-term lam base
for forestry. 'lhese areas are likely to eventually oontribute to the
economic development goal.
7-4
3. Retain Forest Land In or Near Disposals
Some forested lams located near homesteads or large subdivisions
which are greater than three miles from a maintained road should be
retained in public onwnership as a source of wood products. A land base
adequate to supply a specified number of rordsjhousehold/year will be
identified. 'Ibis figure will vary from area to area based on local
ronditions, including type of 'YOJd available and anticipated anount of
seasonal use. In calculating the available lam base, public retention
lands within a reasonable hauling distance will be ronsidered as well as
the acreage of parcels intended for sale. As a rule oo ronmercial sales
~uld be allowed but the area would otherwise be managed the same as
areas under Rerormnendation 1 •
'lhe demand for houselogs arrl fuelwood has caused a serious 'YOJd
shortage near many disposals, particularly in rerrote areas. Many members
of the public have expressed concern about the capacity of the forest
resources near disposals to meet the demand. CNercutting is likely to be
a problem if substantial forest land is not retained, especially in areas
designated for homesteads.
This action ~uld assist in meeting the goal of economic development
by providing wood for personal use, which provides benefits in the form
of greater self-sufficiency and many consumer benefits.
4. Retain Some Forest Land Near Every Community
The above recommendations may still not provide forests near every
oonmunity, since some towns · do oot have areas which are of high or
noderate value for forestry. Ibwever, forests with lower productivity
can still be of importance to a oonmunity if oo other wood supplies are
· available. The areas need not be classified primary use forestry, but
they sllould be retained in public ownership and include timber and
fuelwood harvesting as allowable uses.
These sites should be determined on a case by case basis in
cooperation with other resource experts and managed the same as areas
under ReoonmEimdation 41 •
7-5
b. Guidelines for Management
Same as Recommendation 2.
B. Other Maaagement GaideHnes
1. Multiple Use
To the extent economically feasible, all areas designated for for:estry as
a primary use will be managed for a variety of compatible uses such as
recreation, habitat, mining and watershed protection.
2. Fire Management Plans
A revised fire management plan should be prepared incorporating the
reconmendations of the Tanana Basin Plan.
3. Protect Access
Access should be protected across and to forest areas. Road development
should be coordinated with other resource management interests.
4. Require Timber Salvage
Tint>er salvage should be required on agricultural land, land to be
surface mined and rights-of-way.
5. Consider Cooperative Management Agreements
Otportunities should be esplored for cooperative forest management
agreements with other agencies and private companies.
7-6
1
'
j
l
j
J
1
l
l
J
]
l
.1
l
j
l
j
,
d
l
j
l
j
j
l
=--------------
~
Appendices
[
[
[
[
[
[
APPENDIX 4A
Mapping Procedure: Vegetation will be mapped by
stereoscopic photointerpretation of the 1:60,000 CIR
photography. Black and white units will be reformatted and
delineated on a mylar overlay fixed atop the LANDSAT scene.
Site specific projects and the sample plots will be used where
available in identifying characteristic signatures. The final
v~getation overlay will be rectified and registered to the
U.S.G.S. basemap. Waterbodies and urban or disturbed areas
will be mapped to smaller resolution consistent with the land
use variable.
The classification wi,l.l be a modified version of L.A.
Viereck et al. "Preliminary Classification System for
Vegetation of Alaska". Vegetation will generally be mapped to
level three of the Viereck system. Black spruce will be
mapped where possible. Vegetation complexes will be created
for areas where two· vegetation groups are mixed and where
mapping resolution prohibits the delineation of separate
v~getative units. Mapping resolution will be approximately
640 acres.
Any vegetation type which occupies greater than 60% of
the relative groundcover for an · areq with a homogeneous
photo-signature will be mapped as a single type with no
secondary type identified. Under all other circumstances
where two vegetation types occur in more equal proportions,
the primary vegetation type is determined on the basis of
stature and absolute crown cover, or according to relati·~le
crown cover when life forms of similar stature share an area.
