Linking Federal Forest Restoration with Wood Utilization: Modeling Biomass Prices and Analyzing Forest Restoration Costs in the Northern Sierra Nevada

Integration of biomass harvesting into an active logging operation could reduce the cost of producing biomass by utilizing equipment already on site for multiple products and minimizing tree handling.

“Integration of biomass harvesting into an active logging operation could reduce the cost of producing biomass by utilizing the equipment that is already on site for multiple products and minimize the amount of tree handling [14].”

• cites [14] Harrill, 2012, Productivity and Cost of Integrated Harvesting of Wood Chips and Sawlogs in Stand Conversion Operations, Int. J. For. Res. sourceSupported

Biomass harvest, chip, and haul costs ranged from $55 per bone dry ton to $118 per bone dry ton, depending on the harvesting system scenario and distance from the biomass disposal site.

“Biomass harvest, chip, and haul costs ranged from $55/bone dry ton to $118/bone dry ton, depending on the harvesting system scenario and distance from the biomass disposal site.”

White fir is the primary biomass tree species removed for all three harvest sites.

“White fir (Abies concolor) is the primary biomass tree species removed for all three harvest sites.”

The two primary biomass outlets for the Plumas National Forest are on average a 64-mile one-way haul from harvest units.

“These facilities are, on average, a 64-mile one-way haul from harvest units (see Table 8).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The two primary outlets for biomass from the Plumas National Forest are Honey Lake Power in Wendel and Loyalton Biomass in Loyalton.

Haul distance can have a major influence on costs of delivered biomass.

“Haul distance can have a major influence on costs of delivered biomass, as demonstrated by this study (see Figure 6).”

Chainsaws have the highest average unit production cost of $42.19/BDT.

“While the individual machine rate of a chainsaw is low relative to other machines, its low productivity results in chainsaws having the highest average unit production cost of $42.19/BDT.”

Even when additional chip vans were added to lessen chipper down time when biomass is hauled to a BioRAM facility, the overall cost to deliver biomass was still higher than if material is delivered to Crescent Mills.

“Even when additional chip vans were added to lessen the amount of chipper down time when biomass is hauled to a BioRAM facility, the overall cost to deliver biomass was still higher than if material is delivered to Crescent Mills.”

With integrated harvesting, fixed costs to implement a treatment, such as landing construction, road maintenance, or firefighting equipment, are avoided.

“Figure 5 demonstrates that with integrated harvesting, fixed costs to implement a treatment, such as landing construction, road maintenance, or firefighting equipment, are avoided.”

The average $/BDT to deliver to a BioRAM facility is $40.32, assuming round trip.

“This difference in haul distance impacted total haul costs for biomass by a factor of 2, on average; the average $/BDT to deliver to a BioRAM facility is $40.32 (assuming round trip), whereas it is $19.74/BDT to more nearby Crescent Mills.”

Under integrated harvesting scenarios, biomass hauled to a distant BioRAM facility has haul costs that make up 42% to 45% of total delivered biomass costs, compared to 26% to 36% when delivered to Crescent Mills.

“Under integrated harvesting scenarios, for example, biomass hauled to a distant BioRAM facility has haul costs that make up 42% to 45% of total delivered biomass costs, compared to a range of 26% to 36% when delivered to Crescent Mills.”

On average over the three harvest units, a feller-buncher produces 17.10 BDT/SMH.

“On average over the three harvest units, a single chainsaw falls 0.79 BDT/SMH, whereas a feller-buncher produces 17.10 BDT/SMH.”

Skidding has a slightly higher unit production cost than a feller-buncher, at $11.99/BDT.

“Skidding has a slightly higher unit production cost than a feller-buncher, at $11.99/BDT.”

On average over the three harvest units, a single chainsaw falls 0.79 BDT/SMH.

“On average over the three harvest units, a single chainsaw falls 0.79 BDT/SMH, whereas a feller-buncher produces 17.10 BDT/SMH.”

The average $/BDT to deliver to nearby Crescent Mills is $19.74.

