# Presentation: 300007

## Northeastern CROP - Revised (NY; VT; NH; ME; & MA)A Summary of CROP Landscape Analyses Results  

**Presented by**
**Catherine M. Mater**
**President ****— ****Mater Engineering**
**Senior Fellow ****—****The Pinchot Institute for Conservation**
**Corvallis, Oregon; Washington, DC**
***Tel:  541-753-7335  Fx:  541-752-2952***
***E-mail:  ***_[catherine@mater.com](mailto:catherine@mater.com)_

## Northeastern CROP: 

**Center Point: Hanover, NH ****75-mi. radius**

**Federal lands**
**State lands**
**5 State Depts. of Trans.**
**18 Counties**
**248 townships**

## 2 National Forests:  6 Ranger Districts

_**White Mountain NF**_**:  **Androscroggin, Saco, Ampe
_**Green Mountain NF**_**:**  Manchester, Rochester, 	Middlebury

##    18 Counties:

**ME:     **Cumberland	Oxford	York
**NH:****	**Belknap	Carroll	Cheshire	Coos
- 		Grafton	Sullivan	Hillsborough	Merrimack
- 		Rockingham	Strafford
**NY:****	**Warren	Saratoga	Washington	Essex
- 		Rennselaer

##    248 Townships in VT & MA (only 11 townships in 6 VT counties plan resource removal in next 5 years): 

**VT:      ****Addison County** – Starksboro
- 		**Orleans County** – Craftsbury
- 		**Washington County** – Northfield; East Montpelier
- 		**Rutland County** – West Rutland
- 		**Windsor County** – Chester
- 		**Orange County** – Bradford, Fairlee, Chelsen, Randolf, 			Brookefield

## }  Federal lands

**Volume ****(by mmbf, green tons, ccf, etc.)**
**Diameter sizes   <4”  4”-7”   7”-9”   9”-12”   >12”**
**Species ****(**_***9 species***_** evaluated for resource flow)**
**Harvest “type”:****  fuel load reduction, timber sale, etc.**
***Location *****of resource offering****	****	**

**_________________________**
**NEPA Phase**
**Road accessibility**

**}****  ****Federal lands**

## So, let’s take a look at the final results . . .

## Overall (next 5 years):

| Year | Total Biomass
(81,597 gT) | % of 5-yr volume |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2006 | 9,578.7 | 12% |
| 2007 | 16,779.5 | 21% |
| 2008 | 22,081.5 | 27% |
| 2009 | 22,454.7 | 28% |
| 2010 | 10,702.7 | 13% |

**Overall ****(next 5 years):**

| Total Small Log
(72.58 mmbf) | % of 5-yr volume |
| --- | --- |
| 11.948 | 16% |
| 15.477 | 21% |
| 15.775 | 22% |
| 16.53 | 23% |
| 12.848 | 18% |

| Total Large Log
(67.875 mmbf) | % of 5-yr volume |
| --- | --- |
| 11.363 | 17% |
| 14.983 | 22% |
| 13.978 | 21% |
| 14.935 | 22% |
| 12.616 | 19% |

***Large Logs = 43%***
***(>12” dbh)***

***Small Logs = 46%***
***(>7” – 12” dbh)***

***Biomass = 11%***
***(up to 7” dbh)***

## Who’s providing what?

| 
Agency | 5-yr total
Biomass (gT) | 5-yr total
Small Log (mmbf) | 5-yr total
Large Log (mmbf) | % of 5-yr total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| White Mtn. NF | 27,843 | 50.114 | 46.124 | 65% |
| Green Mtn. NF | 15,000 | 6.7 | 8.1 | 11% |
| NH DF&L | 33,541 | 11.486 | 7.989 | 17% |
| NH Counties | 640.5 | .878 | 1.435 | 1.5% |
| MA DFW | 450 | 1.039 | .973 | 1.5% |
| VT Counties | 43.75 | .926 | 1.305 | 1.5% |
| MA DCR | 1,925 | .484 | 1.392 | 1.5% |
| ME IFW | 2,154 | .952 | .556 | 1% |

