Assessment of timber faller working conditions in mixed hand and tethered-machine cut harvest units on steep slopes- A case study in western Oregon

ABSTRACT

Adoption of tethered-assist harvester technology on steep terrain by the forest industry has decreased workplace accidents. However, there are portions of harvest units that remain inaccessible to mechanized falling, therefore requiring manual falling as well. This study characterized the differences in terrain and forest conditions between manual and machine felled areas within the same harvest units. The hypothesis is that manual fallers will work more time in challenging terrain on harvest units using both mechanized and manual falling when compared to harvest units using manual falling only. This was tested using field data from three new harvest units, six previously harvested units, timber faller surveys, and harvest managers’ interviews. For both field datasets, only slope was a statistically significant predictor of falling method. Further, both managers and fallers confirmed steep slope as one of the main reasons for requiring manual falling in addition to rocky bluffs, unstable terrain, and lack of access. This study indicates that when harvest units on steep terrain are felled with mixed falling methods, timber fallers likely work on steeper slopes than the machine, and spend a larger proportion of work hours on steeper ground than the average slope of a harvest unit.

KEYWORDS:

• Manual falling
• tethered logging
• mixed harvesting system
• steep terrain

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the landowner who provided us with the harvest unit maps and permission to visit the units for the purpose of collecting field data, and the harvest manager of the units for being our point of contact throughout the whole study period. Our sincere gratitude also goes out to the logging companies who accepted our invitation to participate in the survey, as well as timber fallers who shared their knowledge and perceptions with us.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).