Thus, in a given area, the primary vegetation is the tallest
life form with at least 25% absolute crown coverage ( 25% of
maximum crown diameter coverage}. In a situation with life
forms of similar stature sharing an area, the primary
vegetation will be the life form which has the greatest
relative crown coverage (the percentage of the absolute crown
coverage} •
The secondary vegetation type is determined on the basis
of relative crown coverage. Whichever life form has the next
highest relative crown coverage is designted as the secondary
vegetation type.
Barren or Urban/Disturbed categories are ranked by the
total percent of the area which they occupy.
Source:
b------
Preliminary Draft of Specifications for Management
Resources Mapping Program, DNR, DGGS, 1982.
4A-1
r
! I 0
I
L_;
[
[
[
[
[
[
l
I
L
Definitions:
1. Tall, intermediate and dwarf refer to the height of
the vegetation found in that area. The terms are defined
as follows:
Tall:
Intermediate:
Dwarf:
Greater than 10 meters in height
3-10 meters in height
Used only for spruce iess than 3
meters in height
2. Closed, open and woodland refer to the canopy cover
of the vegetation type. The terms are defined as follows:
Closed: 60-100% canopy cover
Open: 25-60% canopy, cover
Woodland: 10-25% canopy cover
4A-2
APPENDIX 48
Explanation of Regression Equations.
Linear Regression Equations were calculated for 6 different combinations
of data. The Software was developed by Hewlett Packard and run on the
HP-41C handheld computin~ system.
Timber typing was done _by Kreig Associates Inc. for the Tanana Valley.
This same timber typing was a·cconipl i shed some three years ago by the
Forestry staff of the Northcentral Oi strict Forestry Office.
The purpose of computing the regression equations was to see if there
is any consistent coorelation between Kreig acreages and NCO acreages
or if it would be a totally haphazard comparison.
Acreages were calculated from both subject maps, categorized and
the curve fit program was run. This program uses the method of least
squares in att~mpting to fit a curve to a set of data. ·
On the printout sheets: T&R = Township & Range, all are in Fairbanks Meridian;
K ALL = Kreigs High, Medium & Low categories
K M&H = Kreigs Medium & High categories
NCO = Northcentral Oi stri cts acreage for "Commercial Forest Land" within that
particular township & range~:
All equations given are for Linear Regressions of the form Y = a + bX
in all cases NCO acreages = Y and Kreig acreages = X
The best Curve fit for all data taken as a whole is K ALL vs. NCO
with a coorelation coefficient (r2) of 0.71. The equation is:
NCO = 469.49 + 0.73K ALL
The best curve fit for any portion of the data is fol--the Chen a Compartment
K M&~ vs. NCO. This data gives a coorelation coefficient (r2) of 0.84.
~ The equation is: NCO= 779.90 + 0.73K M&H.
The actual curves were plotted also using Hewlett Packard developed
software and also on the HP-41C system. They ·are shown for informational
purposes only.
