Duteau 2016. Biomass Report_final

Yukon Research Centre 1 / 26
Michel Duteau, Cold Climate Innovation Centre
Yukon College | 500 College Drive, PO Box 2799, Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 5K4
Yukon Biomass Energy: A literature review
Presentation document
Yukon Biomass Forum
Forestry, supply chain, harvest, and sustainability
Kwanlin Dun Cultural Center,
Whitehorse Yukon
MICHEL DUTEAU, biol. MSc
Yukon Research Centre, Yukon College, 500 College Drive, Whitehorse YT Y1A 5K4
Phone: (867) 689-8490, Fax: (867) 456-8672, email: mcduteau@hotmail.com
Final version: April 02, 2016
Yukon Cold Climate Innovation Centre at Yukon College

Yukon Research Centre 2 / 26
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In Yukon, energy is used for heating, electrical appliances, and transports. Opportunities exist to
increase the proportion of biomass energy production. A significant proportion of heating energy
already is produced from biomass, and a major opportunity exists to further offset fossil fuel and
alleviate hydroelectric generation facilities (1,962 TJ/yr). The vast majority of electricity available on the
Yukon electrical grid is produced from hydroelectricity, and opportunities exist to offset fossil fuels
electricity in off-the-grid communities and to alleviate hydroelectric generation facilities. Little
opportunity exists at the moment to offset any fossil fuel transport energy.
In Yukon, biomass can be obtained from a number of feedstocks, which have inherent opportunities and
challenges, including pricetag. Potential feedstocks include by-products of industrial activities, such as
sawmill residues. Vegetation management activities can also offer raw material for biomass, such as
roadside clearings, powersmarting residues, and firestmarting residues. Forest health restoration efforts
can offer beetle kills and fire kills as potential biomass feedstocks. Imported biomass still is important to
consider too. In Yukon, dedicated biomass crops such as intensively managed forest, short rotation
coppice, and energy crops have not received much attention, but are recognized as potential biomass
feedstock in other subarctic locales. Last, round (green) wood is seen as a major potential raw material
for biomass energy in Yukon, although it still raises concerns in terms of sustainability.
A number of policies and pieces of legislation enacted by different governments can impact the
development of the Yukon biomass energy industry. In particular, YG’s 2016 Biomass Energy Policy, the
Yukon First Nations Final Agreements, the Forest Resources Act (FRA), and the Yukon Environmental
Assessment Act (YESAA) concur to the sound and sustainable development of Yukon’s biomass energy
industry.
Economic, environmental, social and technical challenges remain in the development of the Yukon
biomass energy industry, which need to be addressed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 4
CONTEXT..................................................................................................................................................... 5
ENERGY CONTEXT IN YUKON............................................................................................................ 5
Energy demand....................................................................................................................... 5
Potential supplemental biomass energy available in Yukon................................................... 8
POLITICAL AND REGULATORY CONTEXT IN YUKON ........................................................................ 16
Yukon Biomass Energy Strategy............................................................................................ 16
Yukon First Nations Final Agreements.................................................................................. 17
Forest Resources Act ............................................................................................................ 17
Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act.................................................. 19
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES.......................................................................................................... 21
ECONOMY 21
Economic opportunities........................................................................................................ 21
Economic challenges ............................................................................................................ 21
ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................................... 21
Environmental opportunities................................................................................................ 21
Environmental challenges..................................................................................................... 21
SOCIETY 22
Societal opportunities........................................................................................................... 22
Societal challenges ............................................................................................................... 22
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................ 23
Technical opportunities........................................................................................................ 23
Technical challenges............................................................................................................. 23
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................. 25

INTRODUCTION
This literature review was prepared as an accompanying document for a presentation by Cold Climate
Innovation (CCI) at the Yukon Biomass Forum on March 16, 2016 at Kwanlin Dun Cultural Centre in
Whitehorse, Yukon.
The intent of the first part of this document is to present the current energy and biomass context in
Yukon, as well as the legislative context that can impact development of the biomass energy industry.
Energy production and energy consumption figures are presented, as well as potential biomass energy
feedstocks. Opportunities to increase biomass energy production are identified, and substantiated with
economical and environmental arguments. Whenever possible, the cost of delivered feedstock is
presented. However, profitability of the whole lifecycle (e.g. cost of energy production facilities) is
beyond the scope of this document.
The intent of the second part of this document is to identify challenges that remain in the development
of Yukon’s biomass energy industry –including supply chain.

CONTEXT
Energy context in Yukon
Energy demand
Space heating energy
In Yukon, the current heat energy demand is 2,385 TJ/yr (Figure 1; ESC, 2012 in ESC, 2016). Biomass
supplies approximately 18% of the current heat energy demand, leaving 82% (1,962 TJ/yr) to non-
biomass feedstock. To this day, fossil fuels constitute the greater part of this non-biomass feedstock,
supplying 75% (1,786 TJ/yr) of the total heat energy demand – these statistics highlight the great
dependency of the Territory on fossil fuels for heating supply. Fossil fuels are non-renewable and their
usage has a heavy carbon footprint – heavier than any renewable energy. In the Yukon context, this
poor environmental performance is compounded by the fact that any fossil fuel consumed for heating is
imported from out of Territory.
In Canada, on average, biomass supplies 4.5% of the heat energy demand (Bureau of Statistics: Yukon
Energy Facts - 2007 in PBrand, 2009). In Yukon, biomass is a traditional heat energy source, and already
supplies a higher proportion of heat energy than in the rest of the country.
As the supplemental resource base is recognized substantial (Morrison Hershfield, 2011; Preto, 2011;
PBrand, 2009), potential feedstock is not an obstacle to augmenting biomass contribution to heat
energy production in Yukon (ESC, 2016).
Figure 1: Estimated total breakdown of energy use for heat in Yukon (adapted from ESC, 2012 in ESC,
2016).
Compared to the country average, heating costs are disproportionally high in all regions of Yukon,
largely due to longer, cold winters and high transportation costs (PBrand, 2009). Nearly $60 million per
year is spent for heat energy across the Territory (ESC, 2016). In Yukon, fossil fuel heat energy is