“This difference in haul distance impacted total haul costs for biomass by a factor of 2, on average; the average $/BDT to deliver to a BioRAM facility is $40.32 (assuming round trip), whereas it is $19.74/BDT to more nearby Crescent Mills.”

Chainsaw falling is significantly less productive than feller-buncher falling.

“As expected, machine productivity of using a chainsaw to fall trees is significantly less productive than a feller-buncher.”

Skidding has the highest average cycle time, at 9.28 min to retrieve biomass piles and return to the landing, assuming an average skidding distance of 500 feet (152 m).

“Skidding has the highest average cycle time, at 9.28 min to retrieve biomass piles and return to the landing, assuming an average skidding distance of 500 feet (152 m).”

The feller-buncher machine rate is $155.45/SMH.

“Similarly, machine rate for a feller-buncher is high at $155.45/SMH, but its high productivity allows for a relatively low unit production cost of $9.30/BDT.”

Without sawlog removal as part of a contract, the biomass harvest must also account for fixed costs, which added $9.16-$11.97/BDT to the total unit production cost under Scenario 2 (Fuels Reduction Only-Mechanized).

“Without sawlog removal as part of a contract, the biomass harvest must also account for these costs, which added $9.16-$11.97/BDT to the total unit production cost under Scenario 2 (Fuels Reduction Only-Mechanized).”

The feller-buncher unit production cost is $9.30/BDT.

“Similarly, machine rate for a feller-buncher is high at $155.45/SMH, but its high productivity allows for a relatively low unit production cost of $9.30/BDT.”

If an industry standard of 30% is added to account for profit, overhead, and contingency, the resulting values range from $71/BDT for Scenario 1 to upwards of $153/BDT for Scenario 3.

“If an industry standard of 30% is added to account for profit, overhead, and a contingency, the resulting values range from $71/BDT for Scenario 1 to upwards of $153/BDT for Scenario 3 (see Table 9), which exceeds the current market prices for delivered biomass in the northern Sierra.”

The study's treatment-only costs in integrated harvesting systems fall within the range of previous studies, at $39.15/BDT to $42.46/BDT.

“Findings from our study for treatment only costs in integrated harvesting systems fall within this range, at $39.15/BDT to $42.46/BDT.”

The Crescent Mills site is on average a 16-mile one-way haul from harvest units.

“Conversely, the Crescent Mills site is on average a 16-mile one-way haul from harvest units.”

The difference in haul distance impacted total haul costs for biomass by a factor of 2, on average.

“This difference in haul distance impacted total haul costs for biomass by a factor of 2, on average; the average $/BDT to deliver to a BioRAM facility is $40.32 (assuming round trip), whereas it is $19.74/BDT to more nearby Crescent Mills.”

The unit production cost of a chipper if the same number of chip vans in a fleet are delivering to a more distant biomass facility is on average $15.21/BDT with a 32% utilization rate.

“The unit production cost of a chipper if chip vans are delivering biomass to Crescent Mills was on average $9.24/BDT with a 64% utilization rate for the chipper, whereas if the same number of chip vans in a fleet are delivering to a more distant biomass facility, the chipper unit production cost is on average $15.21/BDT with a 32% utilization rate.”

Even with the addition of more chip vans, the cost to deliver biomass to a more distant biomass facility still exceeds that of a closer, local campus, such as Crescent Mills.

“Sometimes this lowered productivity for long distance hauls can be addressed by adding additional chip vans to a fleet to reduce wait time, but this study also found that even with the addition of more chip vans, the cost to deliver biomass to a more distant biomass facility still exceeds that of a closer, local campus, such as Crescent Mills.”

The cost to a contractor to cut, skid, chip, and haul biomass in the Northern Sierra region ranges anywhere from $55-$118/BDT, depending on the harvesting system and distance to the campus.

“This model for the Crescent Mills Campus suggests that the cost to a contractor to cut, skid, chip, and haul biomass in this region ranges anywhere from $55-$118/BDT, depending on the harvesting system and distance to the campus.”

