Search this site:

Summarized Comments and Author Responses: TIMBR-3

Comment no. 79:

If the Sustainable Forestry Initiative is to be touted as an effective training program for loggers, this section needs to talk about actual results and effectiveness of the program. How much has SFI training actually improved the practices of loggers? This data needs to be stated rather than simply endorsing the program to give the appearance of improvement in logging practices. -- Draft Report

Response by Bob Rummer:

Logger training is not developed by SFI, but rather by state groups of logging professionals to address continuing education needs. Paragraph 5.1.3 revised to reflect a more correct description of training. Quantitative documentation of training effectiveness for such a broad range of subjects is lacking. -- Final Report

Comment no. 78:

TMBR-3 documents and analyzes forest management methods mostly based on the costs and benefits of these management techniques for the landowner or logger. No consideration is given to the options or management techniques designed for water quality, wildlife, esthetics or the profits that can be gained from these management techniques. TMBR-3 needs to also consider the cost of these methods to communities and the benefits of more benign management methods. TMBR-3 states todays methods are "environmentally sensitive" but never presents hard data to substantiate this claim or compare the environmental benefits of benign management to more intensive management. Other Chapters in the SFRA including Terra, Aqua, and Hlth provide more information about the effects of forest management on water and soil which should be incorporated here for consistency. -- Draft Report

Response by Bob Rummer:

The systems described in the chapter are the principal methods of manipulating forest vegetation. The methods described are used in situations from clearcut to single tree selection. Other Chapters deal with a range of effects from various management scenarios. The actual statement in the Chapter is that "New technology ... makes operations more environmentally sensitive" This is a true statement. -- Final Report

Comment no. 47:

Misses the link between inventory technology and operations technology. Enhanced inventory technologies (remote sensing, GIS) will allow for more efficient harvesting and deployment of new operations technology. -- Draft Report

Response by Bob Rummer:

Added some text on last page to note this future technology. While GIS is "here", the GPS in operations is just coming on. -- Final Report

Comment no. 46:

No costs are given for mechanical site preparation (page 4), although cost estimates seem to be given for all other site preparation and establishment technologies. -- Draft Report

Response by Bob Rummer:

Costs added for shear-rake-pile and 3-in-1 treatments on p. 4 -- Final Report

Comment no. 10:

We are seeing far more in-woods chipping operations vacuuming sites clean of virtually all remaining biomass for dirty chips for power. What are the trends past, current and projected? The biomass energy segment currently accounts for more forest consumption than either the solid wood segment or the pulp and paper industry. What are the implications for site productivity from increased in-woods chipping operations removing too much biomass for fuels? -- Draft Report

Response by Bob Rummer:

The biomass energy segment is a minor component of timber consumption in the US. However, text modified to emphasize residue distributions. -- Final Report