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