United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station 

Research Paper NE-624 

Fuel Supply Structure 

of Wood-Fired Power Plants 

in the Northeast: 

Loggers' Perspective 

Neil K. Huyler 
Abstract 

This study gauges loggers' perceptions of the impact of large biomass demand 

centers (electrical power generation) on the forest resource base in the 

Northeast. The loggers who supply these demand centers are business people 

with large capital investments in highly mechanized harvesting systems. Most of 

the loggers surveyed strongly believed that the post-harvest stand has improved 

as a result of fuelwood chipping; however, the impact of chip harvesting on the 

forest resource base was not clear. 

The Author 

NEIL K. HUYLER, research forester, is engaged in research on the economics 

of fuelwood harvesting at the George D. Aiken Sugar Maple Laboratory, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Burlington, Vermont. He received B.S. 

and M.S. degrees in wood industry from West Virginia University. He began his 

career with the Forest Service in 1963. 

Manuscript received for publication 28 December 1988 

The use of trade, firm or corporation names in this publication is for the 

information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an 

official endorsement or approval by the US. Department of Agriculture or the 

Forest Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may 

be suitable. 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 

370 Reed Road, Broomall, PA 19008 
Introduction Objectives 

The demand for whole-tree chips for the production of 

electricity increased dramatically in the late 1970's and 

early 1980's. Two large consumers of whole-tree chips for 

electrical power generation and cogeneration of power 

during this period were S. D. Warren in Westbrook, Maine, 

and Burlington Electric Department (BED) in Burlington, 

Vermont, respectively a private corporation and a municipal 

utility. Also during this period. additional wood-fired power 

plants were proposed in New Hampshire, Maine, New York, 

and Vermont. Many of the plants have since come on line, 

with the regional consumption of wood chips supplying 

them measuring in the millions of tons annually (Vt. Dep. 

For. and Parks 1987). 

The implication of such demand on the forest resource in 

the region is not clear. Many foresters felt that the demand 

could improve both the quality and intensity of forest 

management practices in the Northeast. Others were critical 

of the potential reduction of forest quality because the 

demand would encourage more clearcutting and conversion 

of sawlogs and potential sawlogs into wood chips (Donovan 

and Huyler 1986). 

To assess the impact of large demand centers on the 

forest resource base, a study was initiated in 1985-86 in 

the Northeast. Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy 

and the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, the study was 

conducted by Associates in Rural Development cooperating 

with the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. The 

objective was to clarify the impact of four large wood-fired 

power generation plants on the forest resource base and 

wood suppliers. This objective was addressed through a 

three-phase interrelated research approach consisting of: 

Case studies of four wood-fired power plants in Maine, 

Vermont, New York, and Maryland. 

Surveys of loggers, foresters, chip suppliers, and 

landowners directly involved in fuelwood chipping 

operations. 

On-site, post-harvest examinations of forest stands in 

northern New England that provided chips for 

wood-fired power plants (Assoc. Rural Dev., Inc. 1986). 

This report addresses the second phase of the master 

study which deals specifically with a formal telephone 

survey of 20 loggers who had supplied, or ace presently 

supplying, whole-tree chips primarily to the SI. D. Warren 

plant in Maine and BED in Vermont. The Prqcter and 

Gamble plants, one in Baltimore, Maryland, and one in 

Staten Island, New York, had only one logger included in 

the survey. In addition, 5 more loggers supplying the S. D. 

Warren plant were included in the original suivey of 20 

loggers, resulting in a total of 25 loggers sudeyed. 

The objectives of the survey were to: 

1. Assess loggers' perceptions of the effects of large 

biomass demand centers on the forest resource. 

2. Determine the predominant harvesting methods for 

wood-chip production. 

Survey Methods 

Lists of logging contractors supplying S. D. Warren, BED, 

and Procter and Gamble were provided by plant 

management personnel. The names of 32 logging 

contractors were provided by the demand centers. 

Twenty-five were interviewed by telephone in late 1985, 

early 1986 to gauge perceptions of the centers' impact on 

the forest resource base. The 25 represented 78 percent of 

the loggers supplying the centers during this time. 

The interview required about 30 minutes. An experienced 

social scientist edited the questionnaire. It was pretested for 

clarity and completion time needed as well as to enhance 

the interviewer's skills. The survey addressed the logging 

operation in eight categories: 

1. Background of operation. 

2. Production and type of operation. 

3. Equipment mix. 

4. Economics and financial structure. 

5. Logging contract specifications. 

6. Site protection measures. 

7. Regulations and monitoring. 

8. Future involvement of the operation. 

The responses, tabulated as a percentage of total, were 

used to assess the objectives and gain insight into the 

loggers' perspectives of impact on the forest resource. 

