forest fuels reduction - oregon state · pdf filewhat are the productivity and cost rates for...

Forest Fuels ReductionForest Fuels Reduction Department of

Forest Engineering Commercial and nonCommercial and non--commercial approachescommercial approaches

Loren Kellogg, Professor of Forest Engineering Chad Davis, Research Assistant Chad Bolding, Graduate Research Assistant

Department of Forest Engineering Oregon State University 215 Peavy Hall Corvallis, OR 97331

Phone: (541) 737-4952 Fax: (541) 737-4316 Website: www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fe

Research QuestionsResearch Questions Fuels, Fire Control, and Stand Management 1. What should the size and distribution of the

residual woody material be on-site from a fire hazard reduction perspective? How does this relate to the fire behavior/control objectives?

2. What are the soil management and watershed implications from alternative

fuels reduction approaches? 3. How do the initial fuels reduction treatments leave the site with regard to

long-term forest vegetation and soil management objectives, and what follow-up treatments are needed in the future?

Wood Utilization 1. What are the economic differences related to the type of biomass removed

(e.g. standing dead and/or live trees; tree size: down material size and quality), and the economic differences related to the size and distribution of

the residual woody material left on-site (e.g. larger vs. smaller pieces?) 2. What are the productivity and cost rates for alternative choices of equipment for mechanical fuels reduction;

what are system cost rates? 3. How do factors such as terrain and transport distance affect the economics of mechanical fuel reduction

alternatives? What are the economic differences related to stand type and conditions?

New Technologies 1. What equipment designs are feasible and economical to provide versatility for

contractors to work in different forest operation applications such as logging, fuels reduction and fire control?

2. What are the opportunities and technology for separating the woody material

during fuels reduction operations for existing markets and new markets? (eg. biomass energy)

Research RationaleResearch Rationale • The current forest health and fire crisis situation must address the modification of the vegetation structure to reduce fuel loadings and where feasible, allow reintroduction of low-intensity prescribed burns. • There are numerous limitations and knowledge gaps for managers to select, plan and implement appropriate technologies to meet sustainable forest management objectives involving fuels reduction, biomass utilization and forest health. • Virtually no comprehensive research studies have been completed to date in the USA on

equipment and systems specifically designed for fuels reduction rather than logging. Studies to date have involved limited equipment trials and demonstrations of modified or new equipment designs for fuels reduction (e.g. mastication and/or mulching)

• A significant multi-discipline research need is for combined studies in equipment & system technologies for handling forest fuels; soil impacts & mitigating measures for

equipment operations; fuel wood utilization; and fire behavior with different vegetation structure modifications.

Problem IdentificationProblem Identification • From 2000—2002, wildfires burnt over 18.9 million acres and cost the

Government $ 3.4 billion. NIFC • In back to back years, Oregon experi-

enced large wildfires; The Biscuit (’02) burned 499,965 acres and the B and B (‘03) burned 90,769 acres.

• An estimated 190 million acres of fed-eral forests and rangelands in the United States face high risk of catas-trophic fire. USDA

• Many Ponderosa pine forests are 15 times denser than they were a

century ago. USDA

• In Oregon, 35% (19 million acres) of forested land across all owner-ships are in the highest category of wildfire risk and another 34% (18 million acres) are at a significant level of risk compared to historical conditions. Of these categories, federal agencies or the Tribes man-age 43% of the land (16 million acres). USDA

USFS Region 6 (OR & WA) Wildfire Acres, 1994-2003

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Acr

es

Past WorkPast Work Deerhorn StudyDeerhorn Study • Stand Characterstics • 48 tons/acre average fuel load

• 9” avg. stand DBH • 1000 stems per acre

• Silviculture Objectives • Reduce fuel loading • Provide some late forest structure • Woody debris left for ants and small mammals

• Harvested with single-grip harvester (Waratah head) & small skyline yarder (Koller 501)

• Timber Utilization • 29% sawlogs @ $515/MBF • 60% pulplogs @ $36/ton • Economics • Gross revenue = $2,581/acre • Harvesting cost = $1,970/acre • Net revenue = $611/acre Limber Jim StudyLimber Jim Study • Stand Characterstics • 55 tons/acre average fuel load • 19% standing live • 26% standing dead • 55% down material • Silviculture Objectives

• Reduce fuel loading by half • Remove all standing dead & down

trees (4”-15” range) • Harvested with 2 systems:

1) Single-grip harvester (Keto 500) Small skyline yarder (Diamond 210)

2) Single-grip harvester (Keto 500 head) Forwarder (12-ton Valmet 646)

• Timber Utilization • Delivered price: $425/MBF saw,

$59/ton pulp • Skyline: 12% sawlogs, 88% pulp • Harv/For: 6% sawlogs, 94% pulp • Economics • Skyline • Gross revenue = $3,012/acre • Harvesting cost = $3,491/acre • Net revenue = - $479/acre • Harvester/Forwarder • Gross revenue = $3,483acre • Harvesting cost = $2,371/acre • Net revenue = $1,112/acre

Fuels Reduction MethodsFuels Reduction Methods • Prescribed Fire • Used for decades as a valuable management tool • Decrease in use • Smoke liability and management issues • Fire escape • Manual or Hand Operations • Positives • Low capital cost • Greater flexibility, applicable in sensitive areas • Negatives

• Intensive labor requirements, safety issues • Small area treated

• Mechanical Systems • Commercial • Positives • Opportunity to offset costs of treatment • Removal of fuel is immediately effective • Negatives • High harvesting costs and low product value • Little knowledge available concerning cost, productivity, and site impacts

• Non-Commercial—an operation which changes forest fuel structure without extracting fiber and is seen economically as a management investment

• Applicable on public lands especially where no market for products exist • New Equipment Technology and Systems • Mastication/Mulching • Chip to waste • Fuel remains on site, but converted to finer fuels • VERY little knowledge available concerning cost, productivity, and site impacts