recognized as more expensive than biomass heat energy (Figure 2; ESC, 2016). This is reflected in the
fact that while accounting for 75% of total heat energy supply, fossil fuels account for 82% of Yukoner’s
heat energy costs (ESC, 2016). This is a whooping $50 million per year, most of which is leaving the
Territory (ESC, 2016). By contrast, the small scale forestry that supports biomass heat energy
contributes significantly to local economies.
Figure 2: Relative net cost of heat options in Yukon - 2010 in $/GJ (adapted from ESC, 2014 in ESC,
2016).
It is also important to recognize that although Whitehorse area accounts for 75% of the heat energy
demand (PBrand, 2009), some communities pay disproportionately high heating costs compared to the
rest of the Territory; these communities include such off-the-grid communities as Watson Lake and
Burwash Landing, where a higher proportion of heat energy is generated from fossil fuels as compared
to the rest of the Territory, and less is generated from hydroelectricity (PBrand, 2009).
Compounding this situation, fossil fuel cost is highly irregular and unpredictable, and generally rises
faster than biomass cost.
It is also largely recognized that the lifecycle of fossil fuel heating energy systems release more
greenhouse gases (GHG) than the lifecycle of efficient biomass heating energy systems, which might
have an effect on global climate. Thus, it is largely recognized that offsetting part of fossil fuel heat
energy with biomass heat energy would diminish Yukoner’s carbon footprint. In the context of possible
carbon pricing, offsetting part of fossil fuel heat energy with biomass heat energy makes even more
economical sense.
As the economical sense of augmenting the contribution of biomass to Yukon heating energy is largely
recognized (Morrison Hershfield, 2011; Preto, 2011; PBrand, 2009), economical sense is not an obstacle
to augmenting biomass contribution to heat energy production (ESC, 2016).
Therefore, there currently exists an important opportunity to offset non-biomass feedstock (mostly
fossil fuels) for the generation of heating energy in Yukon Territory, estimated at 1,962 TJ/yr.
Non-heating electricity
The majority of electricity generated in Yukon is used for operating non-heating electrical appliances.
Assuming a yearly electricity production of 1,549 TJ/yr (Figure 3; Brandt, 2013) and a yearly electrical

heating usage of 176 TJ/yr (Figure 1; ESC, 2016), this leaves approximately 1,373 TJ/yr for non-heating
purposes1
, or approximately 90%.
The vast majority of electricity produced in Yukon and distributed on the Yukon grid comes from hydro
power, which is deemed renewable (Figure 3; Brandt, 2013). Fossil fuel generators are installed as back-
up and peaking capacity, and are used especially when the instant electrical need cannot be met by
hydro-electricity, for instance in the dead of winter when heating demand is at a peak. Wind energy can
also contribute to the renewable electricity production in Yukon (0.8 MW installed capacity).
Figure 3: Power usage in Yukon -2012 (adapted from Brandt, 2013).
On North American standards, distribution of electricity in Yukon (Figure 4) is peculiar in two important
ways: 1) the territorial grid is isolated from that of any neighbors2
, and 2) a significant part of its
residents and communities are outright off-the-grid. Wherever the electrical grid does not reach the
consumer, fossil fuel electrical generators are used. Such communities as Watson Lake, Old Crow,
Beaver Creek, Burwash Landing, and Destruction Bay are completely dependent on fossil fuel generators
for electricity production.
1
Note that during the 2012-2016 period, electricity generation and electricity usage patterns have evolved, leaving
the latter non-heating yearly energy consumption (1,373 TJ/y) as a mere estimate. Elements that would have
influenced this evolution include major end users (e.g. mine) entering or withdrawing from the Yukon market, and
the two new hydro-power facilities that have been commissioned.
2
It is estimated that connecting the Yukon grid to the North America transmission system would cost $1+ billion
(GE website, 2016).

Figure 4: Yukon electrical grid (adapted from Yukon Energy Corporation, 2016).
Thus, an opportunity for biomass certainly exists in alleviating the pressure on hydro-power generation
and offsetting fossil fuel electricity generation in the dead of winter, but the largest opportunities lie in
offsetting fossil-fuel generated non-heating electricity in off-the-grid home and communities – who do
not have access to hydro-generated (renewable) electricity.
Transport
Transport accounts for 37% of all energy consumed in Yukon and is virtually entirely supplied by fossil
fuels (Statistics Canada, Cat. No. 57-003 in Kishchuk, 2007). In a recent past, biomass has been very
important to supply transport energy for the paddlewheel boats running the Yukon River system (DED,
1997). However, this transport mode has fallen into disuse, and little opportunity currently exists in
Yukon for biomass energy to offset any of the fossil fuel transport energy.
Potential supplemental biomass energy available in Yukon
Sawmill residues
Sawmills continually produce residues that could be used as energy biomass. These include scrap
lumber, shavings, green sawdust, and hog fuel (hog fuel is a combination of white wood, bark, and
shavings processed to four inch minus sizing).
Quantities of sawmill residues produced locally are currently limited, given the small size of the milling
industry in the Territory. For instance, the Haines Junction mill produces less than 5,000 metric ton of
sawmill residues per year (Clunies-Ross, 2011 in Morrison Hershfield, 2011). Assuming an energy
content of 12 GJ/metric ton (PBrand, 2009), this could supply a maximum of 60 TJ/yr, which is
equivalent to 3% of the current non-biomass heat energy demand (1,962 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016).
Moreover, most of this potential biomass feedstock already is allocated. For instance, Dawson City’s
sawmill operation residues (woodchips) are used as a feedstock at the local biomass heating plant
(Stantec, 2015).