Results 

The survey questions and the frequency and percentage of 

response, are shown in Tables 1 through 8 in the 

Appendix. In certain questions, there was either more than 

one response to the question or no response. Therefore, 

the total percentage may be more than or less than 100 

percent. 

Background of Operations 

Although logging operations were reported to be conducted 

in nine northeastern states, the primary locations were in 

Maine, Vermont, and New York, about 32, 28, 24, percent 
in each state (Table 1, questions 1 and 2). The remaining primary locations were in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, 

each with 12 and 4 percent, respectively. See Figure 1. 

I I 0. 

. 

NEW HAM SHIRE 

3 

Figure 1 .-Approximate geographic locations of loggers surveyed. 
The majority of the loggers surveyed, 56 percent, supplied 

BED with chips. Forty percent supplied S. D. Warren, and 

1 one logger (4 percent) indicated that he occasionally 

supplied the Baltimore, Maryland plant of Procter and 

Gamble with small amounts of whole-tree chips (Table 1, 

question 3). Contact with Procter and Gamble personnel 

indicated that few forestry logging operations were involved 

in their wood-chip procurement system, especially the I Staten Island plant. The Staten Island plant used no 

whole-tree chips as a fuel source except in the initial 

startup phase. Most of the chip supplies came from 

processed and unprocessed waste wood. 

1 Sixty-five percent of the loggers had been harvesting more 

than 10 years, 28 percent between 6 to 10 years, and 8 

percent between 1 and 5 years (Table 1, question 4). 

Sixty-four percent of the loggers said that they had been 

supplying chips for over 2 years; 12 percent, 1 to 2 years, 

and 16 percent, 6 to 12 months. One logger(4 percent) 

supplied chips for less than 6 months, and o'ne (4 percent) 

didn't know how long he had been supplying chips (Table 

1, question 5). 

The reason for getting into the chip harvesting business, 

stated by 32 percent of the loggers, was to rpmain 

competitive; whereas 20 percent indicated thbt timber stand 

improvement was the principal reason. Otherl I reasons were: 

to increase product markets (12 percent), chipping was 

easier and faster with more mechanization (1,2 percent), 

and more profit potential (12 percent). The remainder did 

not know why or indicated they tried it because other 

loggers were getting involved (Table 1, question 6). 

When asked about training in chip harvesting, 72 percent 

said on-the-job training was the only training they had 

received. The next most important source of training given 

was equipment manufacturers (20 percent). One logger (4 

percent) said training was received through "workshops, 1 field seminars, or short courses.'' Also, 4 pedfent said 

credited university course work was a source; of training. 

About 75 percent of the loggers felt the trainilng was at 

least fairly-to-totally adequate, and 12 percent could use 

more training (Table 1, questions 7 and 8). 

Production and Operating Methods 

Most of the loggers (64 percent) operate betheen 201 and 

250 days of chipping per year. Twenty-four plercent operate 

over 250 days. The remainder (12 percent) dperate 

between 151 to 200 days (Table 2, question 1). 

Fifty-two percent of the loggers said chippingl made up 

more than one-half of their logging activities auring the 

year. About 25 percent engaged in chip harvbsting 26 to 50 

percent of the time, and about 8 percent spdnt 25 percent 

or less of their time harvesting chips. One lobger did not 

know his percentage of chipping activity (Table 2, question 

2). 

Other than fuelwood chips, forest products produced were 

sawlogs (92 percent), pulpwood and tree-length wood (56 

percent each), and chunk fuelwood (36 percent). Five 

percent of production was other forest products (Table 2, 

question 3). 

About 66 percent of the loggers always separate their 

product, 20 percent often separate products; one logger (4 

percent) almost never separates products; and one logger 

(4 percent) never separates products at the landing (Table 

2, question 4). 

Clearcutting comprised 5 to 10 percent of the total annual 

harvesting operations for over 37 percent of the loggers. 

About 20 percent said 11 to 50 percent of their jobs were 

clearcuts. About 20 percent said clearcuts made up 66 to 

90 percent of their jobs, and about 20 percent said that 1 

percent or less was clearcut sales for chips (Table 2, 

question 5a). 

Partial cuts (primarily commercial thinning) were carried out 

by almost all of the loggers. From 90 to 100 percent of the 

harvesting contracts were partial cuts according to 58 

percent of the loggers. Twenty-one percent of the loggers 

classified 50 to 80 percent of the logging jobs as partial 

cuts, and 21 percent said 34 percent or less were partial 

cuttings (Table 2, question 5b). 

Forty-five percent of the loggers surveyed said the average 

size of the clearcuts harvested for fuelwood chips was less 

than 5 acres. Thirty-five percent had clearcuts on 5- to 

10-acre logging jobs. About 10 percent of clearcut jobs 

were on sites of 11 to 20 acres. One logger did not know 

the size of the clearcut he had operated, and five loggers 

did not respond to the question (Table 2, question 6). 

