united states department of agriculture middle and south...

United States Department of Agriculture

Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project Project Economics Specialist Report

Forest Service

Colville National Forest

Three Rivers Ranger District August 2016

For More Information Contact:

Rodney Smoldon

Colville National Forest

765 South Main Street

Colville, WA 99114

Phone: (509) 738-7000

Email: [email protected]

Cover photo: View of Old Dominion Mountain in the Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z

Project area, looking east from the Aladdin Road. Photo credit: Northwest Management, Inc.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information,

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Three Rivers Ranger District, Colville National Forest

i

Contents

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER II PROJECT ECONOMICS ......................................................................................... 2

Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 2 Current Market Conditions ......................................................................................................... 2 Analysis Methods ........................................................................................................................ 3

Resource Analysis Area .......................................................................................................... 3 Commercial Harvest Economics ............................................................................................. 5

Economic Analysis Results ......................................................................................................... 8 Alternative A – No Action ...................................................................................................... 8 Alternative B – Modified Proposed Action, Modified Commercial Harvest with New Road

Construction ............................................................................................................................ 8 Alternative C – Commercial Harvest without New Road Construction ................................ 13 Activities Common to All Action Alternatives Associated with Commercial Harvest .....1617 Activities Common to All Action Alternatives Not Associated with Commercial Harvest . 19 Economic Comparison of the Action Alternatives B and C .................................................. 26

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 27 Appendix A: Logging Systems .................................................................................................... 28 Appendix B: Alternative B Timber Economics ........................................................................... 35 Appendix C: Alternative C Timber Economics ........................................................................... 36 Appendix D: Unit Summaries ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.37

List of Tables

Table 1: Logging systems costs ...................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Haul cost by destination1 .................................................................................................. 6 Table 3: Road construction and reconstruction costs ...................................................................... 7 Table 4: Log pond values by species .............................................................................................. 7 Table 5: Logging systems mix ........................................................................................................ 9 Table 6: Harvest volume by silviculture prescription1 ................................................................... 9 Table 7: Road miles by type ......................................................................................................... 11 Table 8: Gross harvest revenue by log species ............................................................................. 11 Table 9: Logging cost ................................................................................................................... 11 Table 10: Road construction cost ................................................................................................. 12 Table 11: Road maintenance cost ................................................................................................. 12 Table 12: Haul cost by destination ............................................................................................... 12 Table 13: Net Harvest Revenue (Residual Value) by Destination ............................................... 12 Table 14: Logging systems mix ................................................................................................... 14 Table 15: Harvest volume by silviculture prescription ................................................................ 14 Table 16: Road miles by type ....................................................................................................... 15 Table 17: Gross harvest revenue by log species ........................................................................... 15 Table 18: Logging cost ................................................................................................................. 16 Table 19: Road maintenance cost ................................................................................................. 16 Table 20: Haul cost by destination ............................................................................................... 16 Table 21: Net Harvest Revenue (Residual Value) by Destination ............................................... 16 Table 22: Unit costs of proposed broadcast burning, Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z

Project .................................................................................................................................... 17

Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project

ii

Table 23: Unit costs of proposed jackpot burning, Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z

Project .................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 24: Unit costs of proposed pile and burning, Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z

Project .................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 25: Unit costs of proposed planting, North Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project ...................... 19 Table 26: Associated costs ........................................................................................................... 19 Table 27. Unit costs of proposed shaded fuel breaks, Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z

Project .................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 28: Estimated Service Project Cost Summary .................................................................2526 Table 29: Project Net Revenue (Residual Value) by Destination for Alternative B. ................... 26 Table 30. Project Net Revenue (Residual Value) by Destination for Alt C ...............................2627

List of Figures

Figure 1. Project Area ..................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Alternative B .................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3. Alternative C .................................................................................................................. 13

Figure A-1. Mechanized harvest system ....................................................................................... 32 Figure A-2. Cut-to-Length harvest system .................................................................................... 33 Figure A-3. Skyline cable logging system..................................................................................... 34 Figure A-4. Helicopter logging system ......................................................................................... 34


1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Three Rivers Ranger District is proposing a project on a portion of the district northeast of

Colville, WA. The proposed project is known as the Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z

Project. The NEPA analysis is being performed by Cramer Fish Sciences of Lacey, WA. A

scoping packet was provided to the public on July 31, 2015 to give the public an opportunity to

provide early and meaningful participation on a proposed action prior to a decision being made

by the responsible official. Since that time, comments were received expressing interests and

concerns with the proposed action. Many included specific items with supporting facts. In

response to these comments, the proposed action was revised and alternatives were developed to

address concerns that could be reconciled in the proposed action or in a revised proposed action.

Alternatives were submitted on November 25, 2015 and approved in concept by the responsible

official on December 22, 2015. Since then, alternatives have been refined to address direction

from the responsible official and to address findings of field surveys.

This Project Economics report describes past harvest activities in the planning area, describes past

and current timber supply and demand in the region, and provides a detailed analysis and

discussion of project economics under the proposed action and action alternatives. This analysis

responds to comments made during scoping, or that were identified by the Inter Disciplinary

Team (IDT) during scoping, analysis, and field surveys for presentation of project economics.

The analysis reported in this specialist report addresses the final project design of March 14,

2016; described in Chapter II of the draft Environmental Assessment (EA).


2

CHAPTER II PROJECT ECONOMICS The following provides a detailed analysis and discussion of project economics associated with

the No Action alternative (Alternative A) and the action alternatives B (Commercial Harvest with

New Road Construction) and C (Commercial Harvest without New Road Construction).

The units of measure to quantify timber economics for the Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A

to Z Project (Project) include:

commercial timber volume measured in thousand board feet (Mbf) and millions of board feet

(MMbf),

logging costs calculated on a per thousand board feet (Mbf) basis,

acres of logging systems by harvest method,

costs per mile of road built for each alternative measured in $/mile, and

log values in dollars per Mbf ($/Mbf).

Economic analysis of service projects are activity-specific and described below in Analysis

Results.

Literature Review The Forest Service Manual section 2400 was reviewed in detail at the beginning of project

planning. This document contains legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities,

instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and

primary staff in more than one unit to plan and execute assigned programs and activities (USDA

2009. The Forest Service Handbook, Pacific Northwest Region, Region 6 (USDA 2014) section

1900, 2400 and 7000 were also reviewed. These documents provide specialized guidance and

instruction for carrying out the direction issued in the Forest Service Manual.

Several Forest Service timber economics documents were reviewed to establish design elements

for evaluation of the timber economics for this Project. The Sale Economics Evaluation

Spreadsheet, version 3.0 (RV), and included documentation provided specific steps for

completing a residual value economic analysis of planned timber sales. Regional costs and log

values were provided by the current Transaction Evidence Appraisal (TEA) reports.

The Deer Jasper Restoration Project environmental assessment was reviewed during the analysis

of this Project. Of specific relevance to this project were the Silviculture and Fuels specialist

report, the Transportation specialist report, and the Financial Analysis document. These

documents provided valuable context for development of this analysis (Jimenez 2013).

Current Market Conditions An assessment of current market demand is critical to timber economic analyses. Determining

market demand is a complex process, especially in a global economy. Supply has always been

directly linked to demand, however, other factors have come into play with global markets. As

the supply of timber on National Forests in the marketplace diminished, so did the number of

sawmills and operators that supported the logging industry. Demand for wood products, however,


3

continues to increase and existing sawmills and operators are looking to non-federal lands and

adjacent countries to fill the volume need.

With a fluctuating supply system, operators are unable to predict the need for both labor and

equipment. Given unpredictable timber supply, it’s difficult for operators to procure the long-term

loans necessary to purchase new equipment vital to maintaining an efficient and economically

viable business.

In the absence of adequate supply, the number of operators decreases. Those that have newer,

more productive equipment further reduce the number of operators needed to fulfill sawmill

volume requirements. As fewer jobs are needed, the population base declines, reflecting the

supply of jobs in the marketplace.

A primary agency motivation in structuring the Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project

with a multi-year implementation term is to stimulate the market demand by offering potential

buyers a predictable multi-year (longer-term) timber supply. The Project would help to establish,

or augment, this multi-year timber supply in the region.

Additionally, the timber export market to Southeast Asia, Japan, and China is expanding largely

due to high export tariffs imposed by the Russian government on raw timber. The last five years

have shown a large increase in exports, especially to China.