Longer hauls to more distant biomass facilities lower productivity of harvesting and chipping in the woods as the chipper experiences more down time waiting for chip vans to return.

“Longer hauls to more distant locales for biomass facilities obviously results in increased transportation costs, but this study also demonstrates that it lowers productivity of harvesting and chipping in the woods as the chipper experiences more down time waiting for chip vans to return.”

Results from this study are consistent with the notion that more down time for the chipper due to longer haul distances and a longer wait time for chip vans to return increased the unit production cost of chipping.

“Results from this study are consistent with this notion-more down time for the chipper due to longer haul distances and a longer wait time for chip vans to return increased the unit production cost of chipping.”

Shorter haul distances to the Crescent Mills Campus versus a BioRAM facility reduce transportation costs by sometimes more than half.

“Figure 6 makes it clear that shorter haul distances to the Crescent Mills Campus versus a BioRAM facility reduce transportation costs by sometimes more than half.”

When hauling biomass to a more distant BioRAM facility, haul costs can account for up to 45% of the overall cost per unit ($/bdt) to harvest, process, and deliver biomass to a facility.

“This study found that when hauling biomass to a more distant BioRAM facility, haul costs can account for up to 45% of the overall cost per unit ($/bdt) to harvest, process, and deliver biomass to a facility.”

For some scenarios, haul costs alone exceed what a facility will pay for delivered biomass.

“For some scenarios, the haul costs alone exceed what a facility will pay for delivered biomass.”

The cost of harvesting, chipping, and hauling biomass, particularly in the absence of integrated harvesting, far exceeds the market prices for this material.

“In summary, the cost of harvesting, chipping, and hauling biomass (particularly in the absence of integrated harvesting) far exceeds the market prices for this material, and without proper investment in forest health, restoration work on USFS landscapes will not get done at a pace and scale that matches statewide or national goals.”

Both the technical literature and on-the-ground experience conclude integrated harvesting to be the most economically attractive option to accomplish thinning of small-diameter trees.

“Both the technical literature and on-the-ground experience conclude integrated harvesting to be the most economically attractive option to accomplish thinning of small-diameter trees [12,13].”

• cites [12] Watson, W.F., Sabo, R.F., and Stokes, B.J. (October, January 29). Productivity of in-woods chippers processing understory biomass. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Council on Forest Engineering Meeting, Mobile, Alabama.Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [13] Aman, 2011, Productivity and Product Quality Measures for Chippers and Grinders on Operational Southern US Timber Harvests, Int. J. For. Eng. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Estimates in the literature for stump-to-truck costs to process and chip biomass into chip vans range from $23.52 per bone dry ton to $55.27 per bone dry ton, not including haul costs.

“As a result, estimates in the literature for stumpto-truck costs to process and chip biomass into chip vans range anywhere from $23.52/BDT to $55.27/BDT, not including haul costs [25,[27][28][29].”

• cites [25,[27][28][29]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

The cost of forest restoration far exceeds current market prices for biomass.

“Results suggest that the cost of forest restoration far exceeds current market prices for biomass, and additional investment is needed to adequately pay for federal forest restoration in California.”

Maintaining a biomass harvesting operation close to markets or biomass energy facilities reduces total harvesting costs by improving system balance and reducing total haul distances.

“Furthermore, maintaining a biomass harvesting operation close to markets (or biomass energy facilities) reduces the total harvesting costs by improving system balance and reducing total haul distances [25].”

• cites [25] Pan, 2008, Production and cost of harvesting, processing, and transporting small-diameter (≤5 inches) trees for energy, For. Prod. J.Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Honey Lake Power is a primary outlet for biomass material from the Plumas National Forest, but harvest sites can be more than 60 miles (97 km) haul distance from the facility.

There are few studies that identify costs of removing biomass specifically from mixed-conifer forest stands of California under USFS management in the context of forest restoration and fuels reduction treatments.

“Furthermore, there are few studies that identify costs of removing biomass specifically from mixed-conifer forest stands of California under USFS management in the context of forest restoration and fuels reduction treatments [27].”

