Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpper Kobuk Region Biomass Project Harvest Plan - Mar 2014 - REF Grant 7040028Kobuk Biomass Harvest Plan Presented to: City of Kobuk Kobuk Traditional Council Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Prepared by: Tanana Chiefs Conference, Forestry Program 122 First Ave., Suite 600 Fairbanks, AK 99701 March, 2014 i Executive Summary A proposed community woody biomass heating project in the community of Kobuk, Alaska has necessitated the preparation of a biomass harvest plan that serves to recommend where the harvesting to acquire this fuelwood should take place, how it will be harvested and transported, and to demonstrate that the harvest level required is sustainable in the long term. Key findings in the plan include: Harvest operations may need to ensure compliance with the State of Alaska Forest Resource Practices Act (FRPA), but at the scope of the proposed project, it is likely that FRPA does not apply. To help assess biomass stocking in the vicinity of Kobuk, locations of forested spruce stands were identified from satellite imagery and field data were collected in a number of forested spruce stands near Kobuk. Two broad areas were examined floodplain spruce stands along the Kobuk River, and upland spruce stands along the Bornite Road in the mountains north of the village. On the Kobuk River floodplain sites, 5132 acres of spruce or mixed spruce-broadleaf were identified within 7.4 miles of the village. Sampled stands in this area averaged fuelwood stocking of 12.5 cords per acre; an analysis of the size and stocking rates of the trees present and projected rotation lengths yields an estimate of a maximum annual allowable cut for those floodplain stands of 700 cords/year, well in excess of current estimated current residential fuelwood harvesting and the additional harvesting required to support the project. On the upland Bornite Road sites, 648 acres of operable spruce stands within 1 mile of the road were identified. Sampled stands averaged an estimated 25 cords per acre, and an analysis for maximum annual allowable cut produced an estimate of 95 cords per year. There were 2 options identified for harvest strategies: o Option 1: Expanding current harvesting methods and techniques to harvest the additional material for an energy project; this option was recommended as appropriate for the Kobuk floodplain areas, at least at estimated project harvest levels. o Option 2: Defining specific harvest areas and scheduling, as is commonly done in a more formal forest management environment; this option was recommended if harvesting in the Bornite Road is to be done, and is also recommended for the floodplain areas at harvest levels higher than currently projected. Recommended prescriptions to be applied to the harvesting are presented, including recommendations on harvest tree specifications, maximum patch size, and transportation and harvest techniques and equipment. ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ii Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Current Wood Harvesting ........................................................................................................ 1 Issues and Concerns ................................................................................................................. 2 Alaska Forest Resources Practices Act (FRPA).................................................................. 2 FRPA Applicability ..................................................................................................... 2 FRPA Requirements .................................................................................................. 4 Local Land Management Policies and Plans ..................................................................... 6 Forest Resources near Kobuk ................................................................................................... 9 Kobuk River Floodplain Stands ......................................................................................... 9 Bornite Road Area .......................................................................................................... 13 Harvest Strategies .................................................................................................................. 17 Equipment ...................................................................................................................... 18 Kobuk River Floodplain Stands ....................................................................................... 19 Bornite Road Area .......................................................................................................... 20 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 22 Contacts ................................................................................................................................. 23 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 23 Citations ................................................................................................................................. 24 List of Figures Figure 1. Kobuk River floodplain area ownership and location of white spruce stands and field plots............................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2. Typical scenes in floodplain white spruce stands near Kobuk. .............................. 12 Figure 3. White spruce tree ages by DBH (Diameter Breast Height) measured on floodplain sample plots. ............................................................................................ 12 Figure 4. Bornite Road near Kobuk. ...................................................................................... 14 Figure 5. View from the Bornite Road.................................................................. 15 Figure 6. White spruce stand along the Bornite Road. ......................................................... 15 Figure 7. Operable white spruce stands, field plot locations, and proposed harvest units along the Bornite Road route near Kobuk. ............................................................... 21 List of Tables Table 1. Estimated per acre fuelwood volumes on floodplain sample plots. ....................... 11 Table 2. White spruce volumes and tree densities by diameter class for floodplain sample plots. ............................................................................................................. 11 Table 3. Estimated seedling/sapling per acre densities for floodplain sample plots. ........... 11 Table 4. Estimated per acre fuelwood volumes on Bornite Road sample plots. .................. 16 Table 5. White spruce volumes and tree densities by diameter class for Bornite Road sample plots. ............................................................................................................. 16 Table 6. Estimated seedling/sapling per acre densities for Bornite Road sample plots. ...... 