Nevertheless, sawmill residues are the least expensive form of biomass raw material in Yukon, when
available (PBrand, 2009).
Incidental harvesting, stand improvement, and recycled wood
Incidental harvesting is the cutting and/or removal of vegetation subsidiary to another land use activity
(YG website, 2016). Examples include the maintenance of roadside, trails, powerlines, and other rights
of way, as well as firesmarting3
and defensible space clearing4
, and the development of a subdivision,
gravel quarry, or mining claim. Stand improvement is the thinning of a growing stand in order to
improve its productivity; for instance, some growing stems are eliminated a few years after
reforestation efforts in order to give a better chance to the most vigorous trees. Recycled wood include
all wood diverted from landfill (demolition waste, Christmas trees, transport pallets, etc.); regulation
and public policies encourage collection of this potential feedstock at recycling facilities.
Incidental harvesting, stand improvement, and recycled materials generate biomass that could be
turned into energy feedstock. For instance, incidental harvesting from firesmarting treatments feed Tok
school’s biomass energy boilers (Lowell, 2015). In Yukon, available quantities as well as profitability of
this potential biomass energy feedstock yet have to be documented.
Driftwood
Driftwood has also been reported as a potential biomass feedstock. For instance, up to 60% of the wood
supplying Tanana (AK)’s biomass heating public systems (8 cordwood boilers) is driftwood collected as it
floats down the Yukon River (Lowell, 2015). Available quantities as well as profitability yet have to be
documented for Yukon conditions, and would likely need to be focused on specific river systems.
Salvage from wildfires
In Yukon, wood salvaged from wildfires is an important potential feedstock for energy biomass.
Although wildfire occurrence is highly variable, it can still be said that -on average over a long time
period-, the area that is burnt in Yukon Territory amounts to 112,000 ha per year (ESC, 2016). This is
nearly 200 times more wood than is currently harvested as fuelwood in the territory (ESC, 2016).
Combustion rarely consumes more than 10-15% of the biomass (Preto, 2011), leaving the rest as
salvageable wood biomass. Moreover, the recoverable heat of combustion increases for the first few
years as a result of decreasing wood moisture content, after which it decreases as a result of checking
and decay (Figure 5; Preto, 2011).
3
Firesmarting treatments are applied to reduce wildfire hazard around towns, roads, buildings and
other infrastructures by creating a buffer zone - clearing or thinning trees that could eventually fuel a
wildfire.
4
e.g the defensible space around Fairbanks (AK) covers 3,000 ac (1,200 ha)

Figure 5: Standing dead tree energy content (adapted from Preto, 2011).
Difficulties with access to the resource and distance to the end user can have a drastic impact on
profitability. Therefore, calculating the future annual potential of wildfire-salvaged wood as biomass
energy feedstock is a delicate and hazardous exercise, and any estimation is highly speculative and
uncertain. Nevertheless, assuming a conservative 10% access (PBrand, 2009), a 85 m3
/ha wood
availability in mature forest (Preto, 2011), a 15% consumption by fire (Preto, 2011), a 11% loss due to
handling of brittle wood (Preto, 2011), an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2011), and a
volumetric mass of 2.2 m3
/metric ton (Preto, 2011), the average yearly burn area (112,000 ha) could
supply 5,893 TJ/yr, which is 3 times the entire current non-biomass heat energy demand (1,962 TJ/yr;
ESC, 2016).
Currently, two major relatively recent burns exist within a 250 km radius of Whitehorse: the Fox Lake
Burn (1998) and the Minto Burn (1995) (Figure 6). Total harvestable biomass volumes available from Fox
Lake Burn and Minto Burn have been estimated by Morrison Hershfield (2011) at 1,075,360 m3
and
3,322,352 m3
, respectively, harvestable over a 20 years period.
Assuming an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2011) and a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3
/metric
ton (Preto, 2011), biomass potentially salvageable for supplemental energy biomass from Fox Lake Burn
and Minto Burn (total of 4,397,712 m3
) would provide (35,981 TJ), enough energy to meet the entire
current non-biomass heat energy demand of Yukon (1,962 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016) for 18 years. However, this
potential biomass feedstock is not entirely supplemental, as part of the biomass energy feedstock
comes from those burns. Nevertheless, ‘’other smaller burn areas within the 250 km were identified but
have not yet been evaluated… (Morrison, 2011)’’
It should be noted that annual allowable cuts (AAC, see below) or annual limits set by the Forest
resource act (FRA) do not apply in burn areas (i.e. there is no yearly restriction on the quantity that can
be salvaged).
Morrison Hershfield (2011) established that delivered cost of wood salvaged from Fox Lake Burn and
Minto Burn to a Whitehorse end user is $52.67/m3
and $75.13/m3
, respectively. Assuming an energy
content of 18.5 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2016) and a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3
/metric ton (Preto, 2011),

the total delivered cost of wildfire salvage from Fox Lake Burn and Minto Burn to a Whitehorse end user
could be $6.26/GJ and $8.93/GJ, respectively.
Figure 6: Burn areas and beetle kills within a 250 km radius from Whitehorse (adapted from Morrison
Hershfield, 2011).
Salvage from beetle kills
Spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) is a natural disturbance agent of boreal North American
spruce (Picea spp.) forests (YG, 2008). Infestations can ‘’contribute to a potential fire hazard for
communities, increase the risk of catastrophic loss of property, affect visual landscapes, reduce the
value of the forest for timber, recreation and tourism and impact ecosystems’’ (Preto, 2011). Sanitation
logging can be recommended to control an endemic infestation or when attempting to stop an outbreak
in its early stages (YG, 2008).
Currently, the beetle infestation that began in 1990 in Southwest Yukon (Haines Junction
area/Champagne and Aishihik Traditional Territory; Figure 6) is endemic. Total salvageable biomass
volume set by AAC for this infestation is 1,000,000 m3
, harvestable over a minimum 10 year period
beginning in 2006 (YG, 2011 in Morrison Hershfield, 2011).