• cites [27] Vitorelo, 2011, Productivity and cost of integrated harvesting for fuel reduction thinning in mixed-conifer forest, For. Prod. J. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Without the High Hazard Zone feedstock requirement, less material would be utilized from USFS land, further weakening the link between federal forest restoration and utilization of biomass by power plants.

“This would result in less material being utilized from USFS land, further weakening the link between federal forest restoration and utilization of biomass by power plants.”

Whether markets for biomass and small-diameter trees exist locally plays a critical role in the feasibility of restoration work.

“While USFS Stewardship Authority, along with other authorities such as Good Neighbor Authority, is an important tool for performing forest restoration and fuels reduction activities on USFS land, whether markets for biomass and small-diameter trees exist locally plays a critical role in feasibility of restoration work.”

Even if USFS includes a timber sale component to help with restoration and biomass removal costs, the value of sawlogs might be insignificant relative to the overall amount of low-value biomass material on the landscape and subsequent costs of treatment and hauling.

“Even if USFS includes a timber sale component to help with restoration and biomass removal costs, the value of these sawlogs might be insignificant relative to overall amount of low-value biomass material on the landscape, and subsequent costs of treatment and hauling [9].”

• cites [9] Lord, R., Ehlen, C., Stewart-Smith, D., Martin, J., Kellogg, L., David, C., Stidham, M., Penner, M., and Bowyer, J. (2006). Biomass Energy and Biofuels from Oregon’s Forests, Prepared for the Oregon Forest Resources Institute.Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Restoration activities such as mechanical fuels reduction in mixed conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada can cost $300 to $1200 or more per acre, excluding administrative planning costs.

“Restoration activities, such as mechanical fuels reduction, in mixed conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada can cost anywhere from $300 to $1200 (or more) per acre, excluding administrative planning costs [4].”

• cites [4] North, 2012, Using fire to increase the scale, benefits, and future maintenance of fuels treatments, J. For. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Without the High Hazard Zone feedstock requirement, biomass power facilities would likely be more inclined to purchase feedstock from less costly sources such as sawmill residue or logging residue from more profitable timber harvesting activities on private land.

“Without the High Hazard Zone feedstock requirement, biomass power facilities would likely be more inclined to purchase feedstock from less costly sources, such as sawmill residue or logging residue from more profitable timber harvesting activities on private land [13].”

• cites [13] Aman, 2011, Productivity and Product Quality Measures for Chippers and Grinders on Operational Southern US Timber Harvests, Int. J. For. Eng. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The State of California and US Forest Service jointly identified in August 2020 a need to scale up forest restoration treatments on National Forests in California to one million acres per year by 2025.

“the State of California and US Forest Service (USFS) jointly identified in August of 2020 a need to scale up forest restoration treatments on National Forests in California to one million acres per year by 2025”

• cites [5] Christensen, G.A., Waddell, K.L., Stanton, S.M., and Kuegler, O. (2016). California’s Forest Resources: Forest Inventory and Analysis, 2001–2010 (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-913). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [6] State of California (2020, October 20). USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Agreement for Shared Stewardship of California’s Forest and Rangelands, Available online: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/8.12.20-CA-Shared-Stewardship-MOU.pdf.Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

In current wood products markets, without state subsidy or high price premiums offered by local biomass energy facilities, integrated harvesting is one of the only ways to make removal of biomass economically feasible.

“In current wood products markets, and without state subsidy into the work or without high price premiums offered by local biomass energy facilities, integrated harvesting is one of the only ways to make removal of biomass be economically feasible [9].”

• cites [9] Lord, R., Ehlen, C., Stewart-Smith, D., Martin, J., Kellogg, L., David, C., Stidham, M., Penner, M., and Bowyer, J. (2006). Biomass Energy and Biofuels from Oregon’s Forests, Prepared for the Oregon Forest Resources Institute.Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

75% of forestland in Plumas County is under USFS management.

