LOGGING PLPNNING, FELLING, AND YARDING COSTS IN FIVE ALTERNATIVE SKYLINE GROUP SELECTION HARVESTS By Richard H. Edwards A PAPER submitted to Department of Forest Engineering Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Forestry Completed 18 December 1992 Commencement June 1993 N ABSTRACT OF THE PAPER OF Richard M. Edwards for the degree of Master of Forestry in Forest Enclineering presented 18 December 1992. Title: Logging Planning. Felling, and Yarding Costs in Five Alternative Skyline Group Selecj4on Harvests. Abstract approved: Dk Loren D. Kellogg Alternative silvicultural systems, such as group selections, have recently come into vogue in the U.S. Pacific Northwest in response to political and public pressure against traditional, even-aged silviculture. There is also interest in silvicultural systems for multiple resources. Little is known about planning logistics, operational requirements, and harvest costs for timber and site conditions of alternative silvicultural systems. Much of the terrain demands expensive cable logging systems requiring up-to-date production and cost information for harvest planning and administration. This paper describes logging planning and harvest requirements, production, and cost results of an interdisciplinary experiment comparing alternative silvicultural systems for multiple resource management. The study was conducted in Oregon Coast Range, second growth timber using five types of group selection harvest setting designs. Skyline group selections were compared to a clearcut. Group sizes ranged from 0.5 to 3 acres (0.20 to 1.21 hectares). Group shapes included rectangular to polygonal and wedge-shape, with parallel and fan shaped setting skyline road plans. Harvest units were assessed for their efficiencies and/or inadequacies for unit planning and layout, felling, and yarding production and cost. In group selection units, total harvest costs increased from 7.3 to 31.5 percent over clearcutting. Patch size had the largest influence over total costs (i.e. larger size; lower cost). Total cost was also related to skyline setting road plan and shape. Harvest cost components were greater for group selection units than the clearcut. Felling costs increased a minimal amount (0.4 to 2.6 percent) over clearcutting in most of the group selections because of the need for more directional tree wedging. However, standard yarding costs were estimated to be slightly lower than the clearcut (0.2 to 4.2 percent) in all group selections due to increased frequency of turn presetting. The wedge-shape group selection unit exhibited a 52 percent lower road change cost over the clearcut. Other group selection units were more costly (1.6 to 107.8 percent) than the clearcut road/landing change cost. The amount of timber volume removed was a key factor affecting the final yarding cost. Final yarding costs for all group selection units increased 3.4 to 26.0 percent over clearcutting. Logging planning is the key to operationally efficient and cost effective group selection harvesting. Although such planning required 2.6 to 5.9 times more planning time and cost commitment as the clearcut, lack of such planning would cause other harvest costs to escalate as a result of increased operational difficulties. APPROVED: Dr. Loren D. Kellogg - Professor Forest Engineering / William A. Atkinson - Department Head Forest Engineering Paper presented 18 December 1992 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The planning and harvest data used in this study were collected during the third replication of an interdisciplinary alternative silvicultural systems research project conducted and funded by the Oregon State University (OSU) College of Forestry. Valuable assistance regarding silviculture and wildlife considerations was rendered throughout the project by interdisciplinary study members Carol Chambers, Dr. William C. McComb, and Dr. John Tappeiner. Staff members of the OSU Research Forest also provided help during all phases of the study. Personnel included: Marc Barnes, Pam Beebe, Debbie Cummings, Jeff Garver, Mike Rector, and Rick Schaefer. Assistance during project design and unit layout was provided by OSU Department of Forest Engineering Research Assistants Pete Bettinger, who also worked extensively during the data collection phase of the study, and Steve Pilkerton. Brett Atkinson, a Forest Engineering Graduate Research Assistant (GRA) also helped during unit layout. Alan Steffert (also a GRA) and OSU Research Forest employees Greg Cox and Brian Stacey assisted during data collection. Yarding and road construction was conducted by More Logs, Inc., Foster, OR. In addition to the landing and rigging crew, Gary Betts, Dick Renoud, and Carmen Smallwood provided valuable assistance and cooperation during the 1 project. Felling was subcontracted by Wischnofske Timber