Harvesting for Community Wood Energy

Lincoln, VT
Osborn Private Forest
Case study submitted by David Brynn, Vermont Family Forests
    
  
Project ID: 1007

1. Name - Harvesting for Community Wood Energy

Context | Objectives | Treatment Specifics | Utilization | Targets | Pre Treatment Data | Post Treatment Data | Links

 
 

Over 30 Vermont high schools are now heated with wood, including Mt. Abraham Union High School. Mt. Abraham High School installed a state-of-the-art wood chip gasifier in 2007 to heat the school. The school requires about 400 cords of wood annually in the form of hardwood bolewood. Bolewood chips do not include the leaves, twigs, and fine branches. Ideally, these nutrient-rich tree parts are left in the forest to compost. Mt. Abraham science teacher Tom Tailer and his students were instrumental in getting the school boiler converted from oil to wood. They raised community awareness of the opportunities and even helped to secure nearly $2 million in a state cost-share that picked up about 90% of the cost of design and construction.


Dennis Weaver driving a cable skidder

Mt. Abraham partnered with Vermont Family Forests (www.familyforests.org) to ensure an ecologically sustainable supply of chips. The goal was to supply biomass from a family-held forest in ways that were sustainable, efficient, local, and fair. The selected forest was owned by Lynn and Willy Osborn in Lincoln, Vermont. Acquired in 1972, the 43-acre forest consists of two areas. Prior to the early 2008 treatment, the first area was an adequately stocked, even-aged northern hardwood forest with a highly variable basal area averaging 60 square feet per acre  and dominated by red maple. Access was severely limited. The second area was an abandoned sugarbush on 25 acres of steep and slightly enriched soils. The pre-treatment basal area was 125 square feet per acre, with over 60%, of that being sugar maple of fairly low timber quality. The landowners' objectives were to conserve forest health, protect cultural resources and aesthetics, and improve access. The owners were also interested in utilizing some of the harvested wood for their local building project and home fuelwood, as well as involving students in supplying the local high school with some of its hardwood fuel needs.



The first phase of the timber sale was designed to establish access, regenerate two small patches using the group shelterwood method, and salvage about 10 thousand board feet (MBF) of overmature white ash and other mixed hardwood sawtimber. This portion of the sale involved about ten acres. The sale was operated by a local firewood dealer, Dennis Weaver, under frozen winter conditions. He operated an aged, 4-wheel drive, Same tractor equipped with a Farmi winch. He charged $240 per MBF for harvesting the sawtimber. He was paid $1000 for clearing and partially constructing the half-mile of new road, and was given the 70 cords of fuelwood. At the time of the operation, delivered green firewood and dry firewood were being sold for $180 and $250 per cord respectively. This was roughly equivalent to $72 and $100 per ton. The contractor sorted the wood into three piles: sawtimber, firewood, and chipwood. At the time of the harvest, Mt. Abraham was purchasing delivered hardwood bolewood chips under contract for $30 per ton. Because of this and the fact that firewood sales were brisk, only aspen, grey birch, and partially rotten mixed wood were put into the Mt. Abraham pile.

Links


Claire Lathrop holding bole chips

 

 2Land Ownership
Private

 
 3Location
Lincoln, Vermont

 
4Forest Type
Northern hardwood

 
 Context
 5Is this project a part of a landscape plan?
No

 
 6In a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)?
No

 
 7Acreage treated
Area 1: 18 ac; Area 2: 25 ac

 
 8Type of contract
Timber sale

 
 9Funding source
Landowners

 
 10Collaborators and partners
Vermont Family Forests

 
 11Project start date
Fall 2007

 
12Project completion date
Fall 2008

 
 Treatment Goals
 13Restoration, watershed or habitat improvement

 
 14

 
 15

 
 16Salvage

 
17Forest Stand Improvement

 
 Treatment Specifics
 18Primary treatment objective
Health forest and local economy
 
 19How does biomass removal fit with other objectives?
Helps fund treatment and support local economy
 
 20Treatment description
Single-tree or group selection harvest of trees for biomass fuel

 
 21Description of contractors
Local Contractors
 
 22Travel distance for contractors
20 miles
 
 23Type of equipment used
Hand felling, forwarder
 
 24Treatment of residual slash if any
Lopped and left in place except near trails.
 
 25Treatment cost per acre
Unknown
 
26Trucking costs
Unknown
 
 Utilization
 27Products from project
Timber, firewood, and roundwood to be chipped
 
 28Price for products 
Unknown
 
 29Date of Sale
Unknown
 
 30Did biomass markets exist previous to project?
Yes
 
 31Type of utilization
Wood chip gasifier
 
 32How well did the woody biomass match the utilization options?
Unknown
 
33Distance to utilization
Variable but generally within 15 miles
 
 Treatment guidelines, targets, limitations
 34Diameter limit
Cut marked trees only – no diameter limit.
 
 35Basal area reduction
Variable.
 
 36Crown coverage
Intermediate treatments - 65 - 80% crown closure. Regeneration treatments - small patch clearcuts and shelterwood cuts.
 
 37Fuel loading
Not applicable
 
 38Retention guidelines
Retain wind-firm legacy trees
 
 39Treatment of snags and downed logs
Increase number of large cavity, snag, and down trees
 
 40Soil impacts
Minimal – improved erosion control
 
41Other ecological impacts monitored
BMP compliance, erosion, stream temperature, stream dissolved oxygen, stream turbidity, biodiversity indicators (LWD, snags and dens, seeps and vernal pools)
 
 Pre Treatment
 42Fuel load

 
 43Stem density (stems/ac)
Area 1: 752; Area 2: 216
 
 44Basal area (ft2/ac)
Area 1: 56; Area 2: 128
 
 45Canopy closure (%)
Area 1: very young canopy; Area 2: “mostly closed”
 
 46Height to live crown base

 
 47Snags and downed woody material
At least 6 cavity/snag trees per acre and at least 2 down trees per acre.
 
 48Size class distribution
Area 1: No data, immature (30 year old) stand; Area 2: Mature stand majority 12-14"
 
 49Tree species composition
Area 1: Red maple, sugar maple, yellow and paper birch; Area 2: sugar maple, white ash, yellow and paper birch
 
 50Presence/absence of invasive species
None noted
 
51Soil and other ecological data
Evidence of bear use, deer browse, moose browse, mast species, and spring seeps noted throughout. No unique or fragile plant communities noted.
 
 Post Treatment
 52Fuel load

 
 53Stem density (stems/ac)
Estimates: Area 1 – Minimum 60 ft2/ac; Area 2 – about 12 acres will be under regeneration post-group selection and intermediate treatments
 
 54Basal area (ft2/ac)

 
 55Canopy closure (%)

 
 56Height to live crown base

 
 57Snags and downed woody material
Target: >6 cavity/snag trees per acre, >2 down trees per acre
 
 58Size class distribution
Target: 18 in diameter for principal species as listed above
 
 59Tree species composition
68% WF, 21% PP, 6% SP, 5% IC
 
 60Presence/absence of invasive species
None noted
 
 61Soil and other ecological data

 

 
PDFPrintE-mail
 
< Prev   Next >