“With 75% of forestland in Plumas County under USFS management [5]”

• cites [5] Christensen, G.A., Waddell, K.L., Stanton, S.M., and Kuegler, O. (2016). California’s Forest Resources: Forest Inventory and Analysis, 2001–2010 (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-913). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Without sufficient markets for biomass material, biomass material is often piled on site and typically burned later when air quality, moisture, and weather windows allow.

“Without sufficient markets for biomass material, biomass material is often piled on site and, typically, burned later when air quality, moisture, and weather windows allow [8].”

• cites [8] Cordery-Cotter, S. (2020). Biomass in the Sierra Nevada: A Case for Healthy Forests and Rural Economies, Sierra Business Council.Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

The existence of outlets for low-value biomass material, particularly biomass energy, plays a critical role in ensuring success of increasing the pace and scale of restoration in California.

“The existence of outlets for low-value biomass material, particularly biomass energy, therefore plays a critical role in ensuring success of increasing the pace and scale of restoration in California.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Contractors view biomass removal as a net cost rather than a net benefit, resulting in biomass removal often being deemed optional under standard USFS timber sale contracts.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Some areas of National Forest may not contain enough merchantable timber to warrant an integrated sawtimber and biomass harvest.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Lassen National Forest was able to sell projects with a biomass component of up to 25% of the total volume removed as of 2016 due to established biomass outlets at Burney Forest Power and Honey Lake Power.

Bundling removal of biomass with harvesting of sawlogs is a common method to cost effectively perform fuels reduction activities because revenue can partially cover expenses associated with extracting biomass.

“Bundling removal of biomass with harvesting of sawlogs is a common method to cost effectively perform fuels reduction activities as the revenue can partially cover expenses associated with extracting biomass [9].”

• cites [9] Lord, R., Ehlen, C., Stewart-Smith, D., Martin, J., Kellogg, L., David, C., Stidham, M., Penner, M., and Bowyer, J. (2006). Biomass Energy and Biofuels from Oregon’s Forests, Prepared for the Oregon Forest Resources Institute.Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Biomass removal can be bundled with timber harvests so that sawlog revenues can help offset some of the harvest costs.

“Ideally, biomass removal can be bundled with timber harvests so that the sawlog revenues can help offset some of the harvest costs.”

The study's haul-cost finding is consistent with the Beck Group's (2019) estimate for haul costs to biomass facility.

“This finding is consistent with the Beck Group's (2019) estimate for haul costs to biomass facility [13].”

• cites [13] Aman, 2011, Productivity and Product Quality Measures for Chippers and Grinders on Operational Southern US Timber Harvests, Int. J. For. Eng. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration on federal land in California will require considerable investment since forest biomass lacks sufficient value in traditional forest products markets.

“Increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration on federal land in California will require considerable investment since forest biomass lacks sufficient value in traditional forest products markets [2,8].”

• cites [2] Taylor, M. (2018). Improving California’s Forest and Watershed Management.Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [8] Cordery-Cotter, S. (2020). Biomass in the Sierra Nevada: A Case for Healthy Forests and Rural Economies, Sierra Business Council.Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Integrated harvesting may not always be feasible in all areas needing restoration treatments given stand conditions and management objectives, such as an insufficient amount of merchantable sawtimber to help offset costs of biomass removal.

“However, integrated harvesting may not always be feasible in all areas needing restoration treatments given stand conditions and management objectives (for example, an insufficient amount of merchantable sawtimber to help offset costs of biomass removal).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Integrated harvesting assumes that the local sawmill is purchasing green logs from federal land and not just prioritizing timber from its own privately-owned land or from post-wildfire salvage projects.

Even with more favorable prices offered, the delivery of biomass to a biomass power plant seldom pays for itself.

“But even with more favorable prices offered, the delivery of biomass to a biomass power plant seldom pays for itself [13].”

• cites [13] Aman, 2011, Productivity and Product Quality Measures for Chippers and Grinders on Operational Southern US Timber Harvests, Int. J. For. Eng. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The costs for harvesting, processing, and hauling biomass are highly case specific.

“Thus, the costs for harvesting, processing, and hauling biomass are highly case specific, so this study uses a site-and case-specific approach to quantify these overall costs.”