16 1 Introduction A community biomass energy project has been proposed for the village of Kobuk, a small community located on the Upper Kobuk River in Northwest Alaska. The Forestry Program at Tanana Chiefs Conference was retained by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) to prepare a biomass harvest plan to support this project; this document is the result of that effort. Information was compiled from prior studies and projects, and meetings were held with local residents and representatives of the City of Kobuk, the Native Village of Kobuk, the NANA Corporation, the Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB), and others. In addition, field data were collected over the period of several days in late August, 2013 to help assess the wood harvesting possibilities in the vicinity of Kobuk. There have been a number of previous efforts addressing woody biomass energy development in the Upper Kobuk region. An incomplete list would include an Upper Kobuk Valley Wood Biomass Study (Forest & Land Management, Inc., 2010), an Upper Kobuk River Valley Biomass Preliminary Business Plan (WHPacific, 2010?), a NANA Forest Stewardship Plan (WHPacific, 2011) and other supporting studies and reports. These efforts generally collectively address the communities of Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk. There is forestry information of a more general nature available from several previous efforts, including a forest inventory of Native allotments in the NANA Region conducted for the Maniilaq Association (Tanana chiefs conference, 2012), and a report prepared some years ago on forest regeneration and forest management guidelines for the Maniilaq Assocation (Gasbarro and Zasada, 1984). The proposed energy project in Kobuk that is the subject of this report is a cordwood-fired boiler heating a water plant in Kobuk, with a projected fuel consumption of 40 cords per year. It is the intention of this report to propose where the harvesting to acquire this fuelwood should take place, how it will be harvested and transported, and to demonstrate that the harvest level required is sustainable in the long term. Due to the recognition that the planning and implementation of project such as this is an evolving recommendations contained in this plan are to be revised and adjusted as needed as development of the project proceeds. Current Wood Harvesting Currently, wood is commonly used for residential heating, and community members cut and transport wood from surrounding areas for that use. The harvesting that occurs is not strictly controlled or organized; some cutting is said to occur in woodlots maintained by individual woodcutters, and it appears that other cutting occurs opportunistically across the landscape by individually selecting trees or small groups of trees, often while engaging in other activities. Most harvesting appears to be of white spruce in the size classes corresponding to poletimber and small sawtimber (~6-12 inches DBH). Most cutting and transport appears to be in the winter, with transport by snowmachines dragging logs on towed sleds. This is common enough in Kobuk that when asked about the current cost of firewood, 2 residents of the village refer to the price per sledload (about $70) as the unit by which wood is bought and sold. Nearly all of the harvesting appears to be in the riparian areas along the river, although some harvesting also appears to occur along a high quality all-season road that extends north from the village into the Cosmos Hills about 14 miles to Bornite, the site of mineral exploration being conducted by NovaCopper in an agreement with NANA Regional Corporation, Inc. (NANA). The volume of fuelwood currently harvested to supply residential heating needs in Kobuk is unclear. Accordi (http://nana.com/files/pdf-bios/NANA- VillageProfile-Kobuk.pdf), the current population of Kobuk is about 110 to 115 people, with 45 residential housing structures, half of which are inhabited. Assuming that wood is commonly used to provide residential heating, and assuming average annual wood consumption per inhabited household to be a minimum of 5 cords, it appears that annual residential fuelwood consumption in Kobuk could be about 100 to 150 cords. Issues and Concerns Alaska Forest Resources Practices Act (FRPA) adopted significant revisions several times after that (http://forestry.alaska.gov/forestpractices.htm). The primary purposes of FRPA are to protect fish habitat and water quality and to ensure prompt reforestation after forest management activities. This is accomplished through a number of specific requirements applied to forest harvesting activities on State, private, and municipal lands in Alaska, including notifying the State of forestry activities, the retention of riparian buffers along waterbodies, reforestation of harvested areas, and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as established through adopted regulations. Requirements vary somewhat by region; Interior Alaska, including the vicinity of Kobuk, lies in Region III. A number of State agencies are involved with FRPA compliance, including the DNR Division of Forestry (DOF), the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Department of Fish and Game, but the lead agency in terms of FRPA notification and interaction with the State is DOF. FRPA Applicability In the context of proposed biomass projects, applicability of FRPA depends on land ownership, the size of the project and resulting scale of harvesting activities, and the determination that an operation is - federal landowners owning more than 160 acres, and for any commercial operation adjacent to waterbodies. At first glance, the 40 acre threshold would seem to exclude many small village biomass operations from having to consider FRPA compliance, but it has been the intention of the Alaska Division of Forestry (DOF) to consider operations extending over multiple years as a single operation, meaning that any biomass operation that extends indefinitely over time will fall under FRPA consideration, regardless of the size of annual harvest areas. At most rural Alaska communities, including Kobuk, the primary landowner in the immediate vicinity of the community is the local ANCSA corporation, a large 3 private landowner, also indicating the applicability of FRPA. The consideration of what constitutes a commercial operation, however, may potentially affect whether a biomass energy project will be subject to FRPA requirements. an annual production in excess of 30,000 board feet (30 MBF) of wood products for sale. This may indicate that compliance with FRPA is not required for small woody biomass projects. The determination of where that threshold lies, however, is not necessarily straightforward, since the definition uses a board foot measure (BF) and woody biomass measures use other units such as cords, cubic feet (CF), or weight (tons). The amount of CF compared to equivalent BF in a tree varies by stem diameter, since proportionately more lumber (BF) can be recovered from larger trees. The State of Alaska Division of Forestry uses a conversion of 1 MBF = 0.41 CCF (hundred cubic feet) when determining the cubic equivalent of board foot volumes; with this formula, the 30 MBF threshold translates to 73 CCF, or 86 cords (at 85 CF/cord). In addition, the amount of harvestable fuelwood in a timber stand compared to merchantable BF varies depending on the makeup of the stand and the