Thirty percent said that all (100 percent) of the clearcuts 

were land clearings for agriculture or development. 

Thirty-five percent said 50 to 99 percent of the clearcuts 

were for agriculture or development. Fifteen percent said 

that less than 50 percent of the clearcuts was land 

clearings for agriculture or development, and about 20 

percent said none of the clearcuts were for land clearing 

purposes. Five loggers did not respond to the question 

(Table 2, question 7). 

Forty-four percent of the loggers felt that a minimum yield 

of 21 to 50 tons per acre in partial cuts was necessary for 

profit. Sixteen percent said that less than 14 tons per acre 

was needed to be considered profitable. And 36 percent 

did not know the minimum yield per acre needed to make 

their operations profitable (Table 2, question 8). 
Fifty-two percent of the loggers did their own preharvest 

volume estimates of fuelwood on the site. Forester cruise 

estimates were used by 20 percent of the loggers. 

Twenty-eight percent used no volume estimates or did not 

know the volume estimate before harvesting (Table 2, 

question 9). 

Accessibility, volume per acre, and distance from the 

demand center were the most important factors in 

determining stumpage price, according to the loggers 

surveyed. Timber type and site conditions were the next 

most important factors mentioned. The going stumpage 

rate, distance from home and business, and size of 

harvesting site were the least important factors (Table 2, 

question 10). 

Equipment Mix 

The typical inventory of equipment in whole-tree chip 

harvesting consisted of one or two feller-bunchers; one or 

two grapple or cable skidders; a chipper, a dozer, and up 

to 10 chain saws. A few loggers did not have a chipper on 

site, but subcontracted for a chipper. Grapple skidders were 

used more than cable skidders (76 and 64 percent, 

respectively). None of the loggers used forwarders, farm 

tractors, draft animals, or cable yarders in their whole-tree 

chipping operations (Table 3, questions 1 through 8). 

Financial arrangements reported by the loggers who 

responded varied. Approximately 40 percent owned their 

feller-bunchers and 40 percent were making payments. The 

remaining 20 percent were making payments or had a 

rent-lease arrangement. The other major piece of 

equipment, the chipper, was owned by 55 percent of the 

loggers. Thirty percent said they were making payments, 

and the remaining 10 percent said they had rent-lease 

arrangements (Table 3, question 6). 

Of the loggers using skidders, a greater percentage (56 

percent) owned cable skidders than grapple skidders (42 

percent). Most loggers who used dozers owned them (75 

percent). Others were making payments on dozers or had 

rented one (Table 3, questions 4 and 9). 

Seventy-five percent of the loggers owned at least some, if 

not all, of their transportation equipment. Of the six loggers 

who did not own the equipment, five subcontracted for the 

hauling of chips to the plant site, and one said he made 

other arrangements (Table 3, question 10). 

The loggers were asked the round-trip distance of the chip 

delivery. Most loggers, 64 percent, said their longest haul 

was from 76 to 200 miles. Twenty percent said they hauled 

chips between 25 and 75 miles and 12 percent hauled 

chips over 200 miles round trip (Table 3, question 11). 

Economics and Financial Structure 

The 1986 fair market value of the chipping operation was 

substantial. Over 25 percent of the loggers estimated the 

value of their equipment at more than $750,000. 

Approximately 20 percent estimated the value from 

$500,000 to $750,000; over 34 percent estimated $250,000 

to $500,000; and about 9 percent estimated $150,000 to 

$250,000. One logger said the fair market value was less 

than $150,000, while another did not know the value (Table 

4, question 1). 

The approximate cost to produce fuelwood chips at the 

landing was between $8 and $10 per green ton according 

to over 34 percent of the loggers. For approximately 26 

percent the cost of production was between $13 and $14 

per green ton. Approximately 9 percent said it cost between 

$1 1 and $1 2 per green ton and for 13 percent the cost was 

less than $8 per green ton. Approximately 17 percent were 

not able to give the cost of production (Table 4, question 

2). 

The maximum price loggers can afford to pay for stumpage 

ranged from a low of $0.50 to a high of more than $1 50 

per green ton. Over 50 percent could afford to pay between 

$0.76 and $1.50 per green ton; 24 percent said they could 

afford to pay more than $1.50, while only 4 percent could 

pay a maximum of less than $0.50 per green ton. Sixteen 

percent were not able to estimate the maximum they could 

afford to pay for stumpage (Table 4, question 3). 