Analysis Methods

Resource Analysis Area

The analysis area for project economics comprises the planned harvest units and roads within the

Middle and South Fork Mill Creek project area boundary and, specifically, roads and planned

harvest units located between the Middle and South Fork Mill Creek drainages (Figure 1). This

analysis area was specified under the Project Initiation Letter to encompass those suitable and

available acres in the Middle and South Fork Mill Creek watershed most likely to meet the

purpose and need of the Project.

Controlling Features

Timber

Timber in the planning area is generally good in terms of quality, size, and stocking. Most of the

merchantable areas consist of well-stocked stands of predominantly second-growth cedar, larch,

Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and hemlock. Stands species composition tended to vary

significantly across the project area, but most contain one or more of the species desired for

commercial timber production such as cedar, larch and Douglas-fir. Some of the older, larger

timber is contained in stream riparian areas and inner gorges and therefore not available for

harvest. Timber across the project area is largely defect free and would provide good support for

logging operations such as stump guyline anchors, tail trees, and stump tailhold anchors.

The second-growth stand structures present in the project area are predominately 50-75 year old

stands and ideal for the full array of silviculture prescriptions and logging operations sizes. Both

large commercial timber sales and small operator timber sales would be successful in this project

area.


4

Terrain

Terrain across the project area is largely dissected with rolling ridges and draws with moderate

slopes, lending it to ground-based logging systems. The steepest terrain is predominantly located

between the Middle Fork of Mill Creek to the north planning area boundary and along Old

Dominion Mountain located in the southwest of the planning area. These steeper terrain areas

often contain some sections of rock bluffs interspersed with benches. These areas typically pose

some difficulty for cable logging operations due to deflection and log breakage issues. Much of

the project area is located on competent marine sedimentary and metamorphic formations that are

somewhat forgiving to logging operations.

Rock suitable for road construction is abundantly exposed in several locations. Quartzite, shales,

and phyllite dominate the project area. Slide activity and debris chutes are rare and are most

commonly associated with glacial deposits.

Existing Transportation System

An extensive road system exists in the project area and remains largely functional for timber

activities. There are approximately 88 miles of existing roads (County and NFS). Many roads

are currently open to the public and are in fair to good condition. Some of the existing roads have

been placed into a storage road maintenance level by placing barriers (e.g., tank traps) at the

beginning of road segments to prevent use by the public. The existing road system provides

connectivity to major county, state, and federal highway systems in the area providing

conventional truck transport to mills in the region.

The extensive existing road system would contribute to favorable timber economics for planned

commercial harvest operations.


5

Figure 1. Project Area

Commercial Harvest Economics

Transaction Evidence Appraisal (TEA) and Product Quality Adjustment (PQA) were used to

compare the timber harvest economics for the Middle and South Fork Mill Creek project. These

tools use costs derived from the Forest Service’s Region (R6) timber sale appraisal program, log

purchase values (pond log value) from regional market data, and harvest volumes computed from

the Forest Service Field Sampled Vegetation database (FSVeg).

Timber sale economics derived from TEA and PQA represent a snapshot in time based upon

information collected in past years. The metric used to compare TEA and PQA economic analysis

results is log stumpage value, or the pond log value less costs. Changes in regional and global

timber markets and factors such as fuel costs can dramatically affect pond log values and logging

costs at the time of implementation and harvest. Therefore these values are useful primarily for

comparing the relative differences among alternatives, and not as an appraisal of subsequent

timber sale offerings.

Costs

Costs used for this analysis were taken from regional averages and cross checked against costs

derived from production studies and data collected from timber sale purchasers in the region.

These costs are updated yearly to reflect current operating conditions for timber sale purchasers.

For the purposes of this economic analysis, timber sale harvest costs are grouped into logging

costs by logging system, including felling and bucking, log haul costs, and road construction

costs. Costs associated with long term road maintenance were not considered beyond those road


6

maintenance costs required by timber sale standards and guidelines during logging operations.

Socio-economic factors were not considered in this analysis.

Logging Costs

The Middle and South Fork Mill Creek project would use three primary types of logging systems

for harvest operations, as detailed earlier this report: cable systems, ground based systems, and

helicopter systems. Unit cost ranges for these systems are shown in Table 1 and include felling

costs.

Table 1: Logging systems costs

Logging System Lower Range $/MBF Upper Range $/MBF

Mechanized $137 $169

Cut-to-length $116 $152

Cable $210 $256

Helicopter $381 $420

Source: Region 6 LogCost spreadsheet. Logging costs including felling and stump-to-landing yarding.

Haul Costs

Transportation costs for logging operations in the Middle and South Fork Mill Creek project area

include truck haul costs from landing to mill locations at Usk, Colville, and Kettle Falls; existing

road reconstruction; and planned new temporary road construction. These costs are detailed in

Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2: Haul cost by destination1

Destination Lower Range $/MBF Upper Range $/MBF

Truck haul to Colville2 $25.18 $34.20

Truck haul to Kettle Falls3

$30.40 $40.46

Truck haul to Usk4 $48.34 $66.06

1Source: Region 6 HaulCost 15.0 Trucking Appraisal Spreadsheet. Costs based on 30 min truck load/tie-

down time and 30 min unload time. 215 mile average haul distance, resulting in 109 – 131 minute round trip travel time. 324 mile average haul distance, resulting in 131 – 156 minute round trip travel time. 449 mile average haul distance, resulting in 214 – 264 minute round trip travel time.

Haul costs shown in this document are based upon average travel times from logging units in the

Middle and South Fork Mill Creek project area to mill locations in Colville, Kettle Falls, and

Usk. Truck travel was based upon a standard on-highway log truck and a 30 minute load/tie-

down time and 30 minute unload time.


7

Table 3: Road construction and reconstruction costs

Road Type Lower Range $/Mile Upper Range $/Mile

New NFS $35,000 $85,000

New Temporary $5,300 $18,000

Reconstruct NFS $5,000 $7,500

Temporary on Existing Road Bed $5,000 $7,500

Source: Price quotes from local road construction contractors in the Colville geographic area.

Road maintenance cost is a function of use and therefore a function of volume hauled over the

road system. From Region 6 USFS TEA reports (R6-TEA-ECON, USDA 2013) road

maintenance costs range from $8/Mbf to $18.60/Mbf.

Log Pond Values

Log pond value is the value of harvested timber delivered to a final destination or delivery point.

Typically, this is the value a mill would pay for logs delivered to them. Log pond values can

fluctuate significantly from month to month based on changing conditions in the regional log

market and demand for wood fiber. To generate reasonable log pond values for the TEA/PQA

analysis, adjustments are made for differences in unusual requirements, wood quality and

operational costs between comparable sales and the subject sale.

Log pond value market data collected for this project were applied to site-specific volume data

collected during the summer of 2015. For this analysis a camp run, or average, log value was

used for all species and is summarized in Table 4. Camp run log values were used because exact

harvest volumes by small end diameter (sort) are not easily determined for all species due to the

inherent flexibility in planned silviculture prescriptions. Tree species composition and size also

varies widely throughout Middle and South Fork Mill Creek project area based on such factors as

elevation, slope position, and soil type. The results of the TEA/PQA economic analysis is most

likely conservative due to product merchandizing and actual species composition during

implementation of the planned silviculture prescriptions.

Table 4: Log pond values by species

Pond Values by Species Group Lower Range $/Mbf Upper Range $/Mbf

Douglas fir/Western larch (Camprun)1

$373 $450

Grand fir/Hemlock $347 $400

Lodgepole pine/Alpine fir/Spruce $345

$350

Ponderosa pine/White pine $150 $400

Western redcedar $890 $1050

Source: Region 6, R6-TEA-Con data and spreadsheet. 1Camp run pond values based upon estimated species mix.

Harvest Volumes

Timber volume estimates are based on site-specific stand exam information collected in the

planned harvest units during the summer of 2015 and stored in the FSVeg system, a nationwide


8

database of timber volumes on National Forest lands. Stand exam data were collected using the

Forest Service Common Stand Exam (CSE) methodology.

Economic Analysis Results This section presents a discussion of project economics analyses, including both timber

economics and non-timber project activities. As discussed previously, this project includes

certain restoration activities in addition to commercial timber harvest activities. Implementation

of these restoration activities may have an effect on project timber economics, depending upon

which activities are selected for implementation. Some of these restoration activities may

produce line items costs offsetting commercial timber harvest revenues while others may actually

generate additional revenues. For the purposes of this analysis, timber economics includes

commercial timber harvest activities. Overall project economics is also presented and includes

non-timber harvest related costs that are necessary to meet the purpose and need of the Project.