***Who’s providing what?***

## White Mtn. NF:  (gT= 27,843; Small log = 50.114 mmbf; Large log = 46.124 mmbf)

| 
Ranger Districts | 5-yr total
(Biomass = gT) |  5-yr total
Small log (mmbf) | 5-yr total
Large log (mmbf) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Androscroggin | 6,963 | 12.529 | 11.53 |
| Saco | 10,302 | 18.542 | 17.066 |
| Ampe | 10,578 | 19.043 | 17.527 |

_***White Mtn. NF***_***:  ****(****gT= 27,843; Small log = 50.114 mmbf; Large log = 46.124 mmbf)***

_***Green Mtn. NF***_***:  ****(****gT= 15,000; Small log = 6.7 mmbf; Large log = 8.1 mmbf)***

| 
Ranger Districts | 5-yr total
(Biomass = gT) |  5-yr total
Small log (mmbf) | 5-yr total
Large log (mmbf) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Manchester | 11,500 | 3.8 | 4.3 |
| Rochester | 2,000 | 1.4 | 2.8 |
| Middlebury | 1,500 | 1.5 | 1 |

## New Hampshire (non-federal):  (gT= 34,181.5; Small log = 12.369 mmbf; Large log = 9.4245 mmbf)

| 
Agencies |  | 5-yr total
(Biomass = gT) |  5-yr total
Small log (mmbf) | 5-yr total
Large log (mmbf) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| NH DF&L |  | 33.541 | 16.486 | 7.989 |
| Counties: |  |  |  |  |
|  | Sullivan | 478 | .5736 | 1.2428 |
|  | Grafton | 162.5 | .3043 | .19265 |

_***New Hampshire***_*** (non-federal):  ****(****gT= 34,181.5; Small log = 12.369 mmbf; Large log = 9.4245 mmbf)***

## Vermont (non-federal):  (gT= 43.75; Small log = .926 mmbf; Large log = 1.35 mmbf)

| 
Agencies |  | 5-yr total
(Biomass = gT) |  5-yr total
Small log (mmbf) | 5-yr total
Large log (mmbf) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| DNR |  | No data provided |  |  |
| Counties: |  |  |  |  |
|  | Windsor | 0 | .09 | .21 |
|  | Rutland | 43.75 | .04 | .10125 |
|  | Washington | 0 | .36 | .54 |
|  | Orleans | 0 | .004 | .006 |
|  | Orange | 0 | .42 | .4 |
|  | Addison | 0 | .012 | .048 |

_***Vermont***_*** (non-federal):  ****(****gT= 43.75; Small log = .926 mmbf; Large log = 1.35 mmbf)***

## Massachusetts (non-federal):  (gT= 2,375; Small log = 1.5239 mmbf; Large log = 2.3639 mmbf)

| 
Agencies | 5-yr total
(Biomass = gT) |  5-yr total
Small log (mmbf) | 5-yr total
Large log (mmbf) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MA DCR | 1,925 | .4844 | 1.391 |
| MA DFW | 450 | 1.0395 | .9729 |

_***Massachusetts***_*** (non-federal):  ****(****gT= 2,375; Small log = 1.5239 mmbf; ******Large log = 2.3639 mmbf)***

| 
Agencies | 5-yr total
(Biomass = gT) |  5-yr total
Small log (mmbf) | 5-yr total
Large log (mmbf) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ME IFW | 2,183.95 | .95238 | .5562 |

_***Maine ***_***(non-federal): ****(****gT= 2,153.95; Small log = .95238 mmbf; Large log = .5562 mmbf)***

## Private lands:  No historical data exists for removal patterns.

_***Private lands***_***:*****  No historical data exists for removal patterns.**