Skid distance was the principal factor related to profitability, 

according to 84 percent of the loggers surveyed. Distance 

from access roads was the next most important factor, for 

about 76 percent of the loggers. Topography and d.b.h. 

were factors also mentioned by over 66 percent of the 

respondents. Tree height was mentioned by about 64 

percent. The size of the woodlot and distance from demand 

centers were cited by approximately 60 percent of the 

loggers as factors that always affect profit. Number of trees 

per acre was the factor least often cited by 56 percent of 

the respondents (Table 4, question 4). 

Most, about 64 percent of the loggers, agreed that they 

needed to produce a product mix to make the operation 

profitable. Twenty-four percent did not agree that a product 

mix was needed and twelve percent did not know if the mix 

was needed at the landing (Table 4, question 5). 

Logging Contract Specifications and Markets 

Most loggers (68 percent) said that 76 to 100 percent of 

their chip harvesting activities involved a forester. In 

addition, 84 percent of the loggers indicated that less than 

10 percent of the stands cut were "logger choice" (Table 5! 

questions 1 and 2). 
The lack of a guaranteed chip market was the biggest 

problem facing loggers who practiced fuelwood chipping, 

according to 80 percent of those surveyed. Also, most 

loggers (56 percent) said that their operations have 

changed since they began selling chips. The three changes 

most often cited were the number of operating days 

increased per year; an increased number of contracts; and 

more purchases of equipment (Table 5, questions 3 and 4). 

Site Protection 

One of the principal concerns with fuelwood chip harvesting 

has centered on the forest site environment. To gauge the 

loggers' perceptions of how sites are being protected from 

harvesting damage, the logger survey included a series of 

questions concerning site protection measures. Loggers 

were asked to consider all of the fuelwood-chip harvesting 

operations they had been involved with and respond 

"always/frequently/sometimes/never" for how often various 

site measures were used. Most said that water bars were 

always used in their operations, buffer strips were 

frequently used, and wildlife habitat protection was 

frequently or sometimes used (Table 6, question 1). 

Loggers cited esthetics as the main reason most 

landowners choose to have fuelwood chipping operations 

on their land. Short-term financial return was cited as the 

second most important reason. Loggers believed that 

landowners worry most about forest management practices 

when chipping occurs on their woodlots (Table 6, 

question 2). 

The busiest chip harvesting time was December through 

1 March, with December the busiest and March the fourth 

busiest month. The majority of loggers produced more than 

4,000 tons of fuelwood chips during December. During the 

slack months, more than 2,000 tons of fuelwood chips were 

I produced per month (Table 6, questions 3 and 4). 

I Regulations and Chip Harvesting Mohitoring I 

According to most loggers interviewed, chip harvesting 

regulations by the state government or the demand center 

existed in the harvesting areas. Most said the regulations 

were strictly enforced but had no real impact on operations. 

A significant number (46 percent) said chip harvesting 

should be regulated by the state government. 

Approximately 14 percent thought the demand center 

should regulate the harvesting. The regulations most 

reasonable to the loggers governed limitation of clearcut 

size, protection of wildlife habitat, water duality and soil 

conservation, and forest management (~bble 7, questions 

2, 3, and 4). I 

Contract Negotiations 

Slightly less than 50 percent of the loggers were completely 

satisfied with their demand center contracts; none received 

subsidies or financial support from the demand centers 

(Table 7, questions 5 and 6). 

Future Involvement 

The whole-tree chip market had not changed their logging 

businesses in the last 5 years, according to most of the 

loggers surveyed. The majority (76 percent) felt there was 

enough wood supply to chip for the next 30 years and 

were not worried about supply of stumpage in their area 

(Table 8, questions 1 and 2). 

The interview ended with a short set of questions on the 

loggers' perceptions of the effects of fuelwood chip 

harvesting on the residual stand and its overall impact on 

the forest stands in their areas. Most loggers strongly 

disagreed that fuelwood chip harvesting increases residual 

stand damage and soil erosion in comparison with 

traditional or conventional harvesting methods. Also, most 

of the loggers strongly agreed that the post-harvest quality 

of stands improves with fuelwood chip harvesting, that 

integrated harvests (multi-product) were the rule, and that 

fuelwood chip harvesting left the highest quality trees and 

removed the low grade or weed trees (Table 8, questions 3 

through 7). 

Summary 

From the survey several key points emerged on the 

loggers' perception of the demand centers' impact on the 

forest resource. Also, the data revealed trends in harvesting 

and forest management practices in the supply of 

whole-tree chips. The key conclusions are: 

Nonindustrial, private woodlands are the principal 

source of wood chips. 

* Some clearcutting is taking place, but only on a small 

proportion of the harvest (up to one-tenth of total 

harvesting operations). Approximately 20 percent of the 

loggers said that clearcuts comprised 66 to 90 percent 

of their logging jobs. These clearcuts were usually 20 

acres or less, and most were for site conversion or for 

agricultural or development purposes. 