Alternative A – No Action

It is anticipated that selection of the No Action alternative would have no economic output related

to timber activities. The No Action alternative includes continuation of current actions relative to

the project area, and therefore a continuation of current trends relative to timber economics would

continue. There would, however, continue to be costs associated with administration and

maintenance of National Forest System lands and roads which are incorporated into Forest-wide

costs, as well as ongoing revenue generated from permitted grazing on NFS lands in the project

area.

Alternative B – Modified Proposed Action, Modified Commercial Harvest with New Road Construction

Alternative B includes commercial timber harvest of approximately 11,021 acres using variable

density thinning/variable retention harvests (VDT/VRT) and seed tree harvests, and producing

approximately 98,952 Mbf of commercial timber volume. In addition, approximately 3,378 Mbf

of commercial timber would be generated by shaded fuel breaks implemented on about 462 acres

in the project area. As described in Chapter II of the draft EA, shaded fuel breaks are an activity

not associated with commercial timber harvest because they have many non-commercial

elements—as described under Activities Common to Both Action Alternatives Not Associated

with Commercial Harvest. However, because shaded fuel breaks involve revenue and cost

elements shared by commercial harvest activities, these common elements are addressed in this

section for brevity.

This alternative also includes other Restoration activities detailed in Chapter II of the draft EA

and in resource specialist reports accompanying the draft EA. Figure 2 shows planned harvest

units, and existing and proposed roads for this alternative.


9

Figure 2. Alternative B

Logging Systems

The logging systems planned for this alternative are described in Appendix A of this report. The

planned logging systems mix is summarized in Table 5 and planned harvest volume by

silviculture prescription is summarized in Table 6.

Table 5: Logging systems mix

Logging Systems Acres Volume (Mbf) Percentage

Mechanized 6675 53,755 53%

Cut-to-length 425 3,862 4%

Cable 1902 19,978 19%

Helicopter 2481 24,744 24%

Totals 11,483 102,339 100%

Table 6: Harvest volume by silviculture prescription1

Silviculture Prescription Acres Harvest Volume

(Mbf)

Variable Density Thinning/Variable Retention Harvest

10,776 94,792

Seed Tree Harvest 245 4,169

Shaded Fuel Break 462 3,378

Totals 11,483 102,339


10

1Definitions of silviculture prescriptions are provided in the silviculture/fire specialist report.

Dominant features of the logging layout are:

All planned units can be logged with conventional logging systems currently available

throughout the region.

A substantial percentage of units planned in this alternative can be logged with ground-based

logging systems, which are one of the most cost-efficient methods of logging systems

available.

A minor portion of the planned units in this alternative require cable logging systems. To

provide the most flexibility in resource impact mitigation, especially the soils resource,

skyline cable logging systems are planned in these units. Skyline logging systems provide

leading end log suspension (partial suspension), thereby minimizing disturbance during

yarding.

Existing road beds were utilized to every extent possible in order to provide access to planned

units. Where new road construction is required, temporary roads are planned and would be

decommissioned at the conclusion of logging activities.

Continuous roadside landings would be used in the majority of the harvest units, providing

flexibility during timber sale implementation in order to minimize concentrated resource

impacts.

Helicopter units would utilize the existing road system for log landing and staging zones.

Helicopter landing and staging zones should not be located within 300 feet of the aerial

power lines, public roadways, and residences located in the project area. Landings would be a

minimum size of 100 ft. by 400 ft. and have a maximum yarding distance of 0.5 miles.

Designated skid trail plans would be used in planned ground based logging systems units to

maximize logging production and minimize resource impacts.

Guyline and tailhold stump anchors are largely available in all planned cable logging systems

units. Some multi-stump anchors may be necessary due to stump sizes in some of the

younger stands. No artificial guyline or tailhold anchors, such as deadman, would be

required. However, equipment tailhold anchors could be used to decrease downtime during

changing skyline roads.

Tail trees are not required in cable logging systems units, but would be available should the

operator desire to use them. Tail trees should be limited to larch and Douglas-fir trees due to

their superior strength properties to cedar, mountain hemlock, and lodgepole pine.

Directional felling would be used where appropriate to fell trees in such a manner as to

reduce breakage due to boulders and rock bluffs and to minimize resource impacts which

could occur near stream buffers.


11

Associated Road Activities

Planned temporary and existing roads needed to provide access to planned units for logging are

presented in Table 7 by road type. A detailed discussion of the existing and planned road system

is presented in the Roads Analysis Report and the Silviculture specialist report.

Table 7: Road miles by type

Road Activity Miles

System Road Maintenance 51

Temporary Road Construction 19

Total 80

Timber Economics

Timber economic analysis gross revenue (pond values), cost centers, and net timber harvest

revenue are shown in Table 8 through Table 13Table 13 based upon the R6-TEA-ECON

spreadsheet (USDA 2013). Detailed by-unit timber economics tabulation is included in Appendix

B.

Table 8: Gross harvest revenue by log species

Log Species Pond Value

($/MBF) Harvest

Volume (Mbf) Gross Revenue($)

Douglas fir/Western larch

$400 33,306 $13,322,400

Grand fir/Hemlock $350 28,251 $9,887,850

Lodgepole pine/ Alpine fir /Spruce

$350 29,673 $10,385,550

Ponderosa pine/ White pine

$290 1,177 $341,330

Western redcedar $950 9,932 $9,435,400

Totals 102,339 $43,372,530275,730

Source: Middle and South Fork Mill Creek Project Footprint. Revenues rounded to nearest $10.

Table 9: Logging cost

Logging System Unit Logging Cost ($/Mbf)

Harvest Volume (Mbf) Logging Cost($)

Mechanized $162.00 53,755 $8,708,310

Cut-to-length $134.00 3,862 $517,508

Cable $233.00 19,978 $4,654,874

Helicopter $400.50 24,744 $9,909,9723,163

Totals 102,339 $23,790,664

Source: Middle and South Fork Mill Creek Project Footprint.


12

Table 10: Road construction cost

Road type Unit Construction

Cost ($/mile) Length (miles) Cost ($)

Temporary Road Const. $11,650 13.3 $154,945

Temporary on Existing Road Bed

$6,250 5.7 $35,625

Totals $190,570

Source: Middle and South Fork Mill Creek Project Footprint. Costs rounded to nearest $10.

Table 11: Road maintenance cost

Unit Maintenance Cost ($/Mbf)

Harvest Volume (Mbf)

Cost ($)

Average maintenance cost

$12.00 102,126 $1,225,512

Totals $1,225,512


Haul cost and revenues in Table 12 and Table 13Table 13 were derived based on species utilized

at each destination. Cedar, ponderosa pine, and white pine were appraised to Kettle Falls and all

remaining species volume was appraised to Colville.

Table 12: Haul cost by destination

Destination Haul Cost ($)

Colville $2,914,803

Kettle Falls $421,585

Usk $0.00


Table 13: Net Harvest Revenue (Residual Value) by Destination

Revenue/Cost Item1 Value by Destination/Mill Location

Colville ($) Kettle Falls($)

Pond Value (Revenue) $33,595,800 $9,776,730

Logging Cost ($18,427,940) ($5,362,724)

Road Construction Cost ($148,644) ($41,926)

Road Maintenance Cost ($1,092,623) ($132,889)

Haul Cost ($2,914,803) ($421,585)

Residual Value (Net Revenue)

$11,011,790 $3,817,606

Source: Middle and South Fork Mill Creek Project Footprint. Costs and revenue rounded to nearest $10. 1( ) indicates costs or negative revenues


13

Alternative C – Commercial Harvest without New Road Construction

Alternative C includes commercial timber harvest of approximately 8,896 acres, producing

approximately 81,223 Mbf of commercial timber volume. In addition, approximately 3,378 Mbf

of commercial timber would be generated by shaded fuel breaks implemented on about 462 acres

in the project area. As described in Chapter II of the draft EA, shaded fuel breaks are an activity

not associated with commercial timber harvest because they have many non-commercial

elements—as described under Activities Common to Both Action Alternatives Not Associated

with Commercial Harvest. However, because shaded fuel breaks involve revenue and cost

elements shared by commercial harvest activities, these common elements are addressed in this

section for brevity.

This alternative also includes restoration activities detailed in Chapter II of the draft EA. Figure 3

shows planned harvest units and roads for this alternative.

Figure 3. Alternative C

Logging Systems

The logging systems planned for this alternative are described in the Logging Systems and

Transportation Analysis section of this report. The planned logging systems mix is summarized

in Table 14 and planned harvest volume by silviculture prescription is summarized in Table 15.