The AAC that currently applies to the Haines Junction area is 100,000 m3
/year - higher AACs are
established in beetle kills than in green timber areas, in an attempt to encourage salvage of beetle-killed
timber. This material cannot be considered as entirely available for supplemental biomass energy
feedstock, as part of it would realistically have already been allocated to other users (e.g. sawmill
operations) and to current biomass energy feedstock. Considering this, Morrison Hershfield (2011)
estimated that the supplemental biomass energy feedstock available from this AAC was 70,000 m3
/year
over a ten years period (700,000 m3
total). Morrison Hershfield (2011) also estimated that an additional
40% biomass volume associated with small diameter trees could be harvested over and above the AAC
limits, bringing the grand total of realistically salvageable supplemental biomass energy feedstock to
980,000 m3
. -It is important to note that AACs only apply onto trees of a merchantable size (greater than
16 cm DBH), and that beetle-killed trees smaller than merchantable size can be harvested over and
above the AAC limits.
Assuming an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2011) and a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3
/metric
ton (Preto, 2011), biomass potentially salvageable for supplemental biomass energy from Southwest
Yukon beetle kill (980,000 m3
) would provide 8,018 TJ, enough energy to meet the entire current non-
biomass heat energy demand of Yukon (1,962 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016) for 4 years.
Morrison Hershfield (2011) established that total delivered cost of Haines Junction salvaged beetle kill to
a Whitehorse end user is $64.56/m3
. Assuming an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2011) and
a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3
/metric ton (Preto, 2011), the total delivered cost of Haines Junction
salvaged beetle kill to a Whitehorse end user could be $7.65/GJ.
Imported biomass
Biomass imported from Southern Canada (e.g. BC, Alberta) or Alaska will continue to be a viable option
for the near term, pending on the development of a local energy biomass industry, including supply
chain. Recognizing that local biomass would be even better, it already is cheaper to produce energy
from imported biomass than from imported fossil fuels (PBrand, 2009). Moreover, the overall
environmental footprint is lower with imported biomass than with imported fossil fuels, and an energy
production system based on imported biomass is simple to implement (PBrand, 2009).
However, given the important shipping costs associated with the transport distance to Yukon, biomass
imported from Southern Canada (e.g. Northern B.C., minimum 1,200 km) would definitely not be
competitive with a local biomass source (Morrison Hershfield, 2011).
PBrand (2009) established that delivered cost of pellets imported from BC to a Whitehorse end user is
$350/metric ton, which includes a transportation cost of approximately $115/metric ton. Assuming an
energy content of 18.5 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2016), the total delivered cost of imported biomass to a
Whitehorse end user could be $18.92/GJ.
Short rotation coppice (agroforestry)
Short rotation coppice can be defined as fast growing trees or shrubs that are harvested on a regular
basis (typically 2-5 years cycles) for a number of years (typically 20-25 years) before it must be
replanted. Short rotation coppice can be ascribed to agroforestry. Considering that short rotation
coppice can sequester carbon below ground, it is generally recognized that (e.g. Byrd, 2013a) ‘’a carbon
neutral biomass system might be possible if the harvesting can be conducted close to the boiler, and
require little transportation’’.

Willow (Salix spp.), alders (Alnus spp.), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera L.) and quacking aspen
(Populus tremuloides Michx.) all are relatively fast-growing trees and shrubs present in Yukon that could
potentially be used as short rotation coppice. Poplars and willows have the double advantage of being
able to be cultivated from cuttings taken from one tree, and of being able to re-sprout after harvest
(coppicing) (Byrd, 2013a). While not as easy to establish, alders have the advantage of being nitrogen
fixers, enhancing the soil as they grow.
Short rotation coppice is used with success as a biomass fuel source in southern Canada (e.g. Allard,
2009; Labrecque, 2008) and similar temperate agro-climatic contexts (e.g. Sweden and New York;
Nordh, 2005; Volk, et al., 2006.). In Alaska, research is currently being conducted on different aspects of
poplar and willow as potential short rotation coppice for energy biomass feedstock, including
profitability (e.g. Byrd, 2013a). In Yukon, the Territorial government committed in its Biomass Energy
Policy (2016) to ‘’supporting pilot studies and demonstration projects to investigate the potential of
using willow as a biomass fuel source’’.
In Southcentral Alaska, a pioneering study (Byrd, 2013a) indicated that the annual biomass production
of balsam poplar (P. balsamifera) stand under a two-year rotation in the local conditions was 5.5 metric
ton/ha/yr on a oven-dry basis after two years (Byrd, 2013a). For the comparison, New York and Sweden
experiments estimated an annual harvest varying in the order of 9-10 metric tons/ha/yr on an oven-dry
basis (Byrd, 2013a). Assuming an energy content of 19.7 GJ/metric ton (Byrd, 2013a), these pioneering
results indicate that biomass produced from short rotation poplar in Alaska conditions would provide
0.109 TJ/ha/yr. With this tentative productivity in mind, the entire current non-biomass heat energy
demand of Yukon (1,962 TJ/yr) could be supplied by 18,024 ha of short rotation poplar coppice. For the
comparison, 9,669,000 ha of land is recognized suitable for agriculture in Yukon (YG, 2012).
Also, very preliminary results from an experiment conducted at University of Alaska Fairbanks’
Experiment Farm (Garber-Slaght, 2009) indicated that the average annual biomass production of feltleaf
willow (S. alaxensis) was 10 metric tons/ha/yr on an oven-dry basis. Assuming an energy content of 19,7
GJ/metric ton on an oven-dry mass basis (Byrd, 2013a), these very preliminary results indicate that
biomass produced from short rotation willow in Alaska conditions would provide 0.197 TJ/ha/yr. With
this tentative productivity in mind, the entire current non-biomass heat energy demand of Yukon (1,962
TJ/yr) could be supplied by 9,967 ha of short rotation willow coppice.
Although somewhat tenuous, this preliminary information shows that short rotation coppice for energy
generation in Yukon is technically feasible, but investigation is needed to assert profitability.
Dedicated agricultural crops
Dedicated agricultural energy crops are high-yielding herbaceous plants that can be grown at low cost
and low maintenance to produce biomass from which energy can be extracted. Typically, the plant
material can be combusted – but it can also be fermented to produce cellulosic ethanol or second
generation biofuel, so as to enhance extractability of the energy content. Many herbaceous energy
crops are perennial grasses (Graminaceae). Much like short rotation coppice, herbaceous energy crops
can sequester carbon in the soil – especially perennial grasses. When compared to short rotation
coppice, herbaceous crops have the advantage of having lower operational costs and of requiring very
little specialized machinery – as they can be grown, harvested and handled much like conventional dry
hay.