* Integrated harvesting techniques are practiced by most 

loggers with product separation occurring at the landing. 

Sawlogs and fuelwood are the principal products 

separated from whole-tree chips. This is not a new 

trend, since most loggers practiced product separation 

before whole-tree chipping was started. 
A trend that seems to be practiced by more and more 

loggers is a change from "hot-yarding," in which 

trees are chipped upon arrival at the landing, to 

"cold-decking," in which stems are stock-piled at the 

landing and chipped later. 

Loggers who supply the demand centers have been 

harvesting forest products for more than 10 years and 

supplying the centers more than 2 years. Most feel that 

there is enough low-value raw material to last for the 

next 30 years. 

The loggers entered the chip market to remain 

competitive in the industry. They felt that the new 

market for chips created more opportunity for 

silvicultural treatment of forest stands that were 

otherwise uneconomical for harvest. This new market 

increased the number of logging contracts available for 

bid. 

Most logging systems are fully mechanized. Mechanized 

systems require skilled labor, and most loggers have 

difficulty locating skilled labor. 

The fair market value of the chip harvesting equipment 

is estimated at greater than $500,000 per operator. The 

estimated cost to produce whole-tree chips ranged from 

$8 to $14 per green ton at the landing. And the most 

the loggers could pay for stumpage ranged from $0.76 

to $1.50 per green ton. 

Most harvested sites had a professional forester in the 

operation at some level. Less than 10 percent of the 

sites harvested used "logger choice." 

Most whole-tree chip harvesting had some site 

protection incorporated into the harvest; for example, 

water bars, buffer strips, and wildlife habitat protection. 

Esthetics was the major reason given that landowners 

have concern about a fuelwood chipping job on their 

land. The loggers are aware of this concern. 

A major concern expressed by the loggers, is a stable 

chip market. Power plant electrical demands fluctuate 

and therefore the demand for chip supply is unstable. 

The predominant method for harvesting fuelwood chips 

used a fully mechanized, single-entry, integrated 

system. In certain situations, multiple-entry harvesting 

was used when topwood of sawlogs, weed trees, and 

other debris were removed after the primary product 

was harvested. , 

Most loggers strongly believed that the post-harvest 

stand is improved as a result of fuelwood chipping. 

constraints. Since most cuts are classified as intermediate 

and regeneration cuts, the survey indicates that a certain 

level of timber stand improvement cuttings is taking place 

within the wood procurement area of the demand centers. 

The involvement of a professional forester has increased, 

and consumer-mandated, whole-tree chip harvesting 

standards are positive changes. 

Acknowledgment 

The author acknowledges the Associates in Rural 

Development, Inc. (ARD), for the opportunity to participate 

in this study, and especially acknowledges Richard 

Donovan for his contribution as Project Director and editor 

of the original manuscript. 

Literature Cited 

Associates in Rural Development, Inc. d986. lmpact of 

large biomass centers on the forest resouce base. 

Burlington, VT: Associates in Rural Development. 163 p. 

Donovan, Richard Z.; Huyler, Neil. 1986. lmpact of large 

demand centers on the forest resource base. In: 

Smith, C. Tattersall; Martin, C. Wayne; Tritton, Louise 

M., eds. Proceedings of the 1986 symposium on the 

productivity of northern forests following biomass 

harvesting. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-115. Broomall, PA; US. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station: 17-22. 

Vermont Department of Forests and Parks. 1987. Fuel 

chip market about to explode. Vermont Forest 

Exchange and Information Bulletin. March: 1-3. 

The impact of biomass harvesting versus conventional 

harvesting on the forest resource base was not clear from 

the logger survey. The overall indication was that there 

have been no significant changes in the principles of 

forestry practice and business methods on the operation of 

forest lands since the market for whole-tree chips for power 

generation was developed. In general, biomass harvesting 

has opened up forest stands that once were not 

commercially harvestable because of physical or economic 
Appendix-Loggers' Telephone Survey Questionnaire 

Table 1.-Response to questions on background of logging operation, by question, number, and percent 

1 I Response Number Percent 

I 

1. In which states or Canadian provinces 

do you have logging operations? 

Vermont 7 28.0 

New Hampshire 10 40.0 

Maine 12 48.0 

Rhode Island 1 4.0 

Massachusetts 4 16.0 

Connecticut 1 4.0 1 New York 10 40.0 

New Jersey 1 4.0 

1 Pennsylvania 1 4.0 

Maryland 0 - 

Delaware 0 - 

West Virginia 0 - 1 Quebec 0 - 

Ontario 0 - 

New Brunswick 0 - 

Other 0 - 

None 0 - 

Dk/nalinapa 0 - 

2. Which one of these states or provinces is the 

primary location for your logging operations? 