14

Table 14: Logging systems mix

Logging Systems Acres Volume (Mbf) Percentage

Mechanized 5184 42,018 50%

Cut-to-length 423 3,986 5%

Cable 1270 14065 16%

Helicopter 2483 24,744 29%

Totals 9358 84,813 100%

Table 15: Harvest volume by silviculture prescription

Silviculture Prescription Acres


Variable Density Thinning/Variable Retention Harvest

8,692 77,929

Seed Tree Harvest 204 3,506

Shaded Fuel Breaks 462 3,378

Totals 9,358 84,813

Definitions of silviculture prescriptions are provided in the silviculture/fire specialist report.

Dominant features of the logging layout are:

All planned units can be logged with conventional logging systems currently available

throughout the region.

Planning logging units are accessed from the existing road system with reconstruction and

maintenance to this system, as needed, to meeting standards and guidelines.

Approximately 60% of units planned in this alternative can be logged with ground-based

logging systems, which are the most cost effective method of the logging systems available.

Approximately 14% of the planned units in this alternative require cable logging systems. To

provide the most flexibility in resource impact mitigation, especially the soils resource,

skyline cable logging systems are planned in these units. Skyline logging systems provide

leading end log suspension (partial suspension), thereby minimizing disturbance during

yarding activities.

Existing road beds would be utilized to provide access to planned units.

Continuous roadside landings are planned in the majority of the harvest units, providing

flexibility during timber sale implementation and minimizing concentrated resource impacts.

Helicopter units would utilize the existing road system for staging areas and log landing

zones. Helicopter landing and staging zones should not be located within 300 feet of the

aerial power lines, public roadways, and residences located in the project area. Landings

would be a minimum size of 100 ft. by 400 ft. and have a maximum yarding distance of 0.5

miles.


15

Designated skid trail plans can be used in planned ground-based logging systems units to

maximize logging production and minimize resource impacts.

Guyline and tailhold stump anchors are largely available in all planned cable logging systems

units. Some multi-stump anchors may be necessary due to stump sizes in some of the

younger stands. No artificial guyline or tailhold anchors, such as deadman, would be

required. However, equipment tailhold anchors could be used to decrease downtime during

changing skyline roads.

Tail trees are not required in cable logging systems units, but would be available should the

operator desire to use them. Tail trees should be limited to larch and Douglas-fir trees due to

their superior strength properties to cedar, mountain hemlock, and lodgepole pine.

Directional felling would be used where appropriate to fell trees in such a manner as to

reduce breakage due to boulders and rock bluffs and to minimize resource impacts which

could occur near such as stream buffers.

Associated Road Activities

Existing roads are needed to provide access to planned units for logging as shown in Table 16. A

detailed discussion of the existing transportation system is presented in the Hydrology specialist

report.

Table 16: Road miles by type

Road Activity Miles

System Road Maintenance 50

Temporary Road Construction 0

Total 50

Timber Economics

Timber economic analysis gross revenue (pond values), cost centers, and net timber harvest

revenue are shown in Table 17 through Table 21based upon the R6-TEA-ECON spreadsheet

(USDA 2013). Detailed by-unit timber economics tabulationis included in Appendix C.

Table 17: Gross harvest revenue by log species

Log Species Pond Value

($/MBF) Harvest Volume (Mbf) Gross Revenue($)

Douglas fir/ Western larch

$400 27,442 $10,976,800

Grand fir/ Hemlock $350 22,277 $7,796,950

Lodgepole pine/ Alpine fir/ Spruce

$350 26,255 $9,189,250

Ponderosa pine/ White pine

$290 889 $258,100

Western redcedar $950 7,950 $7,552,500

Totals 84,613 $35,773,600

Source: Middle and South Fork Mill Creek Project Footprint. Revenue and revenue rounded to nearest

$10.


16

Table 18: Logging cost

Logging System Unit Logging Cost ($/Mbf)


Logging Cost($)

Mechanized $162.00 42,018 $6,806,916

Cut-to-length $134.00 3,986 $534,124

Cable $233.00 14,065 $3,277,145

Helicopter $400.50 24,744 $9,909,972

Totals 84,813 $20,528,157


Table 19: Road maintenance cost

Unit Maintenance Cost ($/Mbf)


Cost ($)

Average maintenance cost

$12.00 84,601 $1,105,212

Totals $1,105,212


Table 20: Haul cost by destination

Destination Haul Cost ($)

Colville $2,427,369

Kettle Falls $335,478

Usk $0


Table 21: Net Harvest Revenue (Residual Value) by Destination


Colville ($) Kettle Falls($)

Pond Value (Revenue) $27,963,000 $7,810,600

Logging Cost ($16,046,1588,223,563) ($4,481,999)

Road Maintenance Cost ($903,540) ($111,672)

Haul Cost ($2,427,369) ($335,478)

Residual Value (Net Revenue)

$8,585,932 $2,881,451

Source: Middle and South Fork Mill Creek Project Footprint. Costs and revenue rounded to nearest $10. 1( ) indicates costs or negative revenues

Activities Common to All Action Alternatives Associated with Commercial Harvest The following activities would be implemented under Alternative B and Alternative C. These

activities are connected with the commercial harvest activities under each alternative and are in


17

addition to harvest and road maintenance and construction activities addressed in the main body

of this report.

Broadcast Burning

The goals of broadcast burning are to reduce surface fuel loading created from tree removal

activities and to reduce natural fuel loadings and continuity. Broadcast burning would also be

used to prepare seed beds for natural and planted regeneration and/or improve wildlife habitat and

browse conditions. Broadcast burning generally occurs in the summer/fall season but could be

conducted in the spring. A prescribed burn plan would be developed for each treatment area using

broadcast burning. Firelines, or a physical break in the fuel bed, would be constructed around the

prescribed broadcast burn areas in order to prevent the spread of prescribed fire from the burn

area. Two methods of constructing firelines would be used: hand-built firelines and machine-built

firelines. The prescribed burn plan would identify the method of fireline construction for each

burn unit in consideration of slope, access, adjacency to other prescribed burn areas, and

estimated fire behavior.

Broadcast burning is proposed in 59 units on about 1,792 acres under Alternative B and 41 units

on about 1,246 acres under Alternative C. The total cost of the broadcast burning activities would

be approximately $1.94 million and $1.35 million in Alternatives B and C, respectively. Unit

costs used in this calculation are shown in Table 22.

Table 22: Unit costs of proposed broadcast burning, Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project

Cost Component Unit Cost

Planning $2,000 unit

Slashing $150 acre

Fire Line Construction $3,500 unit

Burning $750 acre

Jackpot Burning

The main objectives of jackpot burning are to reduce concentrated areas of surface fuels created

from thinning activities and to reduce concentrated areas of naturally-created fuels. Fire intensity

can be higher than would occur with broadcast burning, and mortality within the overstory could

occur. To reduce the amount of mortality and to keep it below a 10 percent rate within each unit,

a low-intensity fire would be prescribed. These prescriptions would favor fire-tolerant and early

seral species (such as ponderosa pine and western larch) over fire-intolerant species (such as

grand fir and western redcedar). A prescribed burn plan would be developed for each treatment

area using jackpot burning. Two methods of constructing firelines would be used: hand-built

firelines and machine-built firelines. The use of firelines around jackpot burn areas would be on a

case-by-case basis and would depend upon the slope, access, adjacency to other prescribed burn

areas, and estimated fire behavior. Jackpot burning is proposed in 208 units on about 6,345 acres

under Alternative B and 175 units on about 5,489 acres under Alternative C. The total cost of the

jackpot burning would be approximately $4.42 million and $3.81 million in Alternatives B and C,

respectively. Unit costs used in this calculation are shown in Table 23.


18

Table 23: Unit costs of proposed jackpot burning, Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project



Slashing $150 acre

Fire Line Construction $3,500 unit

Burning $400 acre

Piling and Burning

Piling and burning of treatment fuels is a method for disposing of activity fuels by piling limbs,

tops, and slash, and then burning the piles under prescribed and safe conditions. Natural fuels can

be treated with pile and burning, too. The purpose is to reduce fuel loads within the unit. The

piles are generally burned in the fall following a change from dry summer-like weather to the

damp pre-winter weather pattern. Spring burning could also occur. Piling and burning would

occur on selected units where broadcast burning and jackpot burning are not feasible due to site

conditions and/or residual stand density. The need for piling and burning would be determined by

post-harvest exams of fuel loadings conducted by a fuels specialist.