## Slide 15

| 
By Species | 
5-yr total
(Biomass = gT) |  5-yr total
Small log (mmbf) | 5-yr total
Large log (mmbf) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Hardwoods                 (48% of 5-yr. total)
(non-specified) | 58,255 | 55.388 | 8.596 |
| Softwoods                   (13% of 5-yr. total)
(non-specified) | 7,390 | 8.838 | 9.536 |
| Sugar maple               (12% of 5-yr. total) | 2,811 | 1.375 | 17.284 |
| Yellow birch                (6% of 5-yr. total)  | 1,800 | .87 | 8.457 |
| Red maple                    (6% of 5-yr. total) | 3,856 | 1.935 | 6.859 |
| White pine                   (5% of 5-yr. total) | 2,653 | 2.092 | 5.385 |
| Beech                            (3% of 5-yr. total) | 67 | .0231 | 4.398 |
| Paper birch                  (3% of 5-yr. total) | 1,619 | .768 | 4.098 |
| Spruce species             (3% of 5-yr. total) | 3,144 | 1.289 | 3.26 |

## Fairly good picture for small log processing as hardwoods (non-specified) & softwoods (non-specified) equals 60% of  the total CROP volume & their largest percentages fall within the >7”-12” log strata.

|  | % of species volume |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (% of  total volume) | 4”-7” | >7”-9” | >9”-12” |
| Hardwoods         (48%) | 15% | 70% | 3% |
| Softwoods           (13%) | 7 | 23 | 22 |
| Sugar maple       (12%) | 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Yellow birch         (6%) | 4 | 6 | 3 |
| Red maple            (6%) | 8 | 13 | 7 |
| White pine            (5%) | 6 | 8 | 18 |
| Beech                   (3%) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Paper birch          (3%) | 6 | 9 | 6 |
| Spruce species     (3%) | 12 | 19 | 5 |

_***Fairly good picture***_*** for small log processing as hardwoods (non-specified) & softwoods (non-specified) equals 60% of  the total CROP volume & their largest percentages fall within the >7”-12” log strata.***
**(5-yr total = 62.285 mmbf for >7”- 9”; 10.295 mmbf for >9”- 12”)**

## Resource Offering Maps (ROMS):         Here’s what you get  for each species .  .  .

_***Who***_** **will supply?
_***When***_ will supply be offered?
_***How much***_ will be offered?
_***What diameter size***_ will it be offered in?
- Will supply be consistent and _***levelized over time***_ to invite purchase and investment?

## For each species:

_***Locator map***_** per specific supplier**
_***Summary sheet***_
_***Detailed supply breakouts***_** by volume, ****diameter, and year per supplier**

***Let’s look at Sugar Maple ******as an example  . . . ***

## Locator map

## Summary Sheet

## Detailed Breakout by Supplier

| Sugar MapleGreen Mtn. NF: Manchester RD | 
5-yr = 2.162 mmbf |
| --- | --- |
|  | Fairly level supply from year      to year |
| 
gT = 2,070 | <4”          =    0%   (0 mmbf)
>4”-7”     =  19%   (.414 mmbf) |
| 
S = .759 | >7”-9”     =  30%   (.644 mmbf)
>9”-12”   =    5%   (.115 mmbf) |
| L = .989 | >12”        =  46%   (.989 mmbf) |

***Detailed Breakout by Supplier***

## SO . . . with CROP, we’re able to look at:

_***performance between different public agencies***_** to identify needed coordination of supply; **_***and***_** **
_***performance between ranger districts in a single NF***_** to see where coordination of supply offering might be needed****.**

