Land Optimisation

Planning

What About the Roads?

George Theart

Focus 2009

Are the answers blowing in the

wind?• How important are roads in the broader forestry business

context?

• Strategic or only tactical focus area?

• How much management resources should we apply?

• Expense or investment?

• Asset or liability?

• Is it a transport(er)/contractor problem?

• Do roads stand isolated from integrated forest management?

Yes, they are, but are we paying attention?

Economic

Creativity Environmental

Social

Zonation Mosaic Afforestation Planning

Afforestation Optimisation Landscape Architecture

Land Optimisation Planning

TerroirLandscape Engineering

Ecological DesignPrecision Forestry

Model ForestsLandscape Visualisation

Land-use PlanningSite Specific Forestry Planning

Objective

• Overview

• Why?

• Background

• How?

• Implementation platform

• Results

• Innovation and Continual development

Afforestation

Optimisation

Logistical

Optimisation

Financial

Optimisation

So What is in a Name?

• Broad overall zooming in

• Reduced Road Density

• Reduced Contour Roads

• No Artificial Waterways

• Incorporation of Social and Environmental Criteria

• Strongly structured approach

• Focused Skill application

• Follow through

– Implementation plan

– Via Silva as implementation platform

• New Technology

• Stakeholder Participation

• Peer Review

Why?

• Optimise the financial return from afforestation of our

landholdings

– Eliminate shorthaul (minimize?)

– Minimize environmental impact

– Affordable and practical road network

– Optimised logistical flow

Background

• Strong ownership

• Maximize existing knowledge and data

• Targeted application of skills

• Structured approach

• Roleplayer participation

• Peer review

• Legal compliance

How?

• Data/Information Sets

– Provincial roads

– Municipal boundaries

– Local government administrative boundaries

– Powerlines

– Existing plantation infrastructure

– Orthophoto’s

– Contours

– Desktop delineation (optional)

– Soils (where applicable)

– Permit/license stipulations

– Depots

– Quarries

– Markets

– Neighbours

How?

• Logistical blueprint– Neighboring synergies

– Compartment consolidation

– Periodic block felling

– Rail/road strategies

– Arterial road system

Debate

• Fire protection

• Road pegging and demarcation

• VBCR timber extraction

• Depots

• Stream crossings and drainage

• Fire breaks are not roads

• Roadside timber presentation

How?

• Detail planning principles

‒ 1:30 ratio

‒ 80% logistical flow ratio

‒ Minimize contour/terrace roads

‒ Diagonal roads – absolute last resort

‒ Avoid dead end roads

‒ 3 – 5 º, average slope

‒ Drainage, drainage, drainage

‒ Minimize stream crossings

‒ No artificial waterways

‒ VBCR according to delineation protocol

‒ 450 m panel width maximum

‒ Depot placement and coverage

‒ Optimal placement disregarding existing infrastructure

Integration and Implementation

• Review and adjustment of plan according to existing infrastructure and other constraints• Long Term Plan (30 Year Plan)

• Tactical Plan

• Regional Hydrology

• Riparian Zone Delineation

• Road Management System• Implementation plan

• APO

• Funding

• Documentation (implementation record, EA, etc.)

Evaluation Sheet

Road No.

km _________________ to km ____________________

Road Width <4 4 - 5 5 - 6 >6

Terrain F R M

Defect Evaluation

0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

General Evaluation

SiyaQhubekaRoads Assessment and Integrated Impact Rating

Severity Frequency

Potholes

Longitudinal Ruts

Longitudinal Erosion on Road

Cross Erosion on Road

Erosion in Side Drains

Silting/Blocking Side Drains

Loose Stones/Rocks on Road

Rock/Stone Outcrops in Road

Crossfall/Camber Good Reasonable Poor

Provision of Mitre Drains Good Reasonable Poor

Provision of Cross Drains Good Reasonable Poor

Drainage Generally Good Reasonable Poor

Skid Resistance in Wet Good Reasonable Poor

Overall Road Condition Good Reasonable Poor

Gravel Thickness None 0 - 50 mm >50 mm

PoorGravel Quality Good Reasonable

1 2 3

Extraction Volume

NA

0

Stream Crossing Impact Rating

Does water drain from road directly into stream from - Upstream Left side of crossing? Yes No

Does water drain from road directly into stream from - Upstream Right side of crossing? Yes No

Does water drain from road directly into stream from - Downstream Left side of crossing? Yes No

Does water drain from road directly into stream from - Downstream Right side of crossing? Yes No

Does water drain through LESS than 10 m of vegetative buffer before entering stream? Yes No

Is the closest surface-cross drain more than 20 m from the crossing - (both sides)? Yes No

Will high streamflow events cause damage to/overflow of the crossing? Yes No

Does the crossing cause water accumulation on the road? Yes No

Is the crossing causing impoundment of the streamflow? Yes No

Are streambanks unstable or eroded upstream/downstream at the site of the crossing? Yes No