Piling would be accomplished by either machine piling or hand piling. Machine or grapple piling

would be completed by a tracked excavator (to protect the soils) which would pick up the

material and place it in piles. Hand piling would be used in areas where machine piling is not

feasible due to steep slopes, soil conditions, or other resource concerns. All of the landings and

materials located near the roads would be treated with mechanical piling. The size of the piles

would be limited to 10 feet in diameter within treatment units, but could be larger on landings or

roadsides. A prescribed burn plan would be developed for each treatment area. As with jackpot

burning, the use of hand-built and machine-built firelines around pile and burn areas would be on

a case-by-case basis in consideration of slope, access, adjacency to other prescribed burn areas,

and estimated fire behavior. About 3,362 acres in 170 units are proposed for pile and burn under

Alternative B and 2,640 acres in 152 units under Alternative C. The total cost of these activities

would be approximately $2.36 million and $1.87 million in Alternatives B and C, respectively.

Unit costs used in this calculation are shown in Table 24.

Table 24: Unit costs of proposed pile and burning, Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project



Slashing $150 acre

Machine piling $200 acre

Burning $300 acre

Planting

Within five years after seed tree harvests, planting is proposed to achieve—along with natural

regeneration—desired stocking levels and species composition (Forest Service Manual

1921.12g). Planting helps to rapidly re-establish the next stand and move it towards the desired

future condition. Planting would be with a mix of species suited to the plant association and

would include rust-resistant western white pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir.

Preferred species are generally shade-intolerant, and fire-tolerant. Based on field review of


19

proposed harvest units, it is estimated that approximately Approximately 245 acres would be

planted under Alternative B and 204 acres under Alternative C. Planting costs would be

approximately $53,900 for Alternative B and $48,880 for Alternative C. Unit costs used in this

calculation are shown in Table 25.

Table 25: Unit costs of proposed planting, North Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project


Seedling costs $100 acre

Planting costs $120 acre

Associated Costs Summary

Additional costs associated with Alternative B and Alternative C are shown in Table 26.

Table 26: Associated costs

Project type Alt B Cost ($) Alt C Cost ($)

Broadcast Burning $1,940,000 $1,350,000

Jackpot Burning $4,420,000 $3,810,00

Piling & Burning $2,236,000 $1,870,000

Planting $53,900 $48,880

Total $8,649,900 $7,078,880


Activities Common to All Action Alternatives Not Associated with Commercial Harvest The following activities would be implemented under Alternative B and Alternative C. These

activities are not connected with the commercial harvest activities under each alternative.

County Road Maintenance

Approximately 18 miles of existing county roads would be maintained in order to restore the

running surface and to minimize adverse impacts to aquatic habitat. Road maintenance activities

would occur before, during, and after timber hauling. The following summarizes activities that

would occur along county roads:

County road 4668: Specific maintenance activities along this approximately 4.8 miles of

roadway would include: grading, shaping, and compacting the existing surface to reestablish

a crowned road section; cleaning the existing ditch and culvert inlets; spot brushing and

excavation to improve sight distances; construction of turnouts; replacing select cross-drain

culverts that are undersized and/or currently failing; adding additional cross drain culverts

where necessary to control sediment delivery; and applying and compacting surfacing rock.

The road would be returned to as good as or better than pre-project conditions.

There are five segments along County road 4668 that currently have native surfacing, heavy

rutting, and/or close proximity to streams. These segments would require grading, additional

cross-drain culverts in some cases, and increased rock depth application. Other areas would

only need a minor grading to prepare for surface rock application.


20

County road 4954: Specific maintenance activities along this approximately 12.8 miles of

roadway would include grading, shaping, and compacting the existing surface to reestablish a

crowned or insloped road section as applicable to convey, collect, and discharge road runoff

at desired locations; cleaning the existing ditch and culvert inlets; spot brushing and

excavation to improve sight distances; construction of turnouts; replacing select cross-drain

culverts that are undersized and/or currently failing; installing new cross-drain culverts;

applying and compacting base rock in some sections; and applying and compacting surfacing

rock. The road would be returned to as good as or better than pre-project conditions.

The greatest improvements would occur along NFS road 9413000 and NFS road 9413370,

totaling approximately 1.05 miles. This road section is adjacent to and parallels South Fork

Mill Creek and delivers large quantities of sediment to it. Maintenance would include

substantial ditch work, grading, shaping, and compacting. Addition cross-drains would be

installed, along with approximately 6” of surface rock across the full width and length of this

section of road. The existing live stream culvert would be replaced to address fish passage

issues and accommodate 100-year flood events. Road width would be increased at the

crossing and riprap placed along the fill slope adjacent to the crossing for approximately 150

feet.

The estimated cost of performing the above described road maintenance ranges between $5,000

and $7,500 per mile. Using a cost of $6,300 per mile, the total estimated cost for the 18 miles of

maintenance is $113,400.

System Road Maintenance

Approximately 70 miles of Maintenance Level 2 and 3 NFS roads would be reconstructed or

maintained in order to restore their running surface and to minimize adverse impacts to aquatic

habitat. Where roads would coincidentally be used to access timber harvest units, road

reconstruction and maintenance would occur before, during, and after timber hauling. The

following summarizes activities that would occur on these NFS roads:

Reconstruction: This would occur to improve or realign existing NFS roads. Detailed design

criteria for road improvements and realignment are in the Roads Analysis Report. They are

summarized here as follows:

♦ NFS road 9411175: A section of this existing NFS road would be realigned to eliminate

the redundant segment that is adjacent to and parallels Hanson Creek and currently

delivers large quantities of sediment to it. Decommissioning would occur along the

eliminated road section. This section of road would be replaced by approximately 6,475

feet of road, requiring reconstruction of existing NFS road and construction of new NFS

road. Reconstruction of the existing roadbed would occur along approximately 2,900 feet

of NFS road 9411194. Reconstruction activities would include those general activities

listed above, along with construction of two new switchbacks to meet timber hauling

standards. These switchbacks would expand the existing road bed in order to increase the

curve radius. The width of remaining road bed would be increased to a minimum 14-foot-

wide-running-surface single lane with turnouts. Additional timber and vegetation clearing

would also occur to achieve adequate sight distances. The operational maintenance level

of this section of NFS road 9411194 would change from 1 (closed) to 2 (open) and

alternate snowmobile use would be designated.

The remaining 3,575 feet of the realignment would involve constructing new classified


21

NFS road. Approximately 2,600 feet of the realignment would be along existing

unclassified road subgrade. Approximately 975 feet would involve clearing and

construction of new subgrade. Constructed road surfaces would have a 14-foot-wide

rocked running surface that has a crowned typical section with ditches and cross-drain

culverts. Approximately 800 feet of the new road would require additional construction

efforts (e.g., geofabric, increased rock depth, additional cross-drain culverts, etc.) to

address wet soil conditions. All streams crossed by the new road construction would be

either ephemeral or intermittent. The operational maintenance level of this new section of

NFS road 9411175 would be 2 (open) and alternate snowmobile use would be designated.

The estimated cost for completion of this work is $54,090.

♦ NFS road 9411130: Approximately 250 feet of the road would be moved into the

existing cutslope to reestablish the road prism lost to a prior road fill failure. The new

road section would maintain the same general location as the failed road, but would be

shifted up to 14 feet into the existing cutslope to ensure full bench construction is

achieved. This would move the full width of the road onto natural ground and produce a

stable road prism. The excavated material would be end-hauled to a stable location lower

on NFS road 9411130. The estimated cost of this full bench construction and end haul

work is $5,500.

♦ NFS road 9411000: Approximately 2.5 miles of the road is severely rutted (depths well

into the subgrade), effectively reducing the traffic service level. Proposed road

improvements would reestablish the traffic service level. Activities would include

completely rebuilding the subgrade in some sections, heavy grading some sections,

reestablishing a crowned typical road section, ditch cleaning, applying and compacting

base rock and surfacing rock, replacing drainage culverts, and adding riprap energy

dissipaters to culvert outlets. The estimated cost of this work is $6,300/mile for a total of

$15,750.

Maintenance: This would occur for upkeep of the road surface and shoulders, parking and

side areas, structures, and any traffic-control devices as necessary for safe and efficient

utilization Maintenance Level 2 and higher roads. Maintenance activities would include

removal of barriers, scarifying and reshaping the roadbed or grading the surface to remove

ruts and reestablish proper surface drainage; cleaning or reestablishing ditches, catch basins,

culvert inlets and outlets; replacing select cross-drain culverts that are undersized and/or

currently failing; installing new cross-drain culverts along selected roads; removing minor

slumps or slides; placement of aggregate, riprap, or other erosion control features; applying

and compacting base rock in some sections; applying and compacting surfacing rock;

brushing or limbing existing vegetation to improve sight distances; and/or application of best

management practices (BMP) as appropriate. The estimated cost of maintenance is

$1,500/mile for a total cost of $105,000.