48-1
SUBUNIT
UNIT 1 ---
lA
IB
IC
TOTAL
UNIT II
I lA
II B
IIC
liD
II E
IIF
IIG
IIH
TOTAL
UNIT Ill
lilA
I liB
IIIC
1110
TOTAL
Table 4C-1
SUPPLY BY SUBUNIT
Patented and Tentatively Approved
STATE OWNED STATE OWNED AND ACCESSIBLE
ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT
thousands thousand BF thousands thousand BF
high med. high med. TOTAL high med. high med. TOTAL
(a) (b) (a) (b)
14.1 10.9 1134 526 1660 0 0 0 0 0
12.8 27.5 1029 1327 2356 0 0 0 0 0
89.0 53. 1 7155 2562 9717 0 2.6 0 125 125
115.9 91.5 9318 4415 13733 0 2.6 0 125 125
42.2 25.0 3393 1206 4599 0 0 0 0 0
0 1.3 0 63 63 0 0 0 0 0
11.5 12.8 925 618 1543 0 0 0 0 0
22.4 12.2 1801 589 2390 0 0 0 0 0
12.8 15.4 1029 740 1769 0 0 0 0 0
15.4 12.2 1235 587 1822 6.4 3.2 "516 154 670
5. I s.8 412 278 690 0 0 0 0 0
109.4 84.7 8795 4081 12876 6.4 3.2 516 154 670
0 .6 0 29 29 0 0 0 0 0
22.4 10.9 1801 526 2327 .6 1.9 48 92 140
5.1 15.4 410 743 1153 5. 1 15.4 410 743 1153
9.6 10.9 772 526 1298 9.0 6.4 727 309 1036
37. 1 37.8 2983 1824 4807 14.7 23.7 1185 1144 2329
-~ . ( a)Assumes 20 cubic feet per acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic foot. (c)
(b)Assumes 12 cubic feet per acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic foot. (c)
-~ -----------{CTAssumes s'fa nds 0TI ;1 r ge oHTe-c-liT>:::re·s-;-pr.-tm:-ip<rl-1-y---,.,Tf-tWond-(-p, d-c-t-imbcr-u nd-sawt-icmhet~) .
4C-1
_;
SUBUNIT
UNIT IV
IVA
IVB
IVC-1
IVC-2
IVD
IVE
TOTAL
UNIT V ---
VA
VB
TOTAL
UNIT VI
UNIT VII
V IIA-1
V IIA-2
VIIB
VIIC
V liD
TOTAL
Table 4C-1
SUPPLY BY SUBUNIT
Patented and Tentatively Approved
STATE OWNED STATE OWNED AND ACCESSIBLE
ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT
thousands thousand BF thousands thousand BF
high med. high med. TOTAL high med. high med. TOTAL
{a) {b) {a) {b)
.6 0 48 0 48 .6 0 48 0 48
9.0 26.9 720 1297 2017 4.5 11.5 360 556 916
12.2 17.3 978 834 1812 7.0 4.5 560 216 776
9.0 12.8 720 617 1337 9.0 6.4 720 309 1029
0 .6 0 29 29 0 .6 0 29 29
0 3.2 0 154 154 0 2.6 0 125 125
30.8 60.8 2466 2931 5397 21.1 25.6 1688 1235 2923
9.0 12.8 720 617 1337 9.0 12.8 720 617 1337
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9.0 12.8 720 617 1337 9.0 12.8 720 617 1337
SUS ITNP AREA P AN
5.8 13.4 463 648 1111 3.2 8.3 257 401 658
1.9 .6 154 31 185 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 17.3 103 834 937 1.3 13.4 103 648 751
0 24.3 0 1172 1172 0 9.6 0 463 463
0 9.0 0 432 432 0 0 0 0 0
9.0 64.6 720 3117 3837 4.5 31.3 360 1512 1872
{a)Assumes 20 cubic feet per acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic foot.
~---------{~b-lAs-sumes--20-cub-i-c-feet-per-ac-pe-a-Howa b-1 e-G-ut-and-4-.-02-boar-d-f-eet-/-cub-i-c-f-oot-.--------
4C-2
SUBUNIT
UNIT VIII
V lilA
V Ill B
VIIIC
TOTAL
UNIT IX
IXA
IXB
TOTAL
UNIT X
XA
XB
TOTAL
UNIT XI
Table 4C-l
SUPPLY BY SUBUNIT
Patented and Tentatively Approved
STATE OWNED STATE OWNED AND ACCESSIBLE
ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT ACRES ALL.OWABLE CUT
thousands thousand BF thousands thousand BF
high med. high med. TOTAL high med. high med. TOTAL
(a) (b) (a) (b)
176.0 52.5 14150 2533 16683 15.4 .6 1238 29 1267
51.2 8.3 4117 400 4517 7.0 .6 563 29 592
33-3 1.3 2677 63 2740 10.9 0 876 0 876
260.5 62.1 20944 2996 23940 33.3 1.2 2677 58 2735
22.4 17.3 1801 835 2636 20.5 17.3 1648 835 2483
50.6 12.8 4068 618 4686 50.6 12.8 4068 618 4686
73.0 30.1 5869 1453 7322 71.1 30.1 5716 1453 7169
1.9 9.6 153 463 616 .6 0 48 0 48
6.4 10.9 515 526 1041 3.8 4.5 306 217 523
8.3 20.5 668 989 1657 4.4 4.5 354 217 571
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
..