merchantability specifications of the BF component. Many stands have a component that does not produce a merchantable BF volume but will produce a viable fuelwood volume, and this would indicate that the 30 MBF threshold would translate to some higher number for equivalent fuelwood. For example, data collected in floodplain spruce stands near Kobuk indicates a net merchantable CF white spruce volume of about 1,098 CF/acre, and the net merchantable BF white spruce volume was about 2,674 BF/acre using a minimum sawlog diameter of 9 inches. The harvest area required to reach the 30 MBF threshold is about 11.2 acres, and the CF volume on that area is about 123 CCF, or about 145 cords. So, it depends on the methodology used to calculate the fuelwood equivalent of 30 MBF and the composition of the areas to be harvested, but it appears that biomass operations would not be defined by FRPA if the fuel consumption is less than roughly 80 to 150 cords per year, a likely scenario for the scope of the proposed project. As of this writing, the issue of FRPA applicability for small rural energy projects is currently being considered by the Alaska Board of Forestry, near future. In any case, it appears clear that the scale of the proposed project is such that the required harvest will is the case, although not required, we would suggest that the landowner or project operator submit a OF as described in the FRPA regulations; this would serve to document the inapplicability of FRPA if that is the case, and would represent a good faith effort by the project operators to recognize the intentions and role of FRPA to the State agencies. Future energy developments that would increase the required biomass harvest may also cause FRPA to become applicable, requiring compliance with FRPA requirements. 4 FRPA Requirements Following is a summarized list of the more critical FRPA requirements for Region III if FRPA is applicable to the proposed biomass energy project: be submitted by a landowner or operator describing long-term plans for harvesting, and a Detailed Plan of Operations (DPO) is required to be submitted by the operator before beginning operations. The DPO must include a reforestation plan that provides for reforestation through the establishment of seedlings, retention of residual trees, or a combination of seedlings and residual trees. For Region III, the regulations specify the establishment of 450 seedlings per acre within 7 years. If relying on natural regeneration, a seed source needs to be ensured, or the harvest area must contain broadleaf tree species capable of vegetative reproduction. Establishment of riparian buffers and restriction of harvesting within those buffers: In Region III, FRPA regulations stipulate no harvesting within 66 feet of a Type III-A waterbody (a non-glacial waterbody with high-value resident or anadromous fish). Under FRPA, the Kobuk River is classified as Type III-A. Preventing a degradation of water quality in any waterbody, primarily through adoption of BMPs. Many of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) specified in FRPA are focused on the issues and practices inherent with relatively large commercial timber sales, and may not be particularly applicable in the context of a small rural operations. Through a review of the FRPA BMPs (11 AAC 95), we have compiled a list of selected BMPs that are potentially applicable to small rural biomass energy projects and associated harvest activities: Riparian Areas: 355e1 - If feasible an operator may not fell a tree into a riparian timber retention area. 365b - an operator shall comply with the following restrictions on tracked and wheeled harvest systems in riparian areas: 1) Minimize skidding routes. 2) Minimize damage to retained trees, stumps, root systems, understory vegetation and soils. 3) One-end suspension of logs is required (we are not exactly sure how this may or may not apply to hauling with sleds). Timber Harvest: 350a - minimize disturbance of vegetation adjacent to surface and standing waters 355c - remove trees felled into non-fish bearing water at the earliest possible time to avoid degradation of water quality 355d - do not buck or limb a tree within surface or standing water except to remove it from the water body if it has accidentally been felled in the water 365c - any debris on winter trails that could enter surface water after the winter trail has thawed must be removed before the trail thaws. 5 Road Construction: 290f - a winter road must be constructed to avoid degradation of water quality and where feasible the alternation of drainage systems There are several issues that arise with the requirements of FRPA: The language in FRPA states that key elements of compliance with the Act (such as the specify the landowner as a potential operator, in conversations with the Alaska Division of Forestry it appears that the role of operator is frequently assumed by the landowner. For small rural energy projects this may be most appropriate, although other entities such as an individual harvester or a wood purchaser such as the local City or Tribal government could also assume the role of operator. The key point is that the designated operator assumes some of the responsibilities of FRPA compliance, and could be subject to enforcement action if compliance is not met. In any case, the Act goes on to state that compliance is ultimately the responsibility of the landowner, and in the case of some of the requirements, such as reforestation, difficult to assign elsewhere. The Detailed Plan of Operations (DPO) described above is oriented more towards commercial timber sales occurring in areas with an established forest industry than it is with small rural villages with no recent history of such activity. The Alaska Division of Forestry recognizes this, and is currently discussing how the format of the current version of the form for the DPO may be changed for projects occurring in rural Alaska within the constraints of the Act and its regulations. Also, in connection with the DPO and other specifications within FRPA, the standard concepts of large landscape as is currently occurring in rural communities. How FRPA may be applied or enforced under scenarios where this scattered harvesting is taking place could be problematic. There has been discussion among some forestry professionals that the reforestation requirements for Region III are too stringent that requiring 450 trees per acre is excessive for proper forest management in Interior Alaska, or that the 7 year requirement for the establishment of the regeneration is too restrictive. Discussions on this topic are currently being taken up by the Alaska Board of Forestry. This is only a summary of the most pertinent points of FRPA; for a more detailed description of FRPA, its intentions, definitions, regulations, and associated BMPs, DOF has information available at the website shown above. Despite the apparent detail and specificity of the language of FRPA and its regulation, compliance with FRPA need not be an onerous affair. DOF has a form available for the preparation of a DPO and appears to be willing to make this form more workable for rural energy projects, and has