Maine I Vermont 

I New York 

New Hampshire 

1 Massachusetts 

BED 

S. D. Warren 

P & GINew York 

8. Which one of these power plants 

do you work with primarily? 

4. How many years have you been a 

full- or part-time logger? 

1 to 5 years 

6 to 10 years 

More than 10 years 
Table 1 .-(Cont'd.) 

Response Number Percent 

5. How many years have you been supplying 

fuelwood chips to a wood-fired power plant? 

Less than 6 months 

6 to 12 months 

1 to 2 years 

Over 2 years 

DWnalinapa 

6. What were the most important reasons why you 

got involved in fuelwood chip harvesting? 

Remain competitive 

Timber stand improvement (TSI) 

Increased markets 

More profitable 

Easier, faster/mechanization 

Everyone doing it 

DWna/inapa 

7. Which of the following types of specialized 

training, if any, have you had concerning 

fuelwood chip-harvesting operations? 

Workshops, field seminar 

short course 

University course work 

Equipment manufactwor 

On-the-job 

Totally adequate 

Fairiy adequate 

Use more training 

Dk/na/inapa 

8. Has your experience or training for dealing 

with chip harvesting operations been. . .? 

11 

8 

3 

3 

aDklna/inap = Don't know; not applicable; inappropriate. 
Table 2.-Production and operating methods 

Response Number Percent 

I 1. 'How many days do you operate per year? 

151 to 200 

201 to 250 

Over 250 I 

5 or less I 

11 to25 

26 to 50 

51 or more 

I Dklna/inapa 

2. What percentage of your logging activities 

is devoted to chip harvesting operations 

for the power plant? 

3. In addition to fuelwood chips 

do you produce . . . ? 

I Sawlogs 

Pulpwood 

Chunk fuelwood 

Treellog-length wood 

Other 

4. At your chip harvesting operations, 

would you say you separate different products 

from each other? 

Always 

Often 

Almost never 

Never 

Dkinalinapa 

5a. What percentage of your logging 

operations are clearcuts? 
Table 2.-(Cont'd.) 

Response Number Percent 

5b. What percentage of your logging 

operations are partial cuts? 

6. What is the smallest size clearcut, 

in acres, that you have operated on 

for fuelwood chips? 

1 5.0 

9 45.0 

7 35.0 

2 10.0 

1 5.0 

0 

Less than 5 

5 to 10 

11 to 20 

Dkfna1inapa 

7. What percentage of your clearcut 

operations is for land clearing for 

either agricultural or development purposes? 

8. For a partial cut, what is the minimum 

quantity of chips in tons per acre 

you would consider economical 

for a fuelwood chipping operation? 

Less than 14 

I5 to20 

21 to 50 

Dkinalinapa 
Table 2.-(Cont'd.) 

Response Number Peccent 

9. When you go out to set up a logging job, 

how do you determine the amount of 

fuelwood chips on a particular site? 

Pre-harvest loggers' estimate 

Pre-harvest foresters' tally 

No volume estimate 

Dkhalinapa 

Volumelper acre 

Accessibility 

Distance from hornelbusiness 

Current chip prices 

Distance from demand center 

Going stumpage rate 

Site conditions 

Size of site 

10. What are the most important factors 

in determining what you pay for 

fuelwood chips at the stump? 

, 

aDk/na/inap = Don't know; not applicable; inappropriate. 

Table 3.-Equipment mix 

Response Number Percent 

1. First, do you use a feller-buncher? 

Yes 20 80.0 

No 3 12.0 

Dkinalinapa 2 8.0 

I 

2. Do you.. . ? 

I 

Own it 8 40.0 

Make payments I 8 40.0 

Payments and own 2 10.0 

Payments and rent 1 5.0 

Rentllease 1 5.0 
Table 3.-(Cont'd.) 

Response Number Percent 

3. Do you use a grapple skidder? 

Yes 

No 

Dk/na/inapa 

4. Do you . . . ? 

Own 

Make payments 

Payment and own 

Rentilease 

Own and rent 

5. Do you use a chipper? 

Yes 

No 

DWna/inapa 

Own 

Make payments 

Payment and own 

Rentilease 

6. Do you . . ? 

7. Do you use a cable skidder? 

Yes 

No 

Dk/na/inapa 

8. How many cable skidders do you use? 

6 

5 

1 

2 

1 

Own 

Make payments 

Own and rent 

Tentilease 

9. Do you. . . ? 
Table 3.-(Cont'd.) 

Response Number Percent 

10. Do you own your chip 

transportation equipment? 

Yes 

No 

Some of it 

Dk/na/inapa 

11. What is the longest round-trip hauling 

distance you or the contractor have made, 

in miles, to the wood-fired power plant? 