In southern Canada and similar temperate agro-climatic conditions, dedicated agricultural energy
biomass production has proven cost-effective and is on the rise (e.g. Delaquis, 2013; Samson, 2008).
Perennial crops currently cultivated as dedicated agricultural biomass in southern Canada include
smooth bromegrass, switchgrass, reed canary grass, cordgrass (spartina spp.), agropyron (quackgrass),
lappland reedgrass (calamagrostis lapponica), and big blue stem; annual crops include pearled millet,
sweet sorghum, sudan grass, industrial hemp, triticale and rye.
In Alaska, screening trials have been conducted to evaluate the potential of native and non-native cool
season perennial grasses such as bromegrass, hairgrass, reed canary grass, bluejoint reedgrass
(calamagrostis canadensis), wheatgrass and wildrye, as well as other herbaceous species such as tall
fireweed (Byrd, 2013b).
This pioneering work has shown that some perennial grasses can yield as high as 11 metric ton/ha/yr,
but typical yields are 3-4 metric ton/ha/yr on an oven-dry basis (Byrd, 2013b). Assuming an energy
content of 18.5 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2016), these results indicate that biomass produced from
perennial grasses in Alaska conditions could provide as high as 0.204 TJ/ha/yr. With this tentative
productivity in mind, the entire current non-biomass heat energy demand of Yukon (1,962 TJ/yr) could
be supplied by 9,617 ha of perennial grasses.
These pioneering results show that surface-based yield of perennial grasses is approximately the same
as hay (e.g. 7.4 metric ton/ha/yr, Serecon 2007). Acknowledging that production cost of perennial
grasses could realistically be the same as conventional dry hay, the total delivered cost of perennial
grasses grown as energy feedstock could be the same as hay. Serecon (2007) established that locally-
produced hay is benchmarked against imported hay, which is sold for > $240/metric ton on Yukon
market when sold as a round bale. However, it is recognized that local hay can be profitably sold for
cheaper (Serecon, 2007). Assuming an energy content of 18.5 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2016), the total
delivered cost of perennial grasses grown as energy feedstock to a Whitehorse end-user could be
<$13/GJ.
Round wood
The type of potential biomass feedstock that is most available in Yukon is round (green) wood (PBrand,
2009). Yukon’s productive forest base is 28.1 million ha (YG, 2015). The most productive forests are
situated in the southeast corner of the Territory, and productivity gradually decreases moving west and
north of this region (YG website, 2016).
Forest plays an important role in the social, spiritual, and economic well-being of Yukoners (Preto,
2011). Yukon forest boasts many values, including ecosystem services, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural
and historical resources, outdoor recreation opportunities, natural beauty, as well as timber and other
forest products (YG, 2015). Currently, round wood is harvested as fuelwood (24,000 cords/year; ESC,
2016) and as timber for sawmill operations; no pulp and paper industry exists in Yukon.
Management of round wood as feedstock for biomass energy poses particular challenges in terms of
sustainability. Long term sustainability of Yukon forest is the purpose of Yukon Government’s Forest
Resources Act (FRA, see below). The FRA makes provision for the development of an Annual Allowable
Cut for every region of the territory. AACs are determined in consideration of the evidential forest
capacity, as well as economic, environmental and social factors (YG, 2015). As of 2016, AACs have been
determined for Haines Junction area (1 million m3
over a minimum 10 year period beginning in 2006)
and Teslin area (25,000 m3
/ year) (YG Forest website, 2016). Wherever an AAC has not yet been

developed, harvest levels are capped by an annual limit (YG, 2015). Annual limits are determined
arbitrarily, and are purposefully more conservative than an AAC would be. Table 1 shows the current
annual limits in Yukon. For all regions of the Territory, current harvest level is below the AACs and
annual limits. Any increase in harvest intensity has to fit within FRA requirements.
Beaver Creek/Burwash Landing/Destruction Bay 5,000 m3
/year coniferous trees
2,000 m3
/year deciduous trees
Carmacks 5,000 m3
2,000 m3
Dawson 5,000 m3
2,000 m3
Mayo 5,000 m3
2,000 m3
Old Crow/Peel 2,000 m3/year coniferous trees
1,000 m3/year deciduous trees
Pelly Crossing 5,000 m3
2,000 m3
Ross River/Faro 5,000 m3
2,000 m3
Watson Lake 128,000 m3/year coniferous trees
Whitehorse 10,000 m3/year coniferous trees
Table 1: Current annual limits set in Yukon (YG website, 2016)
Excluding the AAC for Haines Junction area –which was accounted for in the ‘’Salvage from beetle kills’’
section-, the total sum of AACs and current annual limits is 212,000 m3
/year for Yukon Territory. Of
these, 24,000 cords/year already are harvested for fuelwood (ESC, 2016). Assuming 2.27 m3
/cord, this is
54,480 m3
, leaving a potential of 157,520 m3
/yr for supplemental energy biomass.
Assuming an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton for coniferous trees (Preto, 2011) and same energy
content for deciduous trees, as well as a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3
/metric ton (Preto, 2011), biomass
potentially available from round wood for energy feedstock (157,520 m3
/yr) would provide 1,289 TJ/yr,
which is equivalent to 67% of the entire current non-biomass heat energy demand of Yukon (1,962
TJ/yr; ESC, 2016), which would bring the total biomass heat energy supply to 85% (67%+18%).
Considering the fact that part of heat energy demand is already supplied by cordwood that is not
harvested in the Haines Junction area, this 67% might be over-estimating the supplemental potential
feedstock. However, this rough estimate of biomass potentially available from round wood for energy
feedstock can only augment when the arbitrarily-set and purposefully conservative annual limits get
refined into science-based (sustainable) AACs, following the planning process.
Delivering round wood to a Yukon end user is substantially pricier than in southern Canada conditions,
partly due to higher road and transportation costs. For the comparison, raw material was delivered to
BC mills for $20-$40 per metric ton, while it was delivered to Yukon end users for $80-$100 per metric
ton (PBrand, 2009); assuming a volumetric weight of 2.27 m3
/metric ton, this delivered cost to a Yukon
end user was $36.36-$45.45/m3
. PBrand (2009) established that a realistic estimate for total delivered
cost of round wood to a Yukon end user for biomass energy purpose could be $48.99/m3
. Assuming an