expressed a willingness to help and educate landowners and operators with understanding the Act and compliance requirements. In most cases, riparian buffer requirements do not represent a high proportion of the area for harvest, the BMPs specified in the Act are for the most part reasonable things 6 to consider when building roads, dealing with slash, etc., and the reforestation requirements should be considered in any case in order to maintain the sustainability of the local resources. Local Land Management Policies and Plans The primary landowner in the vicinity of Kobuk is the NANA Regional Corporation, Inc. (NANA), the regional corporation established through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), based in Kotzebue. In many communities in Alaska, the primary local landowner is the local ANCSA village corporation, but in the case of the NANA region, the village corporations have merged with the regional corporation, leaving NANA as the primary landowner in the vicinity of Kobuk. by shareholders and non-shareholders, and between personal use and commercial use (NANA Regional Corp, Inc. 2013, WHPacific 2011). recognize community projects administered and funded by a village, and define them as a category of user groups. Highlights of NANA land management policies include: Subsistence is the primary and highest priority use of management policies will be in support of subsistence uses. management plan. NANA has prepared a Forest Stewardship Plan (WHPacific, 2011), although it is not clear if the stewardship plan is intended to fill this role. There are additional references in the policies to ensure that timber harvesting is consistent with the timber management plan. ds will pay the reasonable costs incurred by NANA will manage its timber resource to provide a sustained flow of firewood and building materials for local use. Outside Kotzebue, NANA may contract with village IRA Councils to administer timber management plans. Under this arrangement, the village will help NANA designate cutting areas, issue permits, collect fees, and keep records. All NANA shareholders may cut firewood for personal use on lands NANA designates, without a permit, at no charge. Non-shareholders may cut firewood for personal use upon receipt of a permit from the local entity NANA designates (such as the local IRA Council). NANA will, in consultation with each village IRA Council, designate areas around each village as firewood cutting areas and mark trees to be cut. For commercial firewood cutting, a permit will be required to cut firewood that is to be sold. There is no charge for shareholders; for non-shareholders, a fee of 10 cents per linear foot will be charged for commercial firewood cutting permits. This is estimated to be about $25 per average cargo sled load. For timber harvesting for lumber or houselogs, a permit will be required. Like the fuelwood policies, there is no charge for shareholders; for non-shareholders, a fee of 25 cents per linear foot will be charged for timber cutting permits. 7 A Forest Stewardship Plan prepared for NANA in 2011 outlines the land management required for proposed biomass energy projects in the Upper Kobuk region (WHPacific 2011). The Stewardship Plan addresses the need for planning of harvest areas and regeneration planning, of which a few key points are: Harvest areas are to be identified for each year of the life of a project. Necessary routes and trails for transport of the harvested biomass are to be identified. Harvest systems need to be identified (clear-cut, selective cut, etc.). Regeneration systems need to be identified (natural regeneration or planting). Harvesting by conventional means would not be effective; use of equipment designed for small log harvesting in winter is recommended, including the possible use of 4 wheel drive tractor with a log grapple loader and log bunk trailer, or a small tracked skid steer machine with similar attachments. Future access for a biomass project would be developed as trails rather than permanent roads. Large scale utilization of only one tree species is probably not realistic. The plan recommends focusing on utilization of cottonwood and aspen because of the relative ease of regeneration of those species and projected faster rates of regrowth. Field verification is required for a number of parameters to refine knowledge of the sustained yield timber base, including volume of low density forest types, reproduction, presence and location of high risk stands, identification of commercial stands for future use, and growth and yield potential. The authority to make land management decisions rests with NANA Board of Directors Land Committees, one of which is responsible for the Upper Kobuk villages of Ambler, Shungnak and Kobuk. Responsibility for carrying out land management decisions lies with the NANA Lands and Regional Affairs Department. Any planned harvest activities associated with a biomass energy project in Kobuk, including recommendations and proposals contained within this document, will require the approval of land managers and will need to conform to NANA land management policies, but it is clear that those policies include the support of such projects. A distinction should be made between the personal use woodcutting currently occurring and the harvesting required to support the community heating project to minimize potential conflict betwe management to support the project. Management costs may be incurred by NANA in the process of supporting biomass energy projects through supplying biomass resources from NANA lands. It is reasonable for NANA to expect a financial return from biomass harvest, and to a certain extent this is accommodated in the land management policies through fees applied to non-shareholders. to shareholders cutting timber on designated NANA lands for personal or commercial use and for community projects at no charge. management costs, and to the extent that NANA may be unwilling to subsidize a community energy project, additional financial support to NANA from the project may be required. 8 One possible form of compensation to the Corporation is for the stumpage value of the fuelwood, which typically is much lower than the actual purchase price of the fuelwood after harvesting, transport, and processing. For example, commercial firewood sales administered by the State of Alaska in the Fairbanks area typically have a stumpage value of $10 to $21 per 100 cubic feet ($8.50 to $17.85 per cord) for firewood that retails for upwards of $300 per cord. Act policies for commercial firewood harvesting may result in substantially higher firewood values. Using rd cord per sledload results in an estimate of a firewood stumpage value of $75 per cord, although the policies only assign this rate to harvesting by non-shareholders and do not specify any charge to be applied to harvesting by shareholders or for community projects. In any case, the relatively small scale of the proposed project may make it difficult for recovered stumpage values to completely cover management costs unless the stumpage value is increased commensurately or an additional form of compensation, such as direct reimbursement of