***Let’s take a look ...***

## Sugar Maple: Green Mtn. NF - 3 RDs – biomass offerings

***Middlebury RD***

***Rochester RD***

_**Sugar Maple**_***: *****Green Mtn. NF - 3 RDs**** – *****biomass offerings***

***75%***

***12.5%***

***12.5%***

**Fairly levelized 5-year supply in only one RD: levelized supply in all RD’s beginning in 2008****.**

##  Sugar Maple: Green Mtn.  NF – 3 RDs – small log offerings 

***Manchester RD***

***Middlebury RD***

***Rochester RD***

***57%***

***26%***

***17%***

**2 out of 3 RD’s provide levelized supply for all five years.**

## Sugar Maple: Green Mtn.  NF – 3 RDs – large log offerings 

***Manchester RD***

***Middlebury RD***

***Rochester RD***

***53%***

***12%***

***35%***

**2 out of 3 RD’s provide levelized supply for all five years.**

## Let’s look at species Summary Sheets for the other top Northeastern CROP species  . . .

## Slide 27

## Slide 28

## How levelized will the supply be for all species?

***Let’s take a look . . .***

## Levelized supply for five years?

|  | gT Biomass |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | yes | no |
| Hardwoods     (48%) |  |  |
| Softwoods       (13%) |  |  |
| Sugar Maple  (12%) |  |  |
| Yellow Birch    (6%) |  |  |
| Red Maple        (6%) |  |  |
| White Pine        (5%) |  |  |
| Beech                (3%) |  |  |
| Paper Birch      (3%) |  |  |
| Spruce Species (3%) | R |  |

_***Levelized supply for five years***_***?***
***  ******(******R  =  relatively)***

| Large Logs |  |
| --- | --- |
| yes | no |
| R |  |
|  |  |
| R |  |
| R |  |
| R |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |
|  |  |

| Small Logs |  |
| --- | --- |
| yes | no |
| R |  |
|  |  |
| R |  |
|  |  |
| R |  |
|  |  |
| R |  |
| R |  |
|  |  |

## Looking at the Sugar Maple .  .  . 

**There will be an **_***unlevel***__** **__***supply of green tonnage biomass***_***,****** *****but that will impact only 5% of the total biomass volume over the next 5 years.**
**There will be a **_***level supply of small logs in this specie***_** but this will impact ~1% of the total CROP small log supply.**
**There will be a **_***level supply of large logs***_**, but this will impact over ~24% of the total 5-yr volume.**

***Here’s how it looks on an agency-by-agency basis  . . .***

## Levelized Annual Supply? (Total 5-yr volume)

|  |  |  | 
Sugar Maple (19.222 mmbf; includes gT) |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| R = relatively |  |  | yes | no | Comments |
| White Mtn.  NF | (80% of 5-yr vol.) |  |  |  |  |
|  | Androscroggin |  | R |  | Average ~ .765 mmbf/yr |
|  | Saco |  | R |  | Average ~ 1.133 mmbf/yr |
|  | Ampe |  | R |  | Average ~ 1.163 mmbf/yr |
| Green Mtn. NF | (19% of 5-yr vol.) |  |  |  |  |
|  | Manchester |  | R |  | From .39 mmbf to .46 mmbf/yr |
|  | Rochester |  | R |  | From .16 mmbf to .2 mmbf/yr |
|  | Middlebury |  | R |  | From .115 mmbf to .138 mmbf/yr |
| MA DCR | (<1% of 5-yr vol.) |  |  |  | .009 mmbf/yr |
| VT Counties |  | (<1% of 5-yr vol.) |  |  | Only offered in ‘09 |
| NH Counties | (<1% of 5-yr vol.) |  |  |  | From .01 mmbf to .04 mmbf/yr |

_***Levelized Annual Supply***_***? *****(Total 5-yr volume)**

***Not a bad picture for small & large log volumes due to the RD’s in both National Forests. But biomass volumes still highly fluctuating.***

## Overall  . . . better coordination of resource, particularly in the softwood offering for all three log stratums, & hardwood & softwood biomass offering will likely be preferred to help:

**Reduce investor risk**
**Increase purchaser confidence**
**Achieve fuel load reduction goals**
**Achieve forest restoration goals**

## What about NEPA?  It’s important to know!

***. . . here’s how it looks***

## NEPA Picture for CROP Landscape

_***NEPA Picture for CROP Landscape***_

|  | mmbf | % of total |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Approved | 7.967 | 7% |
| In process | 16.874 | 14% |
| Just started | 24.258 | 20% |
| Not started | 70.507 | 59% |

**Over 50% of CROP resource offering not started in the NEPA process!  High risk scenario!**

## . . . but story best told on agency-by-agency basis.

## NEPA Risk Rating

_**For low risk rating, 3 key desired attributes**_**:**

| 1Lowest | 2Low | 3Medium | 4High | 5Highest |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