energy content of 18.5 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2016), the total delivered cost of round wood to a
Whitehorse end user could be $6.01/GJ.
Political and regulatory context in Yukon
Yukon Biomass Energy Strategy
In February of 2016, Yukon Government (YG) released its Biomass Energy Strategy (ESC, 2016), following
a review process that included public consultations (ESC, 2016b) over a draft strategy (ESC, 2015). ‘’The
intent of this policy is to reduce Yukon’s dependence on imported fossil fuels by optimizing the use of
Yukon-harvested wood to meet the territory’s heating5
needs using modern biomass energy systems.
[…] While YG does support the (eventual) use of biomass for electricity production, the primary focus of
this strategy is to optimize the use of wood for heat, using modern systems that are clean, efficient and
economical’’ (ESC, 2016).
The Yukon Biomass Energy Strategy (2016) identifies six key action areas:
- Commit to using biomass energy in government infrastructure.
- Develop regulations, policies and programs for biomass energy industry, as required.
- Manage biomass facility emissions to protect public/environmental health and safety.
- Facilitate private sector development in biomass energy.
- Manage and regulate Yukon forests sustainably, which includes the determination of annual
allowable cuts (AAC) within forest management plans.
- Ensure biomass fuel security and quality.
Ties with Yukon Energy Strategy and Climate Change Plan
The Biomass Energy Strategy builds onto the 2009 Yukon Energy Strategy (YG, 2009), for which progress
reports have been released in 2010 (YG, 2010) and 2012 (YG, 2012). The Yukon Energy strategy (2009)
supports ‘’replacing fossil fuels with cleaner renewable energy sources wherever possible’’.
The Yukon Energy Strategy (2009) includes commitments to:
- Increasing renewable energy supply in Yukon by 20% by 2020;
- Investing in research and development of renewable energy technology;
- Demonstrating leadership in developing renewable energy infrastructure;
- Developing a wood-based bioenergy industry in Yukon by building a local market for wood
energy technologies and wood fuel products;
- Encouraging cost-effective, small-scale renewable energy production to foster innovation and
diversity in Yukon’s electrical supply.
In particular, the Yukon Energy Strategy (2009) identifies priority actions relating to renewable energies:
- Support and demonstrate renewable energy projects in communities off the electrical grid to
reduce diesel use.
e.g. ‘’support the development of a wood project in a diesel powered community’’
- Conduct pilot studies to assess the feasibility of renewable energy initiatives.
e.g. ‘’wood fuelled heating systems for institutional buildings’’
- Promote renewable energy sources for heating.
5
underscores added by the author

e.g. ’’provide financial incentives for renewable energy initiatives’’
e.g. ‘’provide training and technical assistance to build local skills for renewable energy
production’’
The Biomass Energy Strategy (2016) is also consistent with YG’s 2009 Climate Change Action Plan (YG,
2009b), for which progress reports have been released in 2012 (YG, 2012) and 2015 (YG, 2015). YG’s
Climate Change Action Plan recognizes that ‘’burning wood efficiently for heat produces less GHG
emissions than burning oil (ESC, 2016).’’ In this plan, YG outlines the goal to ‘’reduce our greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions (YG, 2009b).’’
The Yukon Energy Strategy (2009) recognizes that ‘’if future federal policies set a price for carbon
emissions or a target for reducing emissions, renewable energy options will become even more
attractive.’’ The same would presumably be true if other stakeholders (e.g. federal government, YG,
Yukon communities, private companies, and individuals) set a tax on carbon emissions or participated in
a carbon market.
Yukon First Nations Final Agreements
Each Yukon First Nation Final Agreement contains the text of the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA; GC,
CYFN, YG, 1993), which was reached in 1988 and enacted in 1993.
Chapter 17 of the UFA commits Yukon First Nations and Yukon Government to ‘’working together to
manage the territory’s forest resources sustainably’’ (ESC, 2016). Chapter 17 also recognizes that each
Yukon First Nation will ‘’own, manage, allocate, and protect forest resources on its Settlement Land
(CYFN, 1997).’’ Chapter 17 provides guidance on the development of regional Forest Resource
Management Plans (see below; ESC, 2016).
Chapter 22 commits Yukon Government to ‘’creating economic development opportunities for Yukon
First Nations (ESC, 2016).’’ Also, Chapter 17 provides guidance on ‘’protecting the economic
development opportunities of Yukon First Nations where forest resources are concerned (ESC, 2016).’’
Forest Resources Act
Along with Chapter 17 of the UFA, Yukon Government’s Forest Resource Act (FRA) sets the Yukon forest
management regime. FRA was enacted in 2011, and replaces the Timber Regulation inherited by Yukon
through devolution in 2003. The act was developed collaboratively by Yukon First Nations and the Yukon
Government. FRA is currently under review – Yukon Forest Management branch is seeking input and
will receive comments until April 30, 2016 (YG website, 2016). Morrison Hershfield (2011) observed that
there currently is no legislation or policy relating specifically to timber harvesting for feeding a biomass
energy plant.
The aim of FRA is to warrant the responsible and sustainable management of Yukon forest: providing
opportunities for current and future generations of Yukoners to benefit from Yukon’s forest resources,
while managing the forest for long term health, and maintenance of important timber and non-timber
forest values (YG website, 2016).
Table 2 shows the three levels of the Yukon forest management regime. Ultimately, FRA requires the
establishment of an Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) for a specific land base, in consideration of the

evidential forest capacity, as well as economic, environmental, and social factors (YG, 2015); wherever
an AAC has not yet been developed, harvest levels are capped by an annual limit (YG, 2015). Annual
limits are determined arbitrarily, and are purposefully more conservative than an AAC would be. Note
that FRA requires appropriate post-harvest forest regeneration, ensuring carbon neutrality of timber
harvest (ESC, 2016).
Type of Plan Purpose Geographic Scope Term
Forest
Resources
Management
Plan (FRMP)
- Strategic level of planning that identifies broad
forest resource management zones.
- Provides strategic direction for the planning area.
These plans identify where forest harvesting may
occur. It can also provide forest management
recommendations relating to habitat, trails, access
management, timber and non-timber values and
development impacts.
First Nation
traditional
territories
Long-term -
up to 20
years
Timber
Harvest Plan
(THP)
- A mid-level plan that identifies access and
harvesting for watersheds and landscape units.
- Outlines locations of roads and harvest blocks
consistent with strategic direction for the THP
planning area as prescribed in the FRMP.
Watershed or
landscape (500 to
50,000 hectares)
Ends when
activities
are
completed.
Site Plan - Operational plans that contain site-specific
actions for roads and harvesting activities
consistent with the FRMP and THP.
Harvest block level
(5 to 500 hectares)
Linked to a
cutting
permit.
Table 2: Levels of the Yukon forest management regime (adapted from YG website, 2016)
In a nutshell:
‘’ A Forest Resources Management Plan (FRMP) provides certainty on how forest management
and development will occur in the planning area. FRMPs provide guidance to other forest
planning processes such as Timber Harvest Plans (THP), which prescribe how forest harvesting
activities will occur at the watershed or landscape level. FRMPs also help provide guidance to
more detailed operational level Site Plans which identify site specific conditions for forestry
activities (YG website, 2016).’’
FRA makes provision for planning and decision making that considers all forest users, including
requirements for First Nations consultations, and opportunities for public input (YG website, 2016). As
of 2016, less than a quarter of the forest land base of Yukon has been subject to regional management
planning. FRMPs have been completed for the Teslin (Teslin Tlingit Traditional Territory), Haines
Junction (Champagne and Aishihik Traditional Territory) and Dawson regions. A FRMP is currently being
developed for the Whitehorse and Southern Lakes region (majority of the Traditional Territories of the
Kwanlin Dün First Nation, the Carcross Tagish First Nation, and the Ta'an Kwäch'än Council). FRMPs ‘’can
be and are developed in every region in the territory.’’ (ESC, 2016)
Licenses and permits
The FRA authorizes the harvest of wood through the following licence and permitting scheme, which
depends on the scale of harvest (commercial vs. non-commercial), and the end use of the feedstock
(timber vs firewood):