management costs, is used. One approach for managing the fuelwood supply would be for the Corporation to approach the project as a business opportunity and to go into the business of managing, harvesting, and supplying wood lack of field staff on site, it may be unlikely that the Corporation would want to assume the harvesting and delivery operations for a community heating project. The alternative is for the Corporation to enter into a timber sale contract. A sale contract established between the Corporation and a purchaser of the wood would spell out the terms of the agreement and the obligations of the parties, and would serve to protect NANA establishing this agreement include: The purchaser specified in the contract can be an individual, a business, a tribal enterprise, or a local government. Tribal Councils for land management services, so perhaps it makes most sense in this case to expand the scope to include actual purchase of the resource. Alternatively, a contract could be established with the City, the owner of the proposed facility and ultimate purchaser of the fuel required to operate it. Development of required technical skills of local Tribal staff to accomplish the land management and the harvest management could be part of the contract. Compensation to the Corporation for the harvested wood would be specified in the contract. Any specific requirements such as harvest location, timing, techniques used and other technical considerations can be specified in the contract. The purchaser would be required to carry General Business Liability Insurance and Workers Compensation Insurance for employees involved with the harvesting. If the purchaser is using individual woodcutters as subcontractors and not employees, the Workers Comp coverage would not be required to be carried by the purchaser, but may need to be picked up by the individual subcontractors. 9 The individual woodcutters could be shareholders or non-shareholders, although the contract could specify a different fee to be paid to the Corporation for wood supplied by shareholder vs. non-shareholder woodcutters, at the risk of complicating the administration of the wood purchasing. The relationships between the parties concerned - the woodcutters, the Corporation, the Tribe and the City of Kobuk - falls largely under the scope of an operations plan for a proposed project. Forest Resources near Kobuk There has been a limited degree of previous forest inventory work in the vicinity of Kobuk. Some stocking data was collected during the compilation of a woody biomass study in 2010 (Forest & Land Management, Inc. 2010), and these data were used to summarize forest stocking in the Upper Kobuk Valley in the NANA Forest Stewardship Plan (WHPacific 2011). A regional inventory of forest resources on Native Allotments was conducted in 2012 (Tanana Chiefs Conference, 2012), resulting in an extensive array of forest inventory plots established along the Kobuk River from above Kobuk downriver to Kiana, but with nothing approaching any level of intensity near any given community. TCC Forestry also compiled a reconnaissance-level assessment of biomass resources for the region of the Upper Kobuk villages, but this assessment was largely an attempt to leverage previously existing information to broadly assess the availability of woody biomass resources in the area. There is a need for more targeted examinations in those areas that are likely to be utilized for biomass harvest, and limited amount of field work was planned to help accomplish this. Accessible forested lands in the vicinity of Kobuk can be divided into two distinct areas; the riparian areas on the Kobuk River floodplain near the village, and upland areas along the Bornite Road north of the village. During a site visit to Kobuk over several days in August, 2013, TCC Forestry staff visited a number of forested stands to conduct stand examinations. In order to establish the location of potential harvest areas, a satellite image was acquired for the vicinity of Kobuk (RapidEye imagery, dated August 2011, ~6.5m spatial resolution). Plots were established and data were collected in a total of 6 floodplain white spruce stands near the village, 3 spruce stands in the upland areas along the Bornite road, and 1 mixed stand along the road closer to the village. Kobuk River Floodplain Stands Current harvest is focused almost entirely on white spruce, and when interpreting the RapidEye imagery, it is apparent that white spruce stands dominate the available timber resources in the floodplain areas near Kobuk. The area examined extends from 3.3 miles west of the village (5.4 river miles downstream) to 7.4 miles east (about 16 river miles upstream) (Figure 1). Within that area, timber stands totaling 5,132 acres were interpreted as white spruce stands, of which 2,100 acres were interpreted as having a secondary component of either cottonwood or paper birch. A relatively small proportion of the area, 156 acres, was interpreted as cottonwood stands. 10 Figure 1. Kobuk River floodplain area ownership and location of white spruce stands and field plots. Six representative floodplain spruce stands were examined over a two day period, and variable radius cruise plots and fixed radius regeneration survey plots were established in each. The areas visited were relatively close to the village (< 2 miles) and showed light levels of past woodcutting. Much of the area considered in this analysis is in an area accessed by a side channel of the river upstream of the village, but this area was not easily accessed while conducting the field work because of low water conditions. White spruce trees sampled in the examined stands ranged up to 17 inches DBH (Diameter Breast -ged 38 feet tall. Fuelwood stocking ranged from 9.2 to 18.1 cords per acre, with an average of 11.8 cords per acre. Representative trees over a range of size classes were cored and measured for age and radial growth; ages typically ranged from 50-100 years for poletimber white spruce and 100-135 years for sawtimber white spruce. The data collected on the field plots are summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3, and Figure 3. 11 Table 1. Estimated per acre fuelwood volumes on floodplain sample plots. Table 2. White spruce volumes and tree densities by diameter class for floodplain sample plots. DBH Class White spruce stems/acre White spruce cubic feet/acre 4 222 62 6 152 236 8 98 367 10 62 212 12 20 83 14 1 33 16 0.2 8 Total 621 1,001 Table 3. Estimated seedling/sapling per acre densities for floodplain sample plots. White Spruce Black Spruce Birch All species Stand Stems /acre Height Stems /acre Height Stems /acre Height Stems /acre Height 1 229 6 29 15 258 6 2 586 4 257 3 14 6 857 4 3 430 3 430 3 4 771 6 29 7 800 5 5 650 5 80 7 730 5 6 600 4 40 13 640 5 Overall 544 5.3 43 3 32 9.4 688 6 White Spruce Birch Balsam Poplar All species Stand Cubic Feet Cords Cubic Feet Cords Cubic Feet Cords Cubic Feet Cords 1 999 11.8 74 0.9 1,073 12.6 2 1,062 12.5 1,062 12.5 3 1,540 18.1 68 0.8 4 1,051 12.4 75 0.9 1,126 13.2 5 782 9.2 19 0.2 801 9.4 6 1,152 13.6 113 1.3 16 0.2 1,281 15.1 Overall 1,001 11.8 58 0.7 3 1,062 12.5 12 Figure 2. Typical scenes in floodplain white spruce stands near Kobuk. Figure 3. White spruce tree ages by DBH (Diameter Breast Height) measured on floodplain sample plots. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Tree Age White spruce DBH 13 Data collected in the stand examinations indicate the existence of younger tree classes to replace older material that may be harvested. The stands visited appeared to be composed of a range of age classes, and were stocked with trees across the range of tree diameters present (Table 2). In addition, in most stands examined there was substantial stocking of white spruce seedlings present, with an overall average of 544 white spruce seedlings per acre (Table 3). These seedlings can serve as advance regeneration to contribute to the next crop of trees in the area if harvest occurs. Bornite Road Area While examining forested areas near Kobuk for biomass harvest potential, one day was spent traveling out the road to the Bornite mine site, which extends 14 miles north of the village into the Cosmos Hills (Figure 4). While we expected to find forested areas accessed by this road, we were surprised at the apparent quality of white spruce stands in the valley in the mountains that the road passes through (Figures 5, 6). The terrain can be characterized as having steep mountainous ground, but much of the forested area near the road is on operable ground on the lower slopes of the mountainsides. These stands do not really start to appear until about 8 miles from the village; closer to the village, most of the forested areas appear to be relatively low quality in terms of tree stocking. Starting at a point along the road about 8.3 miles from the village and continuing to the end of the road at the mine site, the location of white spruce stands were identified from the satellite imagery (Figure 4). Three representative spruce stands along the road were examined at 9.5, 10.2, and 11.4 road miles from the village (Stands 9, 8, and 7 respectively), and forest inventory plots and regeneration survey plots were taken. The data collected on the field plots are summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6. Light levels of previous woodcutting were observed, especially in Stand 8. White spruce trees sampled in the (quadratic mean diameter) of 9.7 inches. Tree heights measured ranged up to a maximum of 69 feet; - averaged 38 feet tall. Fuelwood stocking ranged from 21.0 to 33.5 cords per acre, with an average of 25.2 cores per acre, roughly double what was found in the floodplain spruce stands. Representative trees over a range of size classes were cored and measured for age and radial growth; ages were similar to that found in the floodplain stands, typically ranging from 50-100 years for poletimber white spruce and 100-150 years for sawtimber white spruce. Unlike some of the floodplain stands, these spruce stands do not have a broadleaf tree species component (birch, aspen, or cottonwood), indicating that white spruce is the only possibility of a target harvest species, and it will not be possible to rely on natural regeneration of birch or aspen in these areas. There is an apparent range of age and size classes in these stands, and the stands do not appear to be strongly even-aged. There is a healthy population of existing white spruce seedlings, indicating the possibility of advance regeneration if harvest occurs. 14 Figure 4. Bornite Road near Kobuk. 15 Figure 5. View from the Bornite Road. Figure 6. White spruce stand along the Bornite Road. 16 Table 4. Estimated per acre fuelwood volumes on Bornite Road sample plots. Table 5. White spruce volumes and tree densities by diameter class for Bornite Road sample plots. DBH Class White spruce stems/acre White spruce cubic feet/acre 6 33.5 100 8 46.3 281 10 80.9 770 12 31.9 533 14 13.6 326 16 3.7 101 18 0.7 23 Total 210.6 2,134 Table 6. Estimated seedling/sapling per acre densities for Bornite Road sample plots. White Spruce Stand Stems /acre Height 7 120 2 8 920 3 9 560 5 Overall 533 3.6 White Spruce Black Spruce All species Stand Cubic Feet Cords Cubic Feet Cords Cubic Feet Cords 7 2,848 33.5 2848 33.5 8 1,781 21.0 73 0.9 1854 21.9 9 1,815 21.4 1815 21.4 Overall 2,134 25.2 24 0.3 2,172 25.5 17 Harvest Strategies There are 2 potentially competing strategies for accommodating the increased fuelwood harvesting required by the proposed energy project: Option 1: Expanding current harvesting methods and techniques to harvest the additional material for an energy project; Option 2: Defining specific harvest areas and scheduling, as is commonly done in a more formal supporting community biomass projects. These harvest options could be used to make a clear distinction between the personal-use wood harvesting currently done for residential heating and the harvesting required to support the community energy project. In addition, a geographic distinction could be made between the two options. Option 1, the unmanaged selective harvest of white spruce, could continue to occur to support personal-use harvesting for residential heating, primarily in the riparian white spruce stands along the Kobuk River. Option 2, prescribed scheduled harvesting in designated areas, could be focused in white spruce stands along the road to the Bornite mine site. It appears that some personal-use firewood harvesting currently takes place along the road to the Bornite mine site, but discussions with residents of the village indicate that the distance required for transport of the wood leads many residents to focus their harvesting closer to the village along the river. The costs associated with the longer transport from the Bornite Road areas could be minimized with planned harvest and transport strategies and equipment in a way that would be difficult to accomplish with personal-use harvesting. In discussions with residents of the village and representatives of the City and the Tribe, it seems that expectations about how and where to harvest the wood required to support the proposed energy project involve an expansion or continuation of the harvesting currently used by local residents to gather residential firewood, in the manner they have always done (Option 1). As described above, this harvesting takes the form of individual tree selection occurring in an unregulated manner across the landscape, mostly from riparian white spruce stands along the Kobuk river floodplain. From a professional forest management perspective, this raises a few concerns: The selection and harvest of individual trees usually involves removal of the best, largest trees. - harvested and the remaining sub-optimal trees result in a forest with declining health and vigor. Potential negative impacts of high-grading include the gradual degradation of the quality of the forest by favoring the retention of trees with inferior genetic characteristics. Uncontrolled harvesting could easily result in the removal, over time, of the most accessible and least expensive resources available to the community, leading to supply problems in the future. Current harvesting techniques may be relatively inefficient compared to more focused harvest strategies. It is unclear at what point the capacity of the current woodcutters, using current methods, would be overwhelmed in terms of supplying the demand of an energy facility. As mentioned above, there may be difficulties in compliance with the Forest Resources Practices Act (FRPA) when using a dispersed, unregulated harvest system. 