Falling, Inc., Philomnath, OR. In addition to the felling crew, Marvin Bennett and Bill Wischnofske also provided useful assistance, cooperation, and input into the study. Dr. Loren D. Kellogg contributed much appreciated assistance, guidance, and review throughout the entire study as a major professor. Other graduate committee members, Dr. John J. Garland and Dr. Eldon D. Olsen, also provided guidance and review in analysis procedure, structure, and final write-up of the study. Finally, the cooperation of my wife, Gloria, was/is greatly appreciated in preparation of the excellent maps contained in this research paper and for incredible patience throughout my graduate studies. In addition, I am indebted to my family and fellow Forest Engineering graduate students for moral support. 1]. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 4 OBJECTIVES 15 FIELD STUDY DESIGN 17 A. Study Area Description 17 B. Logging Equipment Specifications 19 Felling 19 Yarding 19 C. Unit Treatment Descriptions 23 1-CCF: Unit 1 - Clearcut Fan 29 2-GSPS: Unit 2 - Group Selection Parallel Strip 30 3-GSF.5P: Unit 3 - Group Selection Fan 0.5 acre Patches 30 4-GSF1.5P: Unit 4 - Group Selection Fan 1.5 acre Patches 30 5-GSFW: Unit 5 - Group Selection Fan Wedges 31 6-GSP.5P: Unit 6 - Group Selection Parallel 0.5 acre Patches.... 31 D. Logging Planning Time Record Methods 32 E. Felling Time-Study Methods 36 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 1. Softwood FellingProduct ion and Costs 43 Hardwood Felling Production and Costs 45 Delay Analysis 46 Yarding Time-Study Methods 47 Road/Landing Change Time-study Methods 57 Standard Treatment Unit Size Method 59 V. RESULTS 63 A. Logging Planning Requirements and Costs 63 1. Unit Layout 63 Unit 1-CCF 63 Unit 2-GSPS 74 Unit 3-GSF.5P 75 Unit 4-GSF1.5P 76 Unit 5-GSFW 78 Unit 6-GSP.5P 79 2. Time Requirements 80 3. Costs 84 B. Felling Production and Costs 88 C. Yarding Production and Costs 99 D. Road/Landing Change Costs 109 E. Total Harvest Costs 121 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS(continued) Page VI. DISCUSSION 130 Logging Planning 130 Felling 134 Yarding 135 Road/Landing Changes 138 Total Harvest Costs 142 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 146 VIII. FUTURE RESEARCH 151 IX. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED 153 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Study Area Unit Specific Site and Timber Statistics 161 APPENDIX B: Logging Planning Time Records Form 164 APPENDIX C: Logging Planning Equipment Costs and Labor Rate 165 APPENDIX D: Felling Shift-Level Form 167 APPENDIX E: Summary of Specific Felling Delays Used in Detailed Stopwatch Time-Study 168 APPENDIX F: Felling Detailed Time-study Form 169 APPENDIX G: Model Parameter Summary Statistics and Regression Fit for Board Foot Volume (BFVOL) Prediction Model 170 APPENDIX H: Felling Equipment Costs and Labor Rate 171 APPENDIX I: Yarding and Loading Shift-Level Form 174 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page APPENDIX J: Summary of Specific Yarding Delays Used in Detailed Stopwatch Time-Study 175 APPENDIX K: Yarding and Loading Equipment Costs and Labor Rates 176 APPENDIX L:Costs of Yarding and Loading Equipment Move In and Out and Set Up and Tear Down 182 APPENDIX N:Road/Landing Change Time-Study Form 185 APPENDIX N:Study Area Unit Specific Calculated Yarding Distances and Areas Yarded by Logging System 186 APPENDIX 0: Study Area Unit Specific Miscellaneous Yarding and Loading Shift-Level Timber Scale Attributes 187 APPENDIX P: Ground View Photographs of Study Treatment Units 188 Illustration 1: Unit 1 - Clearcut Fan 189 Illustration 2: Unit 2 - Group Selection Parallel Strips 190 Illustration 3: Unit 3 - Group Selection Fan 0.5 acre (0.20 hectare) Patches 191 Illustration 4: Unit 4 - Group Selection Fan 1.5 acre (0.61 hectare) Patches 192 Illustration Unit 5 - Group Selection Fan wedges 193 Illustration Unit 6 - Group Selection Parallel 0.5 acre (0.20 hectare) Patches 194 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS(continued) Page APPENDIX Q:Unit Specific Logging Planning Time Components 195 APPENDIX R:Unit Specific Felling Production Regression Model Parameter Sunmary Statistics 201 APPENDIX 5: Unit Specific Felling Delays - Percentage of Total Delay-Free Cycle Time+ All Recorded Delays 203 APPENDIX T: Unit Specific Yarding Production Regression Model Parameter Suiunary Statistics 205 APPENDIX U: Unit Specific Yarding Delays - Percentage of Total Delay-Free Cycle Time + All Recorded Delays 207 APPENDIX V: Unit Specific Road/Landing Change Time Component Sunmary Statistics (hours) 210 APPENDIX W: Unit Specific Road/Landing Change Delays - Percentage of Total Delay Time for Time-Study 212 APPENDIX X: Yarding Cost Tree Example for Unit 1 (1-CCF) 213 vii LIST OF FIGURES Pacie Figure 1:Study area location map 18