Development of Borrow Pits

Fifteen rock sources would be developed within the project area in order to support road

construction and maintenance activities. Development of these rock sources would require

overburden removal, drilling, shooting, and crushing to reduce the rock to different desired

gradations. The size of these sources would vary depending upon location of the source, type of

rock, type of gradations that can be produced at the source, the demand for each particular source,

and available quantities at each source. Generally, each source would be limited to a one-acre


22

maximum area of active mining, manufacturing, and storage. Areas that are no longer active, or

have no future plans for additional rock extraction would be reclaimed to remain below the one-

acre threshold. Reclamation activities would include, but are not limited to, the following:

replacement of overburden materials, recontouring disturbed areas, ripping compacted areas, and

revegetation with tree planting and grass seed. Reclamation would occur either upon project

completion or after a particular rock source’s resources are exhausted.

Five of these rock sources are existing sources along county roads or open NFS roads. However,

they are not able to produce the full quantity and quality of rock product sufficient for road base

rock and surfacing rock required for the Project. Therefore, ten new rock sources would be

developed. Five of these would occur along county roads or open NFS roads and five would be

located along temporary roads that would be constructed to access proposed commercial harvest

units. The five borrow pits proposed along temporary roads would not be developed under

Alternative C. Additional rock manufactured in excess of what is required for this Project’s need

would be hauled to the other rock source locations that would be developed along open NFS

roads in order to produce stockpiles that can be utilized for future maintenance, after the Project.

Development costs can vary significantly based on the conditions at each borrow pit and on the

amount of rock produced. Most of the viable rock sources (excluding those existing sources that

will most likely not produce any rock) were hard rock that would require drilling and shooting

and processing with either a one or two-stage jaw/crusher. Most sources would also require some

level of overburden removal and site preparation. It is estimated that a cost of $9-$13 per cubic

yard would be incurred to produce the rock and place it into a stockpile at the given source. Rock

haul and placement would be in addition to these numbers. Assuming a 5,000 cubic yard

production, the cost would range between $45,000 and $65,000. The cost per yard would

decrease if more was produced, based on distributing some of the fixed costs (mobilization,

overburden removal, etc.). Based on an average cost of $55,000 per source, the total estimated

cost for development of the 15 borrow pits is $825,000.

NFS Road Decommissioning

Approximately 8 miles of existing NFS roads would be decommissioned and placed back into

resource production through barrier placement, removal of drainage structures, drainage

modifications to disconnect the road from the stream, and/or seeding the road bed. Additional

decommissioning, including obliteration of all or part of the road (e.g., ripping roads, pulling

roads back to contour), may be conducted as resources allow. A TAP conducted by the CNF

(2013) identified approximately 3.8 miles of NFS road having adverse resource impacts and/or

not required for resource management. Through collaboration with stakeholders and field surveys

conducted for this Project, approximately 3 miles were identified for decommissioning. A Roads

Analysis Report conducted for this Project identified an additional 4.7 miles of NFS road that

were long-term sediment delivery problems or had become reforested and were effectively not

needed for management. See the Roads Analysis Report prepared in conjunction with the draft

EA for a detailed assessment of road decommissioning on this Project. Road decommissioning

costs range between $3,000 and $5,000 per mile. Using a $4,000 per cost estimate, the total cost

for the eight miles of decommissioning is estimated at $32,000.

Shaded Fuel Breaks

Approximately 462 acres (64 units) of shaded fuel breaks would be created along major travel

routes (County roads 4954, 4668, and 4920, and NFS roads 7012 and 7018), around significant

dispersed campsites, and around rural residential properties within the project area. Shaded fuel


23

breaks would create conditions where fire drops to the ground and reduces intensity and/or does

not easily move from the surface into the overhead tree canopy. Shaded fuel breaks would

improve safer access in the event of a wildfire emergency and would improve success during fire

suppression activities.

Creation of shaded fuel breaks consists of thinning overstory trees, removing snags, and

removing understory and midstory fuels. All trees up to 6 inches dbh would be removed. Trees

greater than 6 inches dbh would be removed to create horizontal distances up to 8 to 15 feet

between crowns. Preferred leave tree species are western larch, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine.

Branches of residual trees would be pruned from 8 to 15 feet off the forest floor, depending on

slope. Snags capable of reaching a roadway, dispersed campsite, or private property, or greater

than 30 feet in height, would be removed. Understory fuels over 2 to 3 feet in height would be

removed, with remaining vegetation spaced about 5 feet apart and not within the dripline of an

overstory tree. Design elements would be implemented within shaded fuel breaks in order to

retain standing and dead wood to achieve habitat objectives.

Preferred width of shaded fuel breaks would be up to 300 feet horizontal distance along roads and

around dispersed campsites and rural residential properties. Some retention areas would be left

within shaded fuel breaks to provide resource protection (see Commercial Harvest Treatments

above for a list of protection needs). Shaded fuel breaks would not be created in old growth

stands or in late and old stand structure. In addition, screening would be maintained between

dispersed campsites and roads and other dispersed campsites in order to achieve visual quality

objectives and to minimize dust associated with nearby roads. All work would be accomplished

with hand tools or mechanical equipment, supported by chippers and/or pile burning as

determined to be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. The total cost of these activities would be

approximately $297,650 for both Alternatives B and C. Unit costs used in this calculation are

shown in Table 27.

Table 27. Unit costs of proposed shaded fuel breaks, Middle and South Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project


Planning $500 unit

Slashing $75 acre

Machine piling $200 acre

Burning $300 acre

Precommercial Thinning

Precommercial thinning (PCT) would occur by hand on up to 836 acres to improve tree growth,

increase resistance to insects and disease, decrease fuel loads, and encourage desired species

composition while providing diversity. PCT would include the removal of small trees (generally

less than 6 inches dbh for lodgepole pine and less than 7 inches dbh for all other conifers) within

existing stands associated with past commercial harvest. Treatments would result in tree spacing

ranging from about 14 by 14 feet to a maximum of 22 by 22 feet, depending upon tree size and

site conditions. Variable spacing may be applied. PCT would be accomplished by hand thinning

with a total cost of approximately $292,600 under both Alternatives at a unit cost of $350 per

acre.


24

Fish Passage Replacement or Removal

In all, 26 road crossings were determined to present impediments to upstream fish migration.

Proposed replacement or removal of the structures at these crossings was based on suitable

habitat above the structure and presence of westslope cutthroat trout (WCT)-only populations

above the structure. Of the 26 crossings, removal or replacement of 17 of them would improve

access to habitat areas greater than 0.1 acre and not open passage to WCT-only populations. Nine

road crossings did not meet these criteria. Of those nine, four culverts that are known barriers to

upstream fish migration are being retained for the time being because they have effectively

precluded invasion by eastern brook trout, and sustainable populations of westslope cutthroat

trout persist in the stream sections above the culverts. One of the nine was a bridge on the Middle

Fork that posed no passage barrier. The remaining four crossings not selected have minimal

potential habitat upstream of the problem culverts.

Of the 17 crossings where fish passage improvements are proposed, three would entail removal of

the fish passage structure. Fish passage removal is proposed at Green Mountain Creek, Kegel

Creek, and the Middle Fork of Mill Creek. These culverts are associated with maintenance level 1

NFS roads. They are closed to highway vehicle and OHV use. Some maintenance level 1 roads

would be used for timber haul during the project, but culverts would be removed after project

activities. Removal would be less expensive than replacement and, because these crossings are

not needed except during project activities, the least expensive option was selected in order to

improve passage of aquatic organisms. Some maintenance level 1 roads are used as groomed

snowmobile trails. Fish passages along maintenance level 1 roads used as snowmobile trails were

proposed for replacement, not removal.

The 14 fish-blocking culverts identified as high priority for replacement exist on Bestrom Creek

(3), Green Mountain Creek (1), Hanson Creek (1), Jacobson Creek (1), Kegel Creek (1), Middle

Fork of Mill Creek (3), Robins Creek (1), and South Fork of Mill Creek (3). Fish habitat accessed

above these passage structures was the primary factor used to prioritize these culvert

replacements, and ranged from less than 0.1 acre to nearly 7 acres of instream habitat gains. As

expected, the largest habitat gains were on the largest streams (i.e., Middle and South Forks of

Mill Creek), while fish habitat gains were lower on the smaller stream systems (e.g., Camp Creek,

Hanson Creek). Those with the greatest amount of habitat above the passage structure were

ranked higher in priority than those with lower potential habitat gains.