18 Despite these concerns, as a result of the dispersed nature and relatively small scale of the harvesting, negative impacts from current harvesting in the vicinity of Kobuk appear to be none or negligible. If Option 1 is to be considered for supplying wood for a community heating project, at some level of increased harvest there would presumably be the appearance of some of the potential problems from unmanaged selective harvest; the unanswered question revolves around where the critical threshold threshold of 30 MBF annual production as the maximum harvest level allowed with current local harvest practices. Above that level, it may be appropriate to consider a more formal harvest planning strategy with designated harvest areas and scheduling; compliance with FRPA, which would be required at that level, would also be more straightforward. As discussed above in the section on FRPA applicability, this threshold could be determined as somewhere between 85 and 145 cords per year. The estimated annual fuelwood requirements for the proposed energy project (40 cords per year) is well under that threshold. With either harvest option, it is important that fuelwood to be used in the heating project is dried, or seasoned, before being burned in the heating facility to ensure more efficient and cleaner combustion. It is recommended that the wood be dried to a moisture level of 20% by weight or less. Recovered dead wood may not require any time to get to this moisture level, but freshly harvested green wood will. Research in Fairbanks indicates that at least one full summer season is required to adequately dry the wood, but the amount of time required to adequately season the wood is highly variable and dependent on a number of factors; how the harvested wood is stored (how it is stacked, whether it is split, presence of air spaces, in open sunny spot areas or not, covered or not), and what time of year the wood is being dried (CCHRC, 2011). Equipment For a modest sized community heating project like that currently proposed, it may be difficult to justify a large investment in harvest equipment, forcing the harvesting to rely as much as possible on techniques and equipment already available in the village. As a result, it is difficult to prescribe precisely the required equipment. Option 1, dispersed harvesting across the landscape, almost by definition would potentially utilize nothing more than chain saws, snowmachines with sleds, boats, and possibly ATVs to transport the wood. Option 2, harvesting from a defined harvest units, could potentially involve more equipment. After falling, limbing and bucking with chain saws, the logs will need to be skidded to a landing for loading onto trucks or trailers. The skidding can be done with small 4-wheel drive tractors or bulldozers, or possibly ATVs equipped with a wheeled arch. Transport back to the village could be accomplished with small trucks (pickups or flatbeds) or trailers. At issue is the loading of the trucks if loading equipment is not available, the material will need to be hand loaded, requiring having the logs be of a size to make that possible. The cordwood could be bucked to length at the landing before loading; 2-foot lengths are appropriate for a Garn cordwood boiler. 19 Small log trucks equipped with self-loaders, or trailers with self-loading equipment may be necessary if harvest levels increase in the future. Whether option 1 or option 2 is considered, in either the floodplain or the upland areas, what remains is an analysis to help determine what type of harvest is appropriate and what level of harvest can be sustained for an indefinite period of time from the forests near Kobuk. For this analysis, the 2 areas in question, the floodplain near Kobuk and the upland areas accessed by the Bornite road, are analyzed separately. Kobuk River Floodplain Stands Based on the discussion above, the floodplain stands are analyzed under the assumption that the harvest strategy to be employed is Option 1, primarily in support of personal use firewood gathering for residential use. ite spruce larger white spruce trees, 8 estimated from the stand examinations to contain 76% of the net merchantable volume, or about 8.3 cords per acre. Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) for this area may be calculated in a simplistic manner by dividing the harvestable volume by the number of years required for the harvestable volume to be replaced by ingrowth from smaller size classes. Examining the tree age and diameter data collected (Figure 3) indicates an overall rotation length of about 120 years, with an estimate of about 60 years as a conservative period of time to allow smaller sized material (4- size classes. These parameters and assumptions result in an estimate of the AAC of about 700 cords per year from the floodplain areas. Data collected in the stand examinations indicate the existence of younger tree classes to replace older material that may be harvested. The stands visited appeared to be composed of a range of age classes, and were stocked with trees across the range of tree diameters present (Table 2), including 298 stems per acre of -. In addition, in most stands examined there was substantial stocking of white spruce seedlings present, with an overall average of 544 white spruce seedlings per acre (Table 3). These seedlings can serve as advance regeneration to contribute to the next crop of trees in the area if harvest occurs. The Annual Allowable Cut determination of 700 cords per year indicates that the area is easily capable of supplying current residential fuelwood needs, and could additionally accommodate a substantial level of harvest for a community energy project if required. This additional harvesting for a community project could be accommodated using the same selective harvesting as the residential fuelwood harvesting (Option 1) if the harvest level is modest, or a conventional unit-based harvest strategy (Option 2) could be deployed in the case of a larger project. If this area is used to support a community energy project, care should be taken to harvest in areas that do not conflict with residential fuelwood harvesting. 