1 0

Depot Impact Rating

Does water drain through less than 10 m of vegetative buffer before entering a stream? Yes No

Is the depot closer than 40 m from the edge of a riparian zone? Yes No

Does water accumulate on the depot wearing surface? Yes No

Does water drain directly from the depot into a stream? Yes No

Does water flow directly onto the depot? Yes No

Does the wearing surface cause rutting? Yes No

Is the depot situated within 5 meters of power lines, telephone lines or other infrasturcture? Yes No

Are drainage channels closed? Yes No

Is depot lower than surrounding area? Yes No

Is erosion taking place? Yes No

1 0

<5 000 ton 5 000 - 10 000 ton >10 000 ton

Impact rating (Score out of ten)

10 20 30

Impact rating (Score out of ten)

Borrow Pit Impact Rating

Is the borrow pit visible from any scenic routes, residential areas or roads? Yes No

Is the borrow pit within 100 m of any wetland or riparian area? Yes No

Is there currently any erosion taking place? Yes No

No vegetative buffer for drainage off the borrow pit? Yes No

Does water accumulate within the borrow pit? Yes No

Are slopes steeper than 26 degrees? Yes No

Are any slopes unstable (evidence of falling rocks)? Yes No

Are there any ASI's with 100 m of the borrow pit? Yes No

No rehabilitation has taken place? Yes No

Utilisable material left in the borrow pit? Yes No

1 0

Weighted Roads Priority = 0.5 (RA) + EV + SCIR + DIR + BIR

Remarks

Impact rating (Score out of ten)

Implementation

Interpretation

Base Data

LOP

Tactical Planning, Open Area

Management, Road

Management System, etc.

Soils, Hydrology,

ECDB, Climate,

Roads, APO, etc.

VIA SILVA©©Forest road management

2002 G Catterick

H Bouwer

G Theart

B van der Merwe

RMS

FMS/APO

Spatial

Via Silva

FMS/APO

Spatial

• KISS

• By Foresters for Foresters (Practical)

• International Trends (NRW)

Principles

WRP = 0.5 (RA) + EV + SCIR + DIR + BIR

WRP = weighted roads priority

RA = road assessment

EV = extraction volume

SCIR = stream crossing impact rating

DIR = depot impact rating

BIR = borrow pit impact rating

Prioritisation

RMS Main Window

Base Data

Roads Assessment

Road Management Data

Assessment Update

APO

Cost Benefit Graph

Works Order

Rates and Categories

Reports

Roads

APO

Outcome 1

SiyaQhubeka

Before

• 1987 km

• 201 Stream Crossings

After

• 638 km B class

• 707 km C class

• Total 1345 km

• 71 Stream Crossings

• Logistical flow ratio increased from 31.9 % to 93.2%

638 x R110 000 = R70 180 000

707 x R 25 000 = R17 675 000

R87 855 000

• 32 % reduction = R42.1 m

• Plus value of released afforestation land and volume

Outcome 2

Before

• 1732 km

• 62 Stream Crossings

After

• 540 km B class

• 836 km C class

• Total 1376 km

• 48 Stream Crossings

• Logistical flow ratio improved from 56.3% to 91.7 %

540 x R110 000 = R59 400 000

836 x R 25 000 = R20 900 000

R80 300 000

• 21% reduction = R20.5 m

• Plus value of released afforestation land and additional volume

Umfolozi

Innovation and Continual

Development

• Drainage structure toolbox

• Use of timber bridges

• Temporary roads

• Regional hydrology

• Weighted Roads Priority

• Pegger

• Tracer

• 3D road analyst

Conclusion

• Forestry road infrastructure and investment is a key businessprofitability driver

• Ownership through structured planning and management is key

• A combination of experience and innovation grounded by appliedengineering science will provide logistical optimisation

• This could be achieved through simplicity and innovation withoutcompromising Road Engineering Principles

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

Leonardo da Vinci

Everything should be made as simple as possible ... but not

simpler

Albert Einstein

Final Thoughts

Responsible sensitive afforestation NOT

negotiable

“Use land according to its capability

and treat it according to its needs”

(Bennet, 1945)

Credits

• SiyaQhubeka management team 2000-

2003

• Zululand management team 2000-2003

• Border Timbers Ltd team 2003-2007

• Doggy Kewley

• Hendrik Bouwer

• George Catterick

• Raff Matthews

• Perry Cobbolt

• Brandt van der Merwe

• Bergmann Ingerop (Dick Holmes, Tony

Wise, Charles Ware)

• Enver Mapanda

• Roy Engelbrecht

• Mike Howard

• Keith Snyman

• Peter Robberts

• John Swaine

• Chris Burchmore

• Neville Brummer

• Grant Botha

• Eric Droomer

• Kennedy Kurwaisimba

• Malcolm Hensley

• Janusz Zwolinski

• Andrew Lambert

• Benford Muguta

• Martin Herbert