Results in Figure 6 reiterate the benefit of hauling to biomass facilities close to the harvesting site.

“Results in Figure 6 once again reiterate the benefit of hauling to biomass facilities close to the harvesting site.”

The cost values in this study do not include contractor overhead, profit, or contingency.

“These values do not include contractor overhead, profit, or contingency, and they assume no subsidy from the USFS (which is typical under Integrated Resource Service Contracts where the contractor is paid per acre to cut and remove material).”

• Also stated in: § 4.1. Higher Price Offerings Are Needed to Cost Effectively Obtain Supply from and Incentivize US Forest Service Restoration Projects · plain

  “Values identified in this study do not include any profit, overhead, or contingency to the contractor, so a price for delivered biomass to Crescent Mills must be higher than the values reported to ensure a consistent supply chain from local contractors.”

When integrated harvesting is not feasible, the Crescent Mills site and similar facilities in the region should expect to pay in the $87-$153/BDT range to procure feedstock from USFS restoration activities, depending on haul distance, harvesting system, and other site-specific conditions.

“When integrated harvesting is not feasible, it should be expected that the Crescent Mills site and similar facilities in the region should pay in the $87-$153/BDT range to procure feedstock from USFS restoration activities, depending on the haul distance, harvesting system, and other site-specific conditions as explored previously.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Integrated harvesting assumes that the local sawmill is purchasing green logs from federal land and not just prioritizing timber from its own privately-owned land or from post-wildfire salvage projects.

This study does not account for biomass supply provided on-site in the form of residues from timber harvesting, such as tops and limbs remaining after a tree is bucked into logs to be sent to the mill.

“This study does not account for biomass supply provided on-site in the form of residues from timber harvesting, such as tops and limbs remaining after a tree is bucked into logs to be sent to the mill-this residue material gets a”

It is challenging to compare the study's haul-cost findings to previous studies because haul costs depend on distance from harvest sites to biomass facilities, which varies by region.

“It is challenging to compare our findings for haul cost to previous studies because haul costs are dependent on distance from harvest sites to biomass facilities, which various from region to region.”

A longer haul distance increases treatment costs by lowering chipper utilization rates, therefore increasing the unit production cost of generating chipped biomass material.

“Furthermore, a longer haul distance also increases treatment costs by lowering the chipper utilization rates (as identified in Table 6), therefore increasing the unit production cost of generating chipped biomass material.”

When the union of existing forest stand conditions and management objectives permit, integrated harvesting can be key to adequately increase the pace and scale of restoration treatments across National Forest System landscapes.

“When the union of existing forest stand conditions and management objectives permit, such integrated harvesting can be key to adequately increase the pace and scale of restoration treatments across National Forest System landscapes.”

A price for delivered biomass to Crescent Mills must be higher than the values reported to ensure a consistent supply chain from local contractors.

“Values identified in this study do not include any profit, overhead, or contingency to the contractor, so a price for delivered biomass to Crescent Mills must be higher than the values reported to ensure a consistent supply chain from local contractors.”

It is reasonable to expect slightly improved economics of integrated harvesting because residue material gets a free ride under whole tree logging systems.

“This study does not account for biomass supply provided on-site in the form of residues from timber harvesting, such as tops and limbs remaining after a tree is bucked into logs to be sent to the mill-this residue material gets a”

Current market prices for biomass in California do not cover the high costs of harvesting, chipping, and hauling biomass under federal forest restoration projects.

“Findings from this study make it clear that current market prices for biomass in California do not cover the high costs of harvesting, chipping, and hauling biomass under federal forest restoration projects.”

Hauling to local, community-scale wood utilization campuses can reduce costs to the contractor to transport biomass.

“These results make clear the cost benefit of hauling to local, community-scale wood utilization campuses in that they can reduce costs to the contractor to transport biomass.”

Hauling shorter distances is important in achieving maximum chipper utilization rate and productivity to keep unit production costs down.