20 Bornite Road Area The harvesting required in the Bornite Road area to support a community energy project could possibly rely on the practice of harvesting of individually selected trees as is currently practiced, but it seems that the distance and efficiencies to be gained through defined harvest areas dictate a more organized and formal approach (Option 2). Using a digital elevation model (DEM), those portions of white spruce stands identified along the Bornite Road that lay on areas with less than a of operable white spruce stands were identified, all within 1 mile of the road (Figure 7). As areas to be harvested are identified in this area, we recommend the following prescription to be applied to harvest units: Harvesting in small patches, no larger than 200 feet in width. Retain a minimum of 50 feet uncut forest between patches, with an overall retention of 30% or more of the forest area in a stand. falling is to be done by chain saw, with felled trees topped, limbed and bucked on site with slash material to be lopped and scattered. Log lengths will depend on the specifications and limitations of the technology or vehicles to be used for skidding and transport of the logs to the village. The actual size, shape, and arrangement of the patches are not important, so long as the above parameters are maintained and there is some proximity to an adjacent potential seed source. Where possible, retain healthy vigorous advance regeneration. Rely on natural regeneration in the patches from existing advance regeneration and seeding from adjacent retained timber. Access would be based off the Bornite road, avoiding wetlands and minimizing stream crossings. If used, those crossings will need to conform to the FRPA BMPs. Access would take the form of temporary trails or forest roads. For harvest areas less than 0.25 miles from the road, landings can be placed immediately beside the road for loading onto vehicles for transport back to the village. About half of the defined operable spruce stands, or 322 acres, is within 0.25 miles of the Bornite Road. For areas further from the road, temporary forest roads can be constructed to minimize the skidding distances, taking care to minimize wetland impacts and stream crossings. Harvest and transport should be focused in the snow-free months. Much of the ground in the Bornite Road area is accessible in the summer months, the extra expense of keeping the road open in the winter would be avoided, and the natural seeding of white spruce in the harvested areas would be enhanced by better seedbed preparation with the ground disturbance that would occur with summer harvesting. If logs are to be left on site for a period of time before transport, logs should be skidded and accumulated into centralized decks. 21 Figure 7. Operable white spruce stands, field plot locations, and proposed harvest units along the Bornite Road route near Kobuk. 22 Harvested wood will need to be seasoned to produce fuel dry enough for clean, efficient combustion in the boiler. The time required for adequate seasoning is quite variable, but would typically be at least one year. This can best be done in a dry covered storage facility in the village; in any case it is best to remove the material from the harvest units to minimize the potential of bark beetle infestations. Applying the average stocking of 25.2 cords per acre to the 648 acres defined as operable white spruce stands, and assuming the maximum harvest level of 70% specified in the proposed harvest prescription, results in an estimate of 11,430 cords of white spruce available for harvest in the Bornite Road area. Assuming a rotation length of 120 years produces an estimate of an annual allowable cut of 95 cords per year in the Bornite Road area. Two of the stands sampled during the field work, Stands 7 and 8, would be good candidates for harvesting for the initial phases of the project. Stand 7 is located at approximately mile 11.4 on the Bornite Road, and Stand 8 is located at approximately mile 10.3 (Figure 7). Both stands are immediately adjacent to the road with little additional access construction required. Stand 7 is 7.6 acres, with an estimated 33.5 cords of white spruce per acre. If the annual harvest level is 40 cords per year, at a maximum harvest level of 70% because of the prescribed retention of white spruce trees for seeding, there is enough material to supply the project for 4.5 years in Stand 7. Stand 8 is a small 8.0 acre portion of much larger operable area, with an estimated 21 cords of white spruce per acre. At the levels assumed with the Stand 7 calculation, there is enough material to supply the project for about 3 years in Stand 8. Summary Spruce stands in either Kobuk floodplain areas near the village or in the upland areas along the Bornite Road north of the village appear capable of providing adequate resources to supply personal use and residential firewood needs, and are also capable of producing additional resources to support a community energy project in the village. Harvesting in the floodplain areas could take the form of dispersed unregulated harvesting at the modest harvest levels of the proposed project, but may require the use of designated harvest areas at higher harvest levels. It is recommended that any harvesting in the Bornite Road area be done through designated harvest areas, and 2 specific areas are proposed for initial harvesting if that option is taken. 23 Contacts Kobuk Traditional Council PO Box 51039 Kobuk, Alaska 99751 Phone: (907) 948-2133 Email: tribeadmin@laugrik.org City of Kobuk PO Box 51020 Kobuk, AK 99751 Phone: (907) 948-2217 Email: Kobukcity@yahoo.com NANA Regional Corporation, Inc. P.O. Box 49, Kotzebue, AK 99752 Phone: (907) 442-3301 Jeff Nelson, Assistant Director of Lands, (907) 265-4137 Sonny Adams, Lands Department State of Alaska, Division of Forestry Northern Region, 3700 Airport Way, Fairbanks, AK 99709-4699; (907) 451-2670 Doug Hanson, Statewide Inventory Forester and Rural Forest Practices Forester, (907) 374-3755, douglas.hanson@alaska.gov Jeff Graham, Forest Stewardship Coordinator, (907) 761-6309, jeff_graham@dnr.state.ak.us Acknowledgements Work on this project, including data compilation, GIS analysis, field data collection, and document preparation and review was conducted by TCC Forestry staff Jeremy Douse, Fabian Keirn, and Will Putman. Guidance and consultation was provided by the staff of the Native Village of Kobuk. Sonny Adams, NANA Corp., provided information on NANA land management. Guidance throughout was provided by Carl Remley at the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. Many thanks are due to the people of Kobuk for their hospitality while working on this project. 24 Citations Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, 2008. Alaska Forest Resources & Practices Act. available from http://forestry.alaska.gov/forestpractices.htm [online], accessed September 12, 2013. Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC), 2011. Wood Storage Best Practices in Fairbanks, Alaska. Available from http://cchrc.org/docs/reports/WoodStorageBestPractices.pdf [online], 26 p. Forest & Land Management, Inc., 2010. Upper Kobuk Valley Wood Biomass Study. 17 p. Gasbarro, A. and J. Zasada, 1984. Forest Regeneration Assessment and Preliminary Forest Management Guidelines for the Kobuk and Ambler Village Forest Lands. 45 p. NANA Regional corp. Inc., 2013. General Land Management Policies. Available from http://nana.com/regional/lands/land-use-policies-and-forms/land-use-policies/ [online]. Tanana Chiefs Conference, 2012. NANA Region Native Allotment Forest Inventory. Available from http://www.tananachiefs.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/Maniilaq_Allotment_Forest_Inventory.pdf [online], 71 p. WHPacific, 2010. Upper Kobuk River Valley Biomass Preliminary Business Plan. 25 p. WHPacific, 2011. NANA Forest Stewardship Plan. Prepared for NANA Regional Corporation, 89 p.