25 to 75 

76 to 100 

101 to 125 

126 to 150 

151 to 175 

176 to 200 

Over 200 

Dk/na/inapa 

aDk/nalinap = Don't know; not applicable; inappropriate. 

Table 4.-Economics and financial structure 

Response Number Percent 

Less than $150,000 

$1 50,001 to $250,000 

$250,001 to $500,000 

$500,001 to $750,000 

More than $750,000 

Dk/na/inapa 

: 1. In all, how much would you say the 

+achinery and equipment you use in your I chipping operations is worth today 

or its "fair market value"? 

9. What is the approximate cost for you I to produce a ton of fuelwood chips 

at the landing, including stumpage? 

Less than $8 

$8 t0$10 

$1 1 to $12 

$13 to $14 

Dk/na/inapa 
Table 4.-(Cont'd.) 

Response Number Percent 

Less than $0.50 

$0.76 to $1 .OO 

$1 .O1 to $1.50 

More than $1.50 

DWna/inapa 

3. What is the maximum price you can afford 

to pay for stumpage in dollars per ton? 

1 

7 

7 

6 

4 

4. Which of the following factors are 

important in making a decision on whether 

you can operate profitably at a given site? 

Factors always affecting 

profitability: 

Number of trees 

Tree height 

D.b.h. of trees 

Size of woodlot 

Topography 

Skid distance 

Distance from access roads 

Distance from demand center 

Other 

Factors sometimes affecting 

profitability: 

Number of trees 

Tree height 

D.b.h. of trees 

Size of woodlot 

Topography 

Skid distance 

Distance from access roads 

Distance from demand center 

Other 

Yes 

No 

Dklnaiinapa 

5. Do you have to produce multiple 

products to be a profitable operation? 

aDWna/inap = Don't know; not applicable; inappropriate. 
Table 5.-Logging contract specifications 

Response Number Percent 

Less than 10 

26 to 50 

51 to 75 

76 to 100 

DWna/inapa 

1. What percentage of your chip-related 

logging contracts involve a forester? 

3 

3 

1 

17 

1 

Less than 10 

11 to25 

26 to 50 

76 to 100 

DWna/inapa 

2. What percentage of the stands 

that you cut are loggers' choice? 

11 

1 

5 

7 

1 

3. What are the biggest problems you have faced 

or are now facing with fuelwood chipping? 

Problem: 

Finding stumpage 

Landowners' attitudes 

Regulations 

Labor 

Cash flow 

Lack of training 

Seasonal variation 

Guaranteed chip market 

Subcontracting 

Transportation 

Equipment maintenance 

4. Has the production of fuelwood 

chips changed your operation since 

you started selling to the demand center? 

How has it changed? 

Change in operation: 

Increase in operating days 4 26.7 

Decrease in operating days 0 - Increase in profits 1 6.7 

Decrease in profits 0 - Increase in number of contracts 2 13.3 

Decrease in number of contracts 0 - Increase in available woodlot 1 6.7 

Bought more equipment 3 20.0 

Increase in marketing outlet 1 6.7 

Other 2 13.3 

aDWna/inap = Don't know; not applicable; idappropriate. 
Table 6.-Site protection 

Response Number Percent 

1. Consider all of the fuelwood chip harvesting 

operations you are involved in. I will 

read various site protection measures that 

you may use in these operations. As I read 

each measure, tell me it if applies . . . ? 

Site protection: 

Water barsJculverts 

Always 

Frequently 

Sometimes 

Never 

Dklnalinapa 

Site protection: 

Buffer strips 

Always 

Frequently 

Sometimes 

Never 

DWna/inapa 

Site protection: 

Wildlife protection 

Always 

Frequently 

Sometimes 

Never 

DWna/inapa 

2. What do you think is the main reason, 

or motivation, that landowners choose to 

have fuelwood chipping done on their land? 

Esthetics 

Short-term financi,al return 

Silviculture improvementrrsl 

DWna/inapa 

Busiest month: 

December 

January 

June 

March 

May 

October 

September 

3. 1 would like to know the four busiest 

months of the year for you. First, 

tell me the busiest month of the year 

for your chip harvesting operations. 
Table 6.-(Cont'd.) 

Response Number Percent 

Fourth busiest month: 

March 10 45.5 

April 3 13.6 

December 3 13.6 

February 2 9.1 

July 2 9.1 

January 1 4.5 

June 1 4.5 

4. During your busiest months, 

how many tons per month of fuelwood 

does your operation produce? 