“Thus, hauling shorter distances is important in achieving maximum chipper utilization rate and productivity to keep unit production costs down (see Table 6).”

Existing studies found stump-to-truck costs without transportation for biomass removal and processing to range from $29.16/BDT to $52.41/BDT.

“Studies that do exist found stump-to-truck costs (without transportation) for biomass removal and processing to range anywhere from $29.16/BDT to $52.41/BDT [25,[27][28][29].”

• cites [25] Pan, 2008, Production and cost of harvesting, processing, and transporting small-diameter (≤5 inches) trees for energy, For. Prod. J.Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [27] Vitorelo, 2011, Productivity and cost of integrated harvesting for fuel reduction thinning in mixed-conifer forest, For. Prod. J. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [28] Bolding, 2009, Productivity and costs of an integrated mechanical forest fuel reduction operation in southwest Oregon, For. Prod. J.Not checked — no full text of the source

The resulting values with 30% added exceed the current market prices for delivered biomass in the northern Sierra.

“If an industry standard of 30% is added to account for profit, overhead, and a contingency, the resulting values range from $71/BDT for Scenario 1 to upwards of $153/BDT for Scenario 3 (see Table 9), which exceeds the current market prices for delivered biomass in the northern Sierra.”

Chipper utilization rate is related to availability of chip vans.

“Machine rate, productivity, and unit production costs of the chipper are kept in a separate table (Table 6) because chipper utilization rate is related to availability of chip vans [32].”

• cites [32] Spinelli, 2009, Analyzing and estimating delays in wood chipping operations, Biomass Bioenergy sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Integrated harvesting allows for the lowest possible harvesting costs because fixed or background costs are absorbed by the sawlogs in the harvesting operation.

“Integrated harvesting allows for the lowest possible harvesting costs because fixed (or background) costs are absorbed by the sawlogs in the harvesting operation.”

Most biomass delivered to biomass plants from USFS land is produced in conjunction with sawtimber harvests.

“In fact, most biomass delivered to biomass plants from USFS land is produced in conjunction with sawtimber harvests [13].”

• cites [13] Aman, 2011, Productivity and Product Quality Measures for Chippers and Grinders on Operational Southern US Timber Harvests, Int. J. For. Eng. sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

With a more cost-efficient manner of disposing of biomass close to a harvest site, contractors may be more inclined to bid on an optional biomass component of a timber sale, avoiding biomass remaining in a pile in the woods to be burned at a late date when moisture and air quality constraints allow.

“With a more cost-efficient manner of disposing of biomass close to a harvest site, contractors may therefore be more inclined to bid on an”

Without proper investment in forest health, restoration work on USFS landscapes will not get done at a pace and scale that matches statewide or national goals.

“In summary, the cost of harvesting, chipping, and hauling biomass (particularly in the absence of integrated harvesting) far exceeds the market prices for this material, and without proper investment in forest health, restoration work on USFS landscapes will not get done at a pace and scale that matches statewide or national goals.”

A long-distance haul will still end up costing more than a shorter haul in the overall picture of what it costs to deliver biomass.

“While improved schedule coordination efforts by the contractor can provide some opportunity to reduce delays and improve productivity in on-site operations [34], a longdistance haul will still end up costing more than a shorter haul in the overall picture of what it costs to deliver biomass.”

A price of at least $71/BDT for biomass is not feasible for a sustainable biomass business operation, particularly if these campuses are planning on development of a small-scale biomass power facility through the BioMAT program.

“Such a price for biomass is not feasible, however, for a sustainable biomass business operation, particularly if these campuses are planning on development of a small-scale biomass power facility through the BioMAT program.”

Many studies identify system imbalance due to trucking constraints as the cause of higher production costs for chipping, due to a longer wait time between chip vans returning to the landing, therefore lowering the chipper utilization rate.

“There are many studies that identify system imbalance due to trucking constraints to be the cause of higher production costs for chipping, due to a longer wait time between chip vans returning to the landing, therefore lowering the chipper utilization rate [25,[27][28][29]32,34].”

• cites [25,[27][28][29]32,34]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.