1 Establishing a standard work sampling method for mastication ...

have strong influence on treatment cost. Cost analysis was included in this paper to serve as an
example of how work sampling data can be used to calculate the operating costs of masticators.
While the presented study represents a local case study, these results are valuable in the context
of existing literature as the costs are within the established range and the costs of small scale
machines are poorly documented.
Additional research is necessary to expand the inference of this work in both work sampling
method establishment and the associated cost analysis. The use of different machines, both
horizontal drum and rotary masticators, across a diversity of vegetation types, slope and fuel
loads will allow broader use of these results by land managers and researchers.
Land managers would find greater ease in evaluating fuel hazard reduction options with
increased knowledge of associated costs and consistent evaluation methods. If researchers
employ the standard work sampling method established here there can be valid comparison of
the cost estimates produced. Valid comparison will yield greater precision in cost estimation,
ultimately leading to wiser use of finite fuel hazard reduction funding and treatment of more high
risk areas. The increasing number of high severity fires and their tremendous costs dictate our
call to action. We must use resources wisely to maximize the amount of area treated, aiding
suppression forces in their protection of wildland resources and the wildland urban interface.
References
Agee, J.K. and C.N. Skinner. 2005. Basic Principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. For.
Ecol. Mgmt. 211: 83-96.
Bolding, M.C. 2006. An Integrated Study of Mechanical Forest Fuels Reduction: Quantifying
Multiple Factors at the Stand Level. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. Department of
Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 368p.
Bolding, M.C. 2009. Personal communication. Assistant Professor of Forest Operations and
Engineering, Virginia Tech Department of Forestry, Blacksburg, VA.
Brinker, R.W., J. Kinard, B. Rummer, and B. Lanford. 2002. Machine rates for selected forest
harvesting machines. Circular 296 (revised). Alabama Agri. Exp. Sta. 29 p.
Coulter, E., K. Coulter, The Yankee Group, Inc., and T. Mason, TSS Consultants. 2002. Dry
Forest Mechanized Fuels Treatment Trials Project. Final Report. 92p. Available online at:
www.fs.fed.us/vegtools/techniques/mechanical.shtml.
Cubbage, F.1983. Economics of forest tract size: Theory and literature, U.S. DA, Forest Service
Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-GTR-41. Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA.
21p.
Finney, M.A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire
growth and behavior. For. Sci. 47(2): 219-228.
Gardner, R. and P.L. Schillings. 1969. Efficiency of tree data-gathering methods for study of log
making activities. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-100. Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
10