(a) Assume 20 cubic feet per acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic foot.
- - - - - --(-b-l--As-s ume -12-cubic--fee-t-per-ac r-e-a.!J.owa bJe_c uLand___lj_._Q2 __ boacd_Eee.tL c.u b_i_c __ [oo_t ·-~
4C-3
SUBUNIT
UNIT XII
XIIA
X II B-1
XIIB-2
X IIC-1
XIIC-2
X II D-1
XIID-2
XII E
XIIF
XIIG
X IIH
XII I
X IIJ
XII K
X II L
X liM
X liN
XIIO
X II P
TOTAL
Table 4C-l
SUPPLY BY SUBUNIT
Patented and Teatatively Approved
STATE OWNED STATE OWNED AND ACCESSIBLE
ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT
thousands thousand BF thousands thousand BF
high med. high med. TOTAL high med. high med. TOTAL
(a) (b) (a) (b)
10.2 11.5 823 556 1379 10.2 11.5 823 556 1379
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.9 .6 154 31 185 1.9 .6 154 31 185
7.7 2.6 617 123 740 7.7 2.6 617 123 740
15.4 19.2 1235 926 2161 15.4 19.2 1235 926 2161
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
).2 9.6 257 463 720 ).2 9.6 257 463 720
.6 2.6 48 123 171 .6 2.6 48 123 171
. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.6 .6 48 31 79 .6 .6 48 31 79
LITTLE CHENA ANAGEME NT PLAN
7.0 10.9 566 525 1091 7.0 10.9 566 525 1091
1.9 11.5 154 556 710 1.9 11.5 154 556 710
3.2 4.5 257 217 474 0 3.2 0 154 154
4.5 6.4 360 309 669 4.5 6.4 360 309 669
CHENA ~ IVER R CREATI N .PLAN
70.4 53.1 5660 2562 8222 0 0 0 0 0
EIELSO~
FORT > ~INWRIG T
126.6 133.1 10,179 6422 16,601 53.0 78.7 4262 3797 8059
(a) Assume 20 cubic feet per acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic foot
-( b) -Assume ---l-2--<:ub-i-c~f'ee-t--per-il c-~r:.e __ aJJowa.ble_cu.Land __ 4_, 02 __ baacd_f.eetL~v_b_Lc __ fo_QL____ ____ _ _________ ______ _ _____ _
4C-4
. .
SUBUNIT
UNIT I ---
lA
I B
IC
TOTAL
UNIT II
I lA
II B
IIC
liD
II E
IIF
JIG
II H
TOTAL
UNIT Ill
lilA
I liB
IIIC
I liD
TOTAL
Table 4C-2
SUPPLY BY SUBUNIT
Selected
STATE OWNED STATE OWNED AND ACCESSIBLE
ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT
thousands thousand BF thousands thousand BF
high med. high med. TOTAL high med. high med. TOTAL
(a) (b) (a) (b)
10.2 8.9 820 429 1249 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 5.8 105 280 385 0 0 0 0 0
4.5 1.9 362 92 454 0 0 0 0 0
16.0 16.6 1287 801 2088 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.5 .6 362 29 391 0 0 0 0 0
].0 7.0 566 340 906 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.6 .6 51 31 82 0 0 0 0 0
12.1 8.2 979 400 1379 0 0 0 0 0
3.2 3.2 257 154 411 0 0 0 0 0
10.9 10.2 876 492 1368 3.8 4.5 306 217 523
4.5 21.8 362 1052 1414 4.5 21.8 362 1052 1414
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18.6 35.2 1495 1698 3193 8.3 26.3 668 1269 1937
(a) Assume 20 cubic feet/acre allowable cut and 4.02 board. feet/cubic foot.