- Timber resource license
A Timber resource license is required to harvest wood at a commercial scale for milling, processing, and
sale. The maximum term of a Timber resource license is 10 years, but it can be renewed for one
additional term provided that the conditions of the license have been respected during the first term.
Before approving a Timber resource license, Forest Management Branch opens a minimum 30 days
public notification period. A cutting permit must also be issued, completing the authorization to harvest
(YG website, 2016).
Morrison Hershfield (2011) mentioned that ‘’the Timber resource license is most applicable to this
project [biomass energy], as it establishes the right of the licensee to harvest timber for commercial
purposes.
- Fuel wood license
A Fuel wood license is required to harvest wood at a commercial scale for commercial sale of the wood
for fuel; the amount cannot exceed 20,000 m3
in an area specified in the license. The maximum term of
a Fuel wood license is 5 years, but it can be renewed for one additional term. Before approving a Fuel
wood license, Forest Management Branch opens a minimum 30 days public notification period. A cutting
permit must also be issued, completing the authorization to harvest (YG website, 2016)..
- Cutting permit
A Cutting permit is necessary to complete authorization to harvest under a Timber resource license or a
Fuel wood license. The maximum term of a Cutting permit is 3 years and it cannot be renewed or
assigned (YG website, 2016).
- Forest resources permit
A Forest resource permit is required to harvest wood at a non-commercial scale for personal use as
timber or fuel wood; the amount cannot exceed 25m3
(11 cords). Typically, only dead and downed trees
(coniferous and/or deciduous) can be harvested under this permit. In the future, a Forest resource
permit might be required to harvest non-timber resources (e.g. berries) at a commercial scale. The
maximum term of a Forest resources permit is 3 years and it cannot be renewed or assigned (YG
website, 2016).
- Woodlot license
At the moment, Forest Management Branch is not issuing Woodlot licenses (YG website, 2016). In the
past, a woodlot license ‘’established exclusive rights to harvest forest resources within an area not
exceeding 3,000 ha in size’’ (Morrison Hershfield, 2011).
Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act
Over and above Chapter 17 and FRA provisions, all harvesting projects that are greater than 1,000 m3
typically have to be assessed under the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Board
(YESAB) (YG, 2015). This neutrally-conducted process ‘’further ensures that harvesting is done on a
sustainable basis (ESC, 2016).’’ Within this process, ‘’the public, First Nations and non-government
organizations are given an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations (YG, 2015).’’
Ultimately, the assessors recommend whether the project should a) proceed, b) proceed with terms and
conditions, or c) not proceed. The relevant decision-making bodies (e.g. federal, territorial, or First

Nation government) either accept, reject or vary the recommendations with a rationale in a decision
document. These recommendations must be followed for the project to proceed.’’ (YG, 2015)
Typically, any project 1,000-20,000 m3
is assessed at the designated (local) office level, and projects >
20,000 m3
are assessed at the Executive Committee level (YG website, 2016).

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Economy
Economic opportunities
Current cost of fossil fuels and electricity, especially for heating
Lack of long-term fossil fuel price and inevitable escalation of fossil fuel costs
Cost associated with the transport/import of fossil fuels
Leaking of capitals associated with fossil fuels
Diversification of Yukon economy
Carbon pricing associated with fossil fuels
Shorter payback period associated with capital cost of biomass fuels
Vulnerability/insecurity due to dependency on a resource that Yukoners do not have any control on
Possibility for private companies to inject capitals in the biomass energy industry
Economic challenges
Capital cost associated with the construction of a new biomass energy production facility
Reduced economies of scale due to relatively small market
Cost association with higher handling, operation and maintenance needs
Possible impact onto current wood price
Environment
Environmental opportunities
Renewability/Sustainability of the feedstocks
Reduction of carbon footprint; Carbon-neutrality of combustion of biomass over a relatively short
period
Reduced sulfur dioxide emissions
Reduced nitrogen oxide emissions
Modern biomass energy systems emit little or no air-borne particles
Environmental challenges
‘’Carbon payback time’’ issues
Air particle emissions associated with old biomass combustion systems
Fear that it still wouldn’t be sustainable?

Scale has to be concording with available sustainable supply
Soil health/soil fertility issues
Visual (landscape) impacts
Soil erosion/leaching
Loss of habitat; potential impact on biodiversity and hunting/trapping opportunities
Impact on regulation of hydrological cycles
Potential changes to climate
Handling and management of ashes
Society
Societal opportunities
Clear commitment of YG to biomass energy
Current legislative context ensures sustainability of biomass harvest and supply
Current review of the Forest Resources Act (FRA), and possibility to enact new legislations
New jobs and business opportunities
Reduction of wildfire hazards (use for a ‘’forest renewal/restoration’’ bullet too)
Development of a cold climate expertise in biomass energy
Difficulties associated with the development of hydropower
Possibility to form workers
Passing on a tradition
Fuel safety
Societal challenges
Less than ideal licensing/permitting scheme
Less than ideal biomass feedstock supply security
Need to create a new industry altogether, and form workers (empowerment)
Need to build industry in the Yukon
Heating industry transition
Need to form workers
Need to build community capacities (empowerment)
Need to have a ‘’champion’’
Impact onto other usage/values of the forest