Preliminary estimates of removal and replacement were calculated based on field-engineering

review of removal and replacement needs. Removal costs entail those to remove the culvert and

place the road segment around the culvert into storage, disconnecting the road from the stream.

Removal costs range from $7,600 to $19,500. Replacement costs were based on use of a

bottomless-arch style culvert. Culvert dimensions were determined using the WDFW (2013)

stream simulation method with average bankfull widths calculated from stream habitat surveys

(see next section). Costs cover removal of the existing structure, placement of streambed material

matching the substrate upstream and downstream of the structure, placement of the new structure,

and restoration of the roadbed to handle the design traffic. Expected total replacement costs range

from less than $80,000 to more than $140,000. Total replacement and removal costs are estimated

to be about $1,250,000. These are preliminary and exclude detailed design costs.

Relocation of Pileated Woodpecker Core Area

Approximately 190 acres of designated pileated woodpecker core area 1PW0-4P would be

exchanged with areas adjacent to the existing core area that have more mature conifer habitat


25

with larger trees and more appropriate dead wood in order to improve habitat quality in the

designated pileated woodpecker core area. The portion that would be removed from the core area

was determined through field investigation to lack many mature trees and large, hard snags. The

portion that would be added to the core area was determined through field investigations to have

more late and old structure stand characteristics with pockets of large hard snags; habitat

conditions that are suitable for pileated woodpecker. Detailed descriptions of habitat

characteristics in the existing and proposed core areas are provided in the Wildlife specialist

report. There is no cost associated with this activity.

Rehabilitation of Area Impacted by User-Created Trails

Slope stabilization and revegetation would be conducted on approximately 3 acres of hillslope

along County road 4668 in order to restore disturbed soil conditions in an area that has been

subject to off-road vehicle use. The area is near significant dispersed campsites along Smith

Creek and is located between upper and lower road segments of a switchback on the road. Tire

tracks indicate the area has been used as a switchback cutoff and for access to a dispersed

campsite between the road segments. Approximately 20,000 square feet within the area shows

signs of devegetation and associated soil erosion. The impacted area is within a Riparian Habitat

Conservation Area near the confluence of Smith Creek with Middle Fork Mill Creek.

Rehabilitation measures would include mechanical ripping to alleviate soil compaction; raking to

erase tire tracks; revegetation with native grasses, shrubs, and trees to stabilize the slope, restore

cover, and create vegetation barriers to discourage future use; planting of trees and shrubs and

placement of large woody debris and large rocks throughout the area in order to discourage future

use; removal of one significant dispersed campsite in order to discourage vehicle access into the

area; and installation of signage along the road that discourages unauthorized use of the area. The

total cost of the rehabilitation work is $25,000.

Designation of NFS Roads Open to All Vehicles

Travel use designations are proposed for two NFS roads within the project area in order to

improve the quality of dispersed recreation use:

Designate NFS road 7018000 open to all vehicles to create—in combination with authorized

OHV use along County roads 4668 and 4954 and NFS road 7012000—an OHV travel loop

within MA 3A which has a recreation emphasis; and

Designate NFS road 9411130 open to all vehicles in order to permit OHV access to the

summit of Old Dominion Mountain, a popular recreation destination.

With these road designations, authorized OHV access would then exist to nearly all of the

significant dispersed campsites that were located in the project area during field surveys. There is

no cost associated with this activity.

Service Project Costs Summary

A summary of costs for activities common to both action alternatives not associated with

commercial harvest is provided in Table 28.

Table 28: Estimated Service Project Cost Summary

Project type Cost ($)


26

County Road Maintenance $113,400

System Road Maintenance $180,340

Development of Borrow Pits $825,000

System Road Decommissioning $32,000

Shaded Fuel Breaks $297,650

Precommercial thinning $292,600

Fish Passage Replacement/Removal

$1,250,000

Relocation of Pileated Woodpecker Core Area

$0

Rehabilitation of Areas Impacted by User-created Trails

$25,000

Designation of NFS Roads Open to All Vehicles

$0

Total $3,015,990

Economic Comparison of the Action Alternatives B and C A comparison of costs associated with commercial harvest associated with Alternative B and

Alternative C along with costs for activities common to both action alternatives not associated

with commercial harvest is provided in Table 29 and Table 30.

Table 29: Project Net Revenue (Residual Value) by Destination for Alternative B.


Colville ($) Kettle Falls($) Total

Timber Harvest Gross Revenue2 $33,595,800 $9,743,350 $43,372,530

Timber Harvest Costs3 ($26,908,960) ($10,284,074) ($37,193,0349)

Service Project Costs ($1,507,995) ($1,507,995) ($3,015,990)

Project Net Revenue (Residual Value)

$ 5,178,845 $-2,015,339 $3,163,506

Source: Middle and South Fork Mill Creek Project Footprint. 1( ) indicates costs or negative revenues 2Detailed in Table 8Table 8.

3Timber harvest costs are the sum of costs shown in Source: Middle and South Fork Mill Creek Project

Footprint. Revenues rounded to nearest $10.

Table 9Table 9, Source: Middle and South Fork Mill Creek Project Footprint.

Table 10Table 10, Source: Middle and South Fork Mill Creek Project Footprint. Costs rounded to nearest

$10.

Table 11Table 11, Table 12Table 12 and Table 26Table 26.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 10 pt, Fontcolor: Text 1

Formatted: Table Note, Line spacing: single, Don't keepwith next

Formatted: Font color: Text 1

Formatted: Table Note, Line spacing: Multiple 1.15 li

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Font color:Text 1

Formatted: Table Note, Line spacing: single, Don't keepwith next

Formatted: Font color: Text 1

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 10 pt



27

Table 30. Project Net Revenue (Residual Value) by Destination for Alt C


Colville ($) Kettle Falls($) Total

Timber Harvest Gross Revenue2 $27,963,000 $7,810,600 $35,773,600

Timber Harvest Costs3 ($22,916,507) ($8,468,589) ($31,385,096)

Service Project Costs ($1,507,995) ($1,507,995) ($3,015,012)

Project Net Revenue (Residual Value)

$3,538,498 $-2,165,984 $1,372,514

Source: Middle and South Fork Mill Creek Project Footprint. 1( ) indicates cost, or negative revenues 2Detailed in Table 17Table 17. 3Timber harvest costs are the sum of costs shown in Table 18, Table 19, Table 20 and Table 26.

REFERENCES

Jimenez, J. 2013. Soil Report, Deer Jasper Vegetation Management Project. Republic and Three

Rivers Ranger District, Colville National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA). 2009. Forest Service Manual (FSM)

2400 Timber Management. National Headquarters (WO), Washington, DC. WO Amendment

2400-2009-2. Available online at: www.fs.fed.us.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA). 2013. Sale/Project Economic Evaluation

(R6-TEA-ECON, version 6.1). Transaction Evidence Appraisal Spreadsheets, databases, and

documentation. Available online at: www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/landmanagement/

resourcemanagement/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA), 2014. Forest Service Handbook, Pacific

Northwest Region (Region 6), Portland, Oregon. Available online at: www.fs.fed.us.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2013. Water Crossing Design Guidelines.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.


http://www.fs.fed.us/

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/landmanagement/%20resourcemanagement/

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/landmanagement/%20resourcemanagement/

http://www.fs.fed.us/


28

Appendix A: Logging Systems Logging Systems

Conventional logging systems common to the region and conventional forest road construction

practices were assumed for the timber economic analysis. Roads were planned for standard

highway trucks hauling to mills in the region. To the maximum extent feasible and consistent

with resource constraints, the following logging systems in order of unit cost were used in the

economic analysis (See below for figures illustrating logging systems):

Logging systems are defined as the following:

Ground-based System:

Mechanized (T):

A mechanized logging system is a ground-based harvest system which is used on slopes

generally 35% or less. Due to the relatively small piece size (small diameter trees) in the

project area, mechanized harvesting equipment is used to process the timber. Typically, trees

are felled and bunched using a rubber-tired or tracked feller-buncher and skidded to a central

landing using a rubber-tired and/or tracked skidder equipped with a grapple. Trees are

delimbed and processed into logs using a stroke-boom or dangle-head processor and decked.

Oversized trees that are too big to be processed by the mechanized equipment are felled and

processed manually. This would be the most common system used in the project area.