Less than 400 

401 to 800 

801 to 1,200 

1,201 to 1,600 

1,601 to 2,000 

2,001 to 3,000 

3,001 to 4,000 

More than 4,000 

Dk/na/inapa 

Less than 100 

101 to 200 

201 to 400 

401 to 800 

801 to 1,200 

1,201 to 1,600 

1,601 to 2,000 

More than 2,000 

Dk/na/inapa 

5. During your slack months, 

how many tons per month of fuelwood 

chips does your business produce? 

aDk/na/inap = Don't know; not applicable; inappropriate. 
Table 7.-Regulations and chip harvesting monitoring 

Response Number Percent 

1 a. Are there regulations on chip harvesting 

in your primary area of operation? 

Yes 

No 

DWna/inapa 

I b. Are these regulations set up by . . . ? 

State 

State/demand center 

2. What impacts do chipping regulations 

have on your logging operations? 

None 7 

Change in operating procedure 3 

Increase in operating costs 2 

More work 1 

Dklna/inapa 5 

3. Do you feel that chip harvesting 

operations should be regulated? 

Yes 

No 

Dk/na/inapa 

Federal 

State 

County 

Town/local 

Power plant 

Dk/na/inapa 

4a. Which one of the following 

should regulate chip harvesting . . . ? 

1 

13 

1 

1 

4 

8 

4b. Which of the following types 

of regulations make sense . . . ? 

Regulations: 

Size limitations 

on clearcuts 

Wildlife habitat 

protection 

Mandatory forester 

supervision 

Transportation limitations 
Table 7.-(Cont'd.) 

Response Number Percent 

Forest practices 17 85.0 

Water quality and 

soil conservation 18 90.0 

Other 2 10.0 

Yes 

No 

Dk/na/inapa 

5. Are you satisfied with the contract 

you have with the demand center? 

12 

9 

4 

6. Does the power plant specifically 

subsidize or support your operations? 

Yes 0 - 

No 24 96.0 

Dk/na/inapa 1 4.0 

aDWna/inap = Don't know; not applicable; inappropriate. 

Table 8.-Future involvement 

Response Number Percent 

Big increase 

Big decrease 

Slight increase 

No change 

DWna/inapa 

1. How has the chip market changed your 

logging business in the last 5 years? 

5 

1 

3 

6 

10 

2. With the current number of operations, do you 

think there is sufficient timber in your 

working area to sustain fuelwood chipping 

operations over a 30-year period? 

Yes 19 76.0 

No 1 4.0 

Can't predict 1 4.0 

Dk/na/inapa 4 16.0 
Table 8.-(Cont'd.) 

Response Number Percent 

3. With chipping operations, there is a noticeable 

increase in residual stand damage, compared to 

traditional, whole-wood harvesting operations. 

Strongly disagree 

Mildly disagree 

Mildly agree 

Strongly agree 

No opinion 

4. With chipping operations, there is a noticeable 

increase in soil erosion, compared to 

traditional, whole-wood harvesting operations. 

Strongly disagree 

Mildly disagree 

Mildly agree 

Strongly agree 

No opinion 

5. The overall post-harvest quality of stands 

entered has improved significantly as a 

result of fuelwood chipping operations. 

Strongly disagree 

Mildly agree 

Strongly agree 

No opinion 

Strongly disagree 

Mildly disagree 

Mildly agree 

Strongly agree 

No opinion 

6. Integrated harvests, involving product 

separation into sawlogs, pulpwood, pulp 

chips or roundwood, are the rule in most 

fuelwood chip-harvesting operations. 

7. Whole-tree chipping is encouraging 

the retention of high-quality crop 

trees and utilization of low-grade, 

"rough and rotten" material. 4 

Strongly disagree 2 8.0 

Mildly agree 4 16.0 

B Strongly agree 18 72.0 

t No opinion 1 4.0 

f 

f 

'Dklnalinap = Don't know; not applicable; inappropriate. 

i 
Huyler, Neil K. 1989. Fuel supply structure of wood-fired power plants in the 

Northeast: Loggers' perspectives. Res. Pap. NE-624. Broomall, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 19 p. 

A study of loggers' perceptions of the impact of large biomass demand centers on 

the forest resource base in the Northeast indicated that most loggers strongly 

believe that the post-harvest stand has improved. However, the impact of 

whole-tree chipping on the forest resource base was not made clear from the 

loggers' survey. ~ 

ODC 831 .I 1 

Keywords: Logger$ survey, wood-fired power plants, fuel supply 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station are in Broomall, Pa. 

Field laboratories are maintained at: 

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts. 

Berea, Kentucky, in cooperation with Berea College. 

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont. 

Delaware, Ohio. 

c Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire. 

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University. 

Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University, 

Morgantown. 

Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine, Orono. 

Parsons, West Virginia. 

Princeton, West Virginia. 

Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York 

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University, 

Syracuse. 

University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania State 

University. 

Warren, Pennsylvania. 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or with any handicapping condition are welcome to use and enjoy all facilities, programs, and services 

of the USDA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency policy, and 

should be reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.