I
f
I
~-----------(.b.)~Assume-~1-2-cubic-f'ee-t-/.acr-e--aJJowabJ_e_cuLand_l!_._02_b_oa_e_d~f.e_e_tLc....,u"'b-"i c...__,f_,.o.,..o,_t~. ______________ _
4C·5
_ _;;
SUBUNIT
UNIT IV
IVA
IVB
IVC-1
IVC-2
IVO
IVE
TOTAL
UNIT V ---
VA
VB
TOTAL
UNIT VI
V IIA-1
VIIA-2
V liB
V IIC
VIID
TOTAL
Table 4C-Z
SUPPLY BY SUBUNIT
Selected
STATE OWNED STATE OWNED AND ACCESSIBLE
ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT
thousands thousand BF thousands thousand BF
high med. high med. TOTAL high med. high med. TOTAL
(a) (b) (a) (b)
3.2 6.4 257 309 566 3.2 6.4 257 309 566
0 2.6 0 123 . 123 0 1.3 0 62 62
1.9 5.1 154 247 401 1.9 3.8 154 185 339
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 8.3 105 400 505 1.3 8.3 105 400 505
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.4 22.4 516 1079 1595 6.4 19.8 516 956 1472.
. 7.0 7.7 566 370 936 7.0 7.7 566 370 936
0 14.7 0 709 709 0 14.1 0 680 680
7.0 22.4 566 1079 1645 'J.O 21.8 566 1050 1616
SUS ITN AREA LAN
3.8 7.7 309 370 679 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.6 0 51 0 51 .6 0 51 0 51
0 1.3 0 63 63 0 1.3 0 63 63
0 1.3 0 62 62 0 0 0 0 0
4.4 10.3 360 495 855 .6 1.3 51 63 114
c--~~,--"~~~{~a-}--A!iSume 20 cubic feet/acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic foot
(b) Assume 12 cubic feet/acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic foot
4C-6
SUBUNIT
UNIT VIII
VIllA
V Ill B
VIIIC
TOTAL
UNIT IX
IXA
IXB
TOTAL
UNIT X ---
XA
XB
TOTAL
UNIT XI
Table 4C·2
SUPPLY BY SUBUNIT
Selected
STATE OWNED STATE OWNED AND ACCESSIBLE
ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT
thousands thousand BF thousands thousand BF
high med. high med. TOTAL high med. high med. TOTAL
(a) (b) (a) (b)
14.7 0 1182 0 1182 0 0 0 0 0
4.5 12.8 362 618 980 2.6 7.7 209 371 580
8.3 3.2 667 154 821 7.0 0 563 0 563
27.5 16.0 2211 772 2983 9.6 7.7 772 371 1143
5.1 5.8 410 280 690 4.5 2.6 362 125 487
7.7 2.6 619 125 744 7.7 2.6 619 125 744
12.8 J.8 1029 183 1212 12.2 5.2 981 250 1231
.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9.( 0 724 0 724 1.9 0 153 0 153
(a) Assume 20 cubic feet/acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic foot
-~~-~--~~---~bJ_l\~sume 12 cubic feet/acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic foot
4C-7
I
I
I
SUBUNIT
UNIT XII
XI lA
X II B-1
X II B-2
X IIC-1
X IIC-2
X I 10-1
X 110-2
XII E
X IIF
XIIG
XIIH·
XII I
X IIJ
X IlK
X IlL
X liM
X liN
XIIO
X II P
TOTAL
Table 4C-2
SUPPLY BY SUBUNIT
Selected
STATE OWNED STATE OWNED AND ACCESSIBLE
ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT
thousands thousand BF thousands thousand BF
high med. high med. TOTAL high med. high med. TOTAL