Access to the land (land-use conflicts)/Impact on hunting and trapping
Social license (community buy-in)
Need to overcome ‘’fear of forest harvesting’’
Need for realization that there is far more opportunities than challenges (far more advantages over
disadvantages)…
Scheduling risk associated with evaluation by YESAAB of any >1,000m3 harvest project
Novelty/Past failures with biomass energy
Past failures with sustainability of wood harvest
Technical considerations
Technical opportunities
Size of the potential supplemental biomass energy feedstock
Ubiquity of potential supplemental biomass energy feedstocks
High quality of potential feedstocks
No need to be super big to have a positive influence
High adaptability of biomass energy systems to cold climate (subarctic) conditions
Difficulties associated with the development of other renewable energies
Possibility to densify biomass feedstocks
Possibility to enhance energy extraction/conversion
Commercial availability of devices
Possibility to mitigate short-term and seasonal supply disruptions
Diversity of available feedstocks
Opportunity to offset use of fossil fuels
Technical challenges
Determine the right feedstock
Using the right technology for the available feedstock, and sizing it properly
Sizing issues
Moisture content of feedstock
Transportation distances
Relatively low density and energy content and difficulty to handle raw feedstock (cordwood)
Handling of the feedstock, which has an impact on operation and maintenance of biomass energy
systems

Round wood feedstock is subject to disruption by fire or disease.
If your biomass feedstock is sawmill residues, changes in regional and global economics can affect cost
and availability.

REFERENCES
Allard, F., 2009. Les cultures intensives sur courtes rotations pour la production d’énergie. in:
AgroÉnergie, ed
Becker, D., Lowell, E., Bihn, D., Anderson, R., Taff, S., 2014. Community biomass handbook. Volume I:
thermal wood energy.
Brandt, M., 2013. Changing fuel means changing minds Views and News - going beyond the headlines.
Byrd, A. G., 2013a. Evaluating short rotation poplar biomass on an experimental land-fill cap near
Anchorage, Alaska. University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Byrd, A. G., 2013b. Research on Bio-fuel crops in Alaska: Can you really grow biomass feedstock in the
subarctic? University of Alaska Fairbanks. Presentation at the The 8th Circumpolar Agricultural
Conference & UArctic Inaugural Food Summit, Alyeska Resort, Girdwood, Alaska, September 29th -
October 3rd, 2013.
CYFN, 1997. Understanding of the Umbrella Final Agreement. Council of Yukon First Nations.
DED, 1997. Yukon Energy Resources - Wood. Yukon Government, Department of Economic
Development.
Delaquis, E., Seguin, P., Samson, R., Mustafa, A., Martel, H., MacInnis, G., 2013. Development of
improved switchgrass selections in a northern environment. Switchgrass II 2013 conference. Madison
Wisconsin
Energy Solutions Centre, 2016. Yukon Biomass Energy Strategy - Implementing the Energy Strategy for
Yukon.
Garber-Slaght, R., Sparrow, S.D., Holdmann, G., 2009. Woody Biomass Fuel Crops in Interior Alaska.
University of Alaska Fairbanks. Technical sheet SNRAS MP 2009-09.
Government of Canada (GC), Council of Yukon First Nations (CYFN), Yukon Government (YG), 1993.
Umbrella Final Agreement.
Kishchuk, P., 2007. Yukon Energy Strategy Technical Workshop. Energy Sector Scoping
Kishchuk, P., 2003. Yukon Energy Sector Assessment - 2003. in: Research V., ed
Labrecque, M., 2008. Developing a willow biomass crop enterprise for bioenergy and bioproducts in
Canada. in: Végétale I.d.R.e.B., ed. UC System-Wide Technology Transfer Forum on Clean Technology
Lowell, E.C., Parrent, D.J., Deering, R.C., Bihn, D., Becker, D.R., 2015. Community biomass handbook.
Volume 2: Alaska, where woody biomass can work.
Morrison Hershfield, 2011. Preliminary Yukon Biomass Energy Evaluation. Whitehorse, Yukon.
Nordh, N.-E., 2005. Long term changes in stand structure and biomass production in short rotation
willow coppice.

Smart, L., Volk, T., Lin, J., Kopp, R., Phillips, I., Cameron, K., White, E., Abrahmson, L., 2005. Amélioration
génétique des cultures de saules arbustifs (Salix spp.) pour la production de bioénergie et la protection
de l'environnement aux Étas-Unis. Unasylva (FAO).
PBrand, 2009. Economic Evaluation of Bioenergy Opportunity in Yukon. PBrand Bioenergy consulting.
October 2009. 28 p.
Preto, F., 2011. Biomass Energy Background Paper (Yukon Energy Planning Charrette).
Samson, R., 2008. Switchgrass for bioheat in Canada. 57 p.
Samson, R., 2007. Switchgrass production in Ontario: A management guide. Resource Efficient
Agricultural Production (REAP)-Canada.
Serecon, 2007. Multi-Year Development Plan for Yukon Agriculture and Agri-Food 2008-2012. Serecon
Management Consulting Inc. (Edmonton), TransNorthern Management Consulting and Research
(Alberta) Research Northwest (Yukon). 105 p.
Stantec, 2015. Submission for 2015 APEY Awards: Dawson District Heating Project. 3p.
Stantec, 2013. Final Report - Front End Engineering Design (FEED) Study, Yukon Bioenergy
Demonstration Project in Haines Junction, Yukon. Yukon Energy Corporation. October 18, 2013.
Ventek, 2009. Feasability of and options for a public bioenergy heating systems retrofit for Energy
Solutions Centre, Government of Yukon. March 31, 2009. 72 p.
Volk, T., Abrahamson, L., Nowak, C., Smart, L., Tharakan, P., White, E., 2006. The development of short-
rotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and
phytoremediation. Biomass and Bioenergy. 30 (8), 715-727.
Yukon Gov., 2009. Energy Strategy for Yukon. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. 25p.
Yukon Gov., 2008. Spruce Beetle in the Yukon. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Forest
Management Branch.

Duteau 2016. Biomass Report_final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Duteau 2016. Biomass Report_final

Similar to Duteau 2016. Biomass Report_final (20)

More from Michel Duteau

More from Michel Duteau (6)

Duteau 2016. Biomass Report_final