**Volume *****approved***** in first 2 years, followed by *****in-process*****.**
**Consistency in supply; no dramatic gaps from year to year (eg:  *****approved/not started/in-process*****).**
**Overall – no major emphasis on *****just started***** or *****not started*****.**

## <

|  | mmbf affected | % of 5-yr total |
| --- | --- | --- |
| lowest | 0 | 0% |
| low | 0 | 0% |
| medium | 0 | 0% |
| high | 43.25 | 36% |
| highest | 76.34 | 64% |

_***NEPA Risk Rating Summary***_***:***

***<***

***100% in high***
*** ******risk designation***

## NEPA Risk Rating Summary:

| 
White Mtn. NF | Total 5-yr volume | NEPA Risk Rating |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Androscroggin | 25.45 mmbf | high |
| Saco | 37.66 mmbf | highest |
| Ampe | 38.68 mmbf | highest |

| 
Green Mtn. NF | Total 5-yr volume | NEPA Risk Rating |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Manchester | 10.4 mmbf | high |
| Rochester | 4.6 mmbf | high |
| Middlebury | 2.8 mmbf | high |

_***NEPA Risk Rating Summary***_***:***

## What about road access to supply?     Here’s how it looks . . .

| 
Agency | 5-yr total volume | Affected by No Current Road Access  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | mmbf |  mmbf | % of total volume with no road access | Species affected |
| MA DCR | 2.26119 | .226119 | 10% | RM, BE, PB, HWD, WP, SM, Spruce Sp., SWD |
| NH Counties | 2.44149 | 0 | 0% |  |
| ME IFW | 1.93937 | .0639 | 3% | WP, PB (White Birch) |
| VT Counties | 2.24 | 0 | 0% |  |
| NH DF&L | 26.184555 | 0 | 0% |  |
| MA-DFW | 2.1024 | 0 | 0% |  |
| Green Mtn. NF | 17.8 | 0 | 0% |  |
| White Mtn. NF | 101.806 | 0 | 0% |  |
| Total | 156.775 | .290019 | <1% |  |

_***What about road access to supply***_***?******     Here’s how it looks . . .***

##   . . .not an attractive picture for investors .  .  .  

***  ******. . .not an attractive picture for investors .  .  .***_*** ***_*** ***

- The NEPA risk for all offerings likely trumps all other analyses factors, with much of the anticipated volume in high risk designation.

***For all volume:***

## Conclusions for the Northeastern CROP (continued)

- The unlevelized supply of all biomass (<7”) may serve as a deterrent to investment in the region.

**For *****biomass******:****** ***

- There is a notably lower offering in this resource volume. Even if offered on a levelized supply basis, the annual volumes in this log stratum may not be sufficient to invite new biomass-to-energy investment to the CROP region.

## Conclusions for the Northeastern CROP (continued)

- The volumes identified for offering in the ***hardwood*** classification for small log processing may offer investment opportunity for a dedicated small log hardwood mill.

**For solid wood processing *****(hardwoods)*****: **

- A risk factor is the heavy concentration of volume in the >7”-9” dbh range, but anticipated annual offerings fall within acceptable production ranges to invite investor interest.

## Conclusions for the Northeastern CROP (continued)

- The volumes identified for ***softwood*** offering may be too small to attract new manufacturing interest to the region, but could be welcomed additions to existing milling operations for both small & large log volumes.

**For solid wood processing *****(softwoods)*****:***** ***

## For more information:

- President—Mater Engineering
- Senior Fellow – The Pinchot Institute for Conservation
- Corvallis, Oregon; Washington, DC
- tel:  (541) 753-7335  fax:  (541) 752-2952; cell: (541) 760-5526
*E-mail:  catherine@mater.com*

***For more information:***

_**Edmund Gee**_**:**
- Nat'l Woody Biomass Utilization Team Leader
- Nat'l Partnership Coordinator USFS
- Washington DC
- tel: (202) 205-1787  fax: (202) 205-1045  cell: (202) 236-5153
*E-mail: eagee@fs.fed.us*