(a) (b) (a) (b)
1.9 1.9 154 93 247 1.9 1.9 154 93 247
0 0 ·O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 0 103 0 103 1.3 0 103 0 103
0 1.3 0 62 62 0 1.3 0 62 62
1.3 .6 103 31 134 1.3 .6 103 31 134
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.6 3.8 206 185 391 2.E 3.8 206 185 391
• E 0 51 0 51 • E 0 51 0 51
3.E 14.0 . 309 679 988 3.E 14.0 309 679 988
LITTLE CHENA ANAGEM NT PLAN
2.€ 1.9 206 93 ~299 2.f 1.9 206 93 __ 299
1 . c 14.7 154 710 864 1.' 14.7 154 710 864
J.C 0 153 0 153 0 0 0 0 0
7. 9.0 617 432 1049 7. 9.0 617 4 32 1049
CHENA RIVER R CREATI N PLAN
8. 14.7 667 709 1376 0 0 0 0 0
EIELS<N
FORT l AINWRIGHT
33. 61.q '1723 2994 5717 23.7 47.L 1903 2285 4188
I
(a) Assume 20 cubic feet/acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic foot
(b) Assume 12 cubic feet/acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic foot -----------------,. ---------~-------------·---··-----~---~---·----·~----·------~-------------------------------~ --------------
4C·8
J
'
SUBUNIT
ACRES
Table 4C-2
SUPPLY BY SUBUNIT
Selected
STATE OWNED
ALLOWABLE CUT
STATE OWNED AND ACCESSIBLE
ACRES ALLOWABLE CUT
thousands thousand BF thousands thousand BF
high med. high med. TOTAL high med. high med. TOTAL
(a) (b) (a)
UNIT XIII 0 1.9 0 92 92 0 0 0
(a) Assume 20 cubic feet per acre allowable cut and 4.02 board feet/cubic foot
----(-b-)--A ~!tume-1-2-cub-i-c-feet-pe r-a e!'e-a-1-1 owa b-le-Gut--and-4-.-02-boa-r-d--f'eet-t<>ub i-c:-foot
4C·9
(b)
0 0
'
_j
_ _)
l
'
'1
i
Bibliography
BmLIOGRAPHY
Alaska Information and Service,
Yukon River Basin, Forests
Anchorage, Alaska, 1981.
Timber Harvesting
North Consulting
in Alaska's
Foresters,
2. Agricultural Experiment Station, Yukon-, Porcupine Regional
Planning Study, The Institute of Social and Economic Research,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 1978.
3. Babcock, J. , Markets and Marketing of Construction Lumber in
Fairbanks, Alaska, Term Paper for Marketing Seminar, University
of Alaska, Fairbanks, 1971.
4. Braathe, P., Holmen, H., Nyyssonen, A., Forestry Potential in
Interior Alaska, Symposium on North American Forest Lands,
Fairbanks, Alaska, 1977.
5. Brody, s., Memorandum to Representative Vernon Hurlbert, House
Research Agency, Juneau, Alaska, 1980.
6. Clapp, v., Feasibility of Utilizing Kuskokwim Forest Resources
at the Bethel Housing Project, Kuskokwim Forest Resource
Committee, Fa1rbanks, Alaska, 1969.
7. Clapp, v., Feasibility of Utilizing Kuskokwim Forest Resource
Resources, Kuskokwim Forest Resource Committee, Fairbanks,
Alaska, 1970.
8. Cooperative Extension Service, Alaska Forest
Newsletter, Volume 12, No. 2, University of Alaska,
1980.
