Thinning Mixed Conifer Stands

Lakeview, OR
Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area
Submitted by Mike Bechdolt, District Forester, Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District
    
  
Project ID: 1009

1. Name - Thinning Mixed Conifer Stands

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

 
 

This second project from the Klamath Falls Resource Area, entitled "Utilization of Small Diameter Conifers for Biomass in Mixed Conifer Plantations and Young Natural Stands,” was designed to utilize material from what would previously have been considered a pre-commercial thinning. The stands, some of which were in a WUI, were thinned in order to improve tree vigor, growth, and resiliency to insects and fire. About 50% of the trees were removed to break up continuity of live fuels and connecting crowns. As with the other case studies from the Klamath Falls Resource Area, the BLM used a ten-year stewardship contract to treat the area. This was the first time that the BLM thinned a young plantation outside of its normal timber sale contract stipulations and utilized the material in lieu of letting it remain on site. So far approximately 600 acres have been treated, and another 1,500 acres have been tasked out.



In place of thinning the stand with a slash buster and leaving the material on site, the contractor and BLM agreed to thin and utilize the material as clean chips. The treatment was initially tasked out for slash busting, in which the small diameter trees would be thinned first and then masticated using the same machine. Treatment costs for slash busting would have been about $266 per acre, however, this would not have generated any products or offset value. The contractor proposed thinning the stand and utilizing the thinned material for clean chips. The BLM agreed to modify the task order to pay the contractor to cut and yard the material to a loading point. The contractor would then grind up the trees and haul the material away.

The contractor used Timbco mechanized harvesters, large 566 John Deer skidders, delimbers, large grinder and/or chippers depending upon the product, and chip vans. Project design minimized soil impacts by ensuring that the skid trails and landing affected less than 20% of the area.  All trees were cut and moved to designated skid trails with mechanical harvesters. The costs for cutting and yarding were about $345 per acre (cutting was $265 per acre and yarding was $80 per acre). The value of the clean chips that were removed was approximately $39,000 or $89 per acre. The net cost of cutting, yarding and removing the biomass in lieu of slash busting it was $256 per acre, which was about $10 per acre less than the original slash busting cost of $266 per acre. The BLM choose to apply the positive value that the clean chips generated to helped pay for approximately 270 acres of pruning on residual trees at approximately $143 per acre. Hauling costs were an additional $2 per mile.



There was a market for clean chips at a hardboard mill in Klamath Falls, and a hog fuel market within 100 miles, which helped make the project feasible.  The trees were ground up into clean chips, which were used in multiple hardboard products locally. The BLM received $8 per ton for the chip material. This relatively high price for chips reflected a percentage of small sawlogs (5 to 6 inch diameter and 16 feet long) that were also chipped. The BLM and contractor negotiated a price, approximately $15 to $30 per MBF, for these small sawlogs.

Links
 

 2Land Ownership
Bureau of Land Management

 
 3Location
Lakeview, Oregon

 
4Forest Type
Mixed Conifer

 
 Context
 5Is this project a part of a landscape plan?
Yes

 
 6In a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)?
Partially

 
 7Acreage treated
600 ac.  Another 1,500 ac tasked out

 
 8Type of contract
Stewardship contract

 
 9Funding source
Multiple:  Fuels, Forestry, Fire

 
 10Collaborators and partners
Stewardship Contractor / Local Secondary Products Mill that manufactures hardboard and particle board.

 
 11Project start date
Sep. 2004

 
12Project completion date
Sep. 2014

 
 Treatment Goals
 13Restoration, watershed, or habitat improvement

 
 14Reduce fuel load

 
 15

 
 16

 
17Forest Stand Improvement

 
 Treatment Specifics
 18Primary treatment objective
Forest health
 
 19How does biomass removal fit with other objectives?
Biomass utilization was a better alternative to mulching on site
 
 20Treatment description
Remove small diameter trees

 
 21Description of contractors
Contractor had the equipment to mechanically cut and yard the material.
 
 22Travel distance for contractors
Less than 50 miles
 
 23Type of equipment used
Timbco's mechanized harvesters,large 566 John Deer skidders, delimbers, large grinder and/or chippers depending upon product, and chip vans.
 
 24Treatment of residual slash if any
Very little residual slash remained after the chipping operations.
 
 25Treatment cost per acre
Cutting costs $265/ac.  Yarding costs:$80/ac.  Slash busting costs would have been:  $266/ac.
 
26Trucking costs
Hauling costs:  $2.00/mile
 
 Utilization
 27Products from project
Clean chip used in multiple hardboard products locally.
 
 28Price for products 
The BLM received $8.00/ton for the chip material.
 
 29Date of Sale
Project was tasked in 2004. Cut in 2005.  Yarded and chipped in 2006.
 
 30Did biomass markets exist previous to project?
Yes
 
 31Type of utilization
Material was utilized as a clean chip.
 
 32How well did the woody biomass match the utilization options?
The clean chips meet the meet requirements manufacturing a product from the material.
 
33Distance to utilization

 
 Treatment guidelines, targets, limitations
 34Diameter limit
None
 
 35Basal area reduction
Basal area reduced from  81 to 56 ft2/ac 
 
 36Crown coverage
Reduction from about 50%-80& to 30%-50%.
 
 37Fuel loading
Not much change in fuel loading as cut material was removed.
 
 38Retention guidelines
Reserve 70+ trees per acre of desired species, vigor, and size.
 
 39Treatment of snags and downed logs
Not applicable
 
 40Soil impacts
Project design is to keep soil impacts, skid trails, and landing down to less than 20% of the area.
 
41Other ecological impacts monitored

 
 Pre Treatment
 42Fuel load

 
 43Stem density (stems/ac)
123 trees/acre > 7" DBH  &  25 - 50 Trees/Acre < 7"DBH
 
 44Basal area (ft2/ac)
81 square ft/acre > 7" DBH & 10+sq ft/acre < 7" DBH & Relative Density Approximately 24
 
 45Canopy closure (%)
40%-80+ %
 
 46Height to live crown base
Not Measured
 
 47Snags and downed woody material
Not applicable  - Plantation
 
 48Size class distribution
1" - 14" DBH
 
 49Tree species composition
70% PP / 25% DF/ 3% IC/ 2% WF
 
 50Presence/absence of invasive species
None noted
 
51Soil and other ecological data

 
 Post Treatment
 52Fuel load

 
 53Stem density (stems/ac)
78 Trees/Acre > 7 " DBH
 
 54Basal area (ft2/ac)
56 square feet/acre > 7" DBH  & Relative Density Approximately 17
 
 55Canopy closure (%)
30% - 60%
 
 56Height to live crown base
Not Measured
 
 57Snags and downed woody material
Not applicable - Plantation
 
 58Size class distribution
90% of the Trees 1"-16" DBH
 
 59Tree species composition
70% PP / 25% DF/ 3% IC/ 2% WF
 
 60Presence/absence of invasive species
None noted
 
 61Soil and other ecological data
Objective:  < 20% disturbance.
 

 
PDFPrintE-mail
 
< Prev   Next >