Cut-to-length (C):

A cut-to-length logging system is a ground-based system that operates under the same

parameters as a tractor/mechanized logging system; however, it provides less soil disturbance

and can be used in wetter soil conditions. It uses the limbs and tops of processed trees placed

in the skid trail to construct a “mat” for the equipment to run on. The system is composed of

two pieces of equipment: a rubber-tired or tracked harvester and a rubber-tired forwarder.

The harvester typically directional fells trees and delimbs and processes them into logs. The

logs are sorted and decked along the skid trail where a forwarder then loads them into its

bunks and forwards them to the haul road. Logs can either be decked along the road or off-

loaded directly onto log trucks or set-out trailers.

Cable System (S):

A skyline or cable logging system is used on steep slopes generally over 35 %. Typically, a

yarder with a boom or tower equipped with two or more drums is used to winch and spool

wire rope cables to yard logs or trees to roadside landings. There are many different

equipment and cable logging system configurations; however, the most commonly used

system in the region is a live or standing skyline system. A skyline cable from the drum of

the yarder goes up and through a sheave located on the top of the tower or boom and tied to a

tailhold stump or tree and is used to provide lift to the trees or logs being yarded. Partial

suspension—where the lead end of the log or tree is off the ground—is typically provided.

Slackpulling carriages with lateral yarding capabilities are used to pull logs or trees into the

skyline corridor and then yard them to the landing. The carriage has locking capabilities so it


29

can be positioned anywhere along the skyline for best lateral skidding opportunities. Uphill

yarding where logs or trees are yarded uphill to the road is typically used in this region.

Helicopter System (H):

Helicopter logging is used in terrain unsuitable for use by tractor and cable systems or where

there are visual, aesthetic, or other resource constraints. Typically, it is used in steep, broken

terrain where access is often limited. A helicopter is used to yard logs or tree lengths to a

large log landing area. Yarding distances are typically less than one half mile. Soil

disturbance is negligible; however, logging costs are very expensive. Helicopter logging

systems are significantly more expensive the ground-based or cable systems; thus, it is often

not economically feasible to harvest low-value grades or tree species.

Logging systems were identified for each planned harvest unit based on logical logging limits

defined by resource and terrain constraints, while providing flexibility to implement IDT

direction. The transportation network was designed to align with planned road construction and

reconstruction to access logical landings suitable for productive logging operations. Road routes

would be designed to access major control points such as favorable terrain features and stream

crossings while avoiding areas of potential slope instability, riparian management buffers, and

heritage sensitive areas. Logging systems and transportation plans were developed concurrently

to maximize the effectiveness of forest operations.

Procedures

A comprehensive Logging System and Transportation Analysis (LSTA) was not required for the

planning area. Stereo aerial photography and existing USFS corporate GIS layers were used to

develop logging and transportation system plans. Logging systems and transportation plans were

developed for all suitable and available timber in the planning area utilizing current logging

systems capabilities.

Road centerlines were flagged in red-glo flagging and mapped using GPS. Cable logging profiles

were only run where yarding geometry and payload were in question, including equipment

anchoring and landing feasibility. Ground-skidding harvest units were designed and field verified

to avoid adverse skidding configurations such as excessive sidehill and uphill skidding. Certain

unit corners were field flagged with orange-glo flagging to convey planning unit geometry to the

interdisciplinary team and the public.

Ground-based harvest units were limited to slopes of 35-40% side slopes maximum, except for

short pitches of steeper terrain where directional felling and winch line yarding can be used.

External skidding distances were limited to 1,500 feet, except where a longer skidding distance

could be used in lieu of additional new road construction or to address resource constraints.

Ground logging equipment was considered in the following general order of preference:

Mid-sized to large rubber-tired grapple skidder similar in size and configuration to a

Caterpillar 525C, maximum external yarding distance of 2,000 feet.

Tracked skidder with grapple similar in size and configuration to a CAT 517 or D5, maximum

external skidding distance of 1,000 feet.

Forwarder similar in size and configuration to a Komatsu (Valmet) 860, maximum external

skidding distance 4,000 feet.


30

Skyline harvest units were designed for a minimum acceptable payload of 3,000-4,000 pounds, or

the weight of the heaviest log of minimum product length, whichever was greater. Where

necessary to meet payload objectives, skyline extensions were proposed to obtain adequate

deflection. Cable systems were proposed in the following general order of preference.

Live or Standing Skyline: Typically a mobile swing yarder with a 40 to 60 foot tower and a ¾

to 1 inch skyline (e.g., Madill 071, Thunderbird TSY 50, Link Belt 98 Crane) equipped with a

either a shotgun or a motorized slack-pulling carriage. Typically used where yarding

distances exceed 800 feet or when full log suspension is desired.

Live Skyline (Short span): Typically a converted loader or feller-buncher (Excaline or

yoader) equipped with a 35 to 45 foot tower and two hydraulic drums and a motorized slack-

pulling carriage. Considered for short yarding distances typically under 800 feet. Extremely

mobile, can walk out ridges to eliminate some blind leads and need for multi-span. Can also

be used where guyline anchors are limited or not suitable for skyline system.

Helicopter logging harvest units were designed for a minimum acceptable payload of 4,000-4,500

pounds. This is the typical payload requirement for the type of helicopters that operate within

this region. Payloads must be achieved within a 30-foot radius. Downhill yarding is preferred,

with the maximum yarding distance of ½ mile. The minimum log landing area is 100’ x 400’ and

a service area must be provided to fuel, service, and secure the helicopter.

The logging layout was designed for systems that are common in the Intermountain West. Due to

rising fuel and operating costs, helicopter logging is generally only economically feasible where

higher-value species or grades are being extracted. Multi-span cable logging could be utilized in

a few of the proposed cable yarding units, but this system was not considered since there are very

few experienced operators in this region.

All planned harvest units were designed for a partial-cut type harvest where some portion of the

stand would be retained. Operational feasibly of these silviculture prescriptions were considered

in the overall unit design. Logging system design was based on operationally achieving these

silvicultural prescriptions. The following describes the logging system operational requirements

for each silviculture prescription:

VDT/VRH Harvest Pattern: Any spatial distribution of leave/cut trees is feasible, including

individual tree selection; however, all trees within designated skid trails for ground skidding

and skyline yarding roads must be removed. Approximate width of skid trails and skyline

roads is 12 to14 feet. Manual felling must use directional falling techniques and mechanical

felling must cut, pack and place trees in the trail/road. Cable settings are suited only if they

have (1) mostly uphill yarding, close to the slope break and/or with excellent deflection and

(2) largely continuous landings affording a good proportion of parallel yarding roads spaced

an average of 150 feet apart. A locking carriage with slackpulling capability is required in

thinning/partial cut harvest prescriptions.

STH Harvest Pattern: A lower number and wider distribution of leave trees allows more

operational flexibility. The operational constraints are much the same as mentioned in the

VDT/VRH except less residual stem damage concerns. Cable settings are suited if they have

a fair proportion of uphill yarding, close to the slope break and/or with good deflection. Skid

trails located away from leave trees and perpendicular to contours. Fewer continuous

landings.


31

Field notes were collected for proposed harvest units and proposed temporary road construction

and reconstruction. Notes include data and sketch maps useful for preliminary cost projection,

logging systems analysis, and road and sale layout. Unit and road summary reports were

completed for all field-verified planned harvest units and are filed in the project record.

Construction measures necessary to minimize resource impacts were specified in the field notes.

The logging systems and timber economics field verification process included interactions with

other interdisciplinary team members. The unit and transportation systems designs were

modified during the 2015 field season, and subsequently as analysis progressed, to provide for

resource protection. The avoidance of soil and water impacts was emphasized. As far as

possible, this was primarily achieved by locating roads away from sensitive soils, planning to

yard away from streams requiring protection, and keeping road locations out of stream buffers or

crossing buffers perpendicularly. In exceptional cases where there was no reasonable alternative

to violating these guidelines, site-specific mitigation measures were proposed or, if mitigation

was not feasible, that portion of the Project was abandoned.

Field verified road and harvest units were GPS-mapped and plotted on the 2015 aerial imagery

maps. GPS mapping and aerial photography were used to update the project GIS datasets.

Payload analyses were performed, when necessary, on field-run profiles using the Skyline XL

program.


32

Figure A-1. Mechanized harvest system


33

Figure A-2. Cut-to-Length harvest system


34

Figure A-3. Skyline cable logging system

Figure A-4. Helicopter logging system


35

Appendix B: Alternative B Timber Economics File Name: Appendix B – Alt B Timber Economics_20160815.xls


36

Appendix C: Alternative C Timber Economics File Name: Appendix C – Alt C Timber Economics_20160815.xls


37

united states department of agriculture middle and south...

Documents