Products
Fairbanks,
9. Department of Natural Resources, Proposed Fairbanks and Upper
Tanana State Forests, Division of Forest, Land and Water
Management, Fairbanks, Alaska, 1981.
10. Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Research Quarterly,
Volume IV, No. 3, Community Research Center, Fairbanks, Alaska,
1981.
11. Hanks, L. F., Swanson, c.w., Lumber Grade Yields from Paper
Birch and Balsam Poplar Logs in the Susitna River Valley, u.s.
Forest Service Paper PNW-51, Juneau, Alaska, 1967.
_1
~
·'
12. Haring, R.C., Massie, M. R. C., Survey of the Alaskan Forest
Products Industry, Research Monograpah No. 8, Institute of
Social, Economic, and Government Research, University of
Alaska, College, Alaska, 1966.
13. Hegg, K.M., Forest Resources of the Susitna Valley,
U.S.D.A. Forest Service Resource Bulletin, PNW-32,
Alaska, 1970.
Alaska,.
Juneau,
14. Hegg, K.M., Timber Resource Statistics for the Kantishna Block,
Tanana Inventory Unit, Alaska, U.S.D.A. Forest Service Resource
Bulletin, PNW-N.A., Anchorage, Alaska, 1981.
15. Hegg, K.M., Forest Statistics for the Upper Koyukuk River,
Alaska, U.S.D.A. Forest Service Service Resource Bulletin,
PNW-54, Portland, Oregon, 1974.
16. Hegg, K.M., Timber Resource Statistics for the Fairbanks Block,
Tanana Inventory Unit, Alaska 1970, U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Resource Bullet~n, PNW-59, Portland, Oregon, 1975.
17. Hegg, K.M., Timber Resource Statistics for the Copper River
Inventory Unit, Alaska, 1968, U.S.D.A. Forest Service Resource
Bulletin, PNW-62, Portland, Oregon, 1975.
18. Hegg, K.M., Timber Resource Statistics for the Tuxedni Bay
Inventory Unit, Alaska 1971, U.S.D.A. Forest Resource Bulletin,
PNW-88, Juneau, Alaska, 1979.
19. Hegg, K.M., Dippold, R.M.,
Forest Lands by Cover Type
Alaska, U.S.D.A. Forest
Portland, Oregon, N.D.
Areas of Nonforest and Noncommercial
and by Topographic Site for Interior
Service Resource Bulletin PNW-47,
20. Hegg, K. M., Sieverding, H., Timber Resources of the Kuskokwim
Flood Plain and Adjacent Upland, u.s.D.A. Forest Service
Resource Bulletin, PN\'1-87, Juneau, Alaska, 1979.
21.
22.
Hutchison, O.K., Alaska's Forest Resource, U.S.D.A. Forest
Service Resource Bulletin PNW-19, Juneau, Alaska, 1967.
Hyde, W. F., Krutilla, J. V. , The Question of Development or
Restricted Use of Alaska's Inter~or Forests, Resources for the
Future, Reprint 163, Washington, D.C., 1969.
23. Jaako Poyry Consulting Co., Michigan Timber Resource
Development Project, State of r-Hchigan, Department of Natural
Resources, 1977.
24.
25.
,Jaako Poyry Consulting Co., Michigan Timber Resource
------~------------~--~~~----Development Project, Prefeasibility Report, State of Michigan,
Department of Natural Resources, 1977.
Kilborn, K.A., Marketing Problems
Alaska, U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Anchorage, Alaska, N.D.
in a Developing Country,
Unpublished Manuscript,
26. LaBau, V.J., Hutchison, O.K., Timber Supply and Use in the
Haines-Skagway Area, Alaska, U.S. D. A. Forest Service Resource
Bulletin, PNW-67, Portland, Oregon, 1976.
27. Laroe, S., Fuel wood Use Survey of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough, Interior Woodcutters Association, Fairbanks, Alaska,
1982.
28. Lindh, C. J. , An Assessment of the Domestic Market for Alaska
Wood Products, Lindh Associates and Homen-McDowell Associates,
Juneau, Alaska, 1979.
29. Louis Berger and Assoc. , Western and Arctic Alaska
--~~~~~~-----------------------Transportation Study, 1981. Phase I, Vol. I.
30. Massie, M.R.C., Haring, R.C., The Forest Economy of Haines,
Alaska, Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research,
Un~versity of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, 1969.
31. Mehrkens, J.R., Study Plan -Section 705 and 706 Reports
ANILCA, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Anchorage, Alaska, 1981.
32. Mehrkens, J.R., Timber Supply and Demand, u.s.D.A. Forest
Service, Anchorage, Alaska, 1981.
33. Mills, T.J., Manthy, R., An Economic Analysis of Market Factors
Determining Supply and Demand for Softwood Lumber, Michigan
State University Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing,
Michigan, 1974.
34. Reid, Collins, Inc., Proposal for Timber Harvesting and
Marketing Study, Bellevue, Washington, 1980.
35. Reid, Collins Inc., a. Forest Resource Development for Interior
Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, 1981.
36. Reid, Collins Inc., b. Use of Wood Energy in Remote Interior
Alaskan Communities, Anchorage, Alaska, 1981.
37. Reisner, M., The End of the Wilderness, Natural Resources
---·D~-f-e-n-s-e-co-uu-ci 1, In-c-. -News-l-ett-er-, -voi..----.---7-,-:tssue--5-, -Wash-ing·ton--,------
D.C. I 1978
38. Richmond, A. P., Meeting Growing Fuel wood Demand Through
Intensive Forest Management, University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
Alaska, 1981.
39. Sampson, G.R., Development and Evaluation of Methods to Improve
Marketing, Utilization, and Forest Biomass Use for Energy and
Other Products in Interior Alaska, U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
Portland, Oregon, 1981~
40. Smith, R.C., Potential Economic Development of Forest Resources
in Interior Alaska, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri,
1980.
41. Symposi urn on Water Transport of Wood, Proceedings of IUFRO S
3. 01-04, Long Distance Transport of Wood Products, Helsinki,
Finland, 1979.
42 0
43.
Todd, S.,
Interior",
Associates,
"Demand
Interior
and Supply of
Transportation
Forest
Study,
Products in
Louis Berger
the
and
1982.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
Forest Products, 1970-71.
The Demand and Price Situation for
Miscellaneous Publication #1195.
44. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Forest Regeneration at High Latitudes,
PNW-107, 1980.
45. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, Land Use
Planning Workshop Material, The Kuskokwim Corporation, 1979.
46. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Tongass Land Management Plan
Socioeconomic Overview, Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska, 1977.
47. University of Alaska, Proceedings of the North American Forest
Lands at Latitudes North of 60 Degrees, Fairbanks, Alag;ka,
1977.
48. Welbourn, M., Carrying Capacity of Remote Lands for Settlement,
Draft Report, Alaska State Department of Natural Resources,
Land and Resource Planning Section, 1980.
49. Wieczorek, D.H., Forest Resources and Allowable Cut,
Northcentral District Office, Division of Forest, Land and
Water Management, Alaska State Department of Natural Resources,
Fairbanks, Alaska, 1980.
50. Zasada, J.C., Natural Regeneration of Interior Alaska Forests-
--------~~~~--s~e~e--a.~s-e~e-doe~d, ana. vegetative reproa.uct:ion considerations,
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Fairbanks, Alaska, N.D.
j
J
.,
.J
..,
_i
-,
_j
1
.J
··~
_j
'
_.)
\
51. Zasada, Zigmond, · Forest Products Industry Potential of the
Yukon -Kuskokwim River Areas -Interior Alaska, Unpublished
Report to the U.S.D.A. Forest Serv1ce Alaska Planning Team,
1976.
I