Appendix H Trans Logging Econ -...

H-1

Appendix H – Transportation, Logging Systems, and Economics Report

Bybee Vegetation Management Project

High Cascades Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

/s/ Sasha Fertig Date: September 21, 2011

Sasha Fertig, Environmental Coordinator

/s/ Paul Podesta Date: September 21, 2011

Paul Podesta, Road Manager

/s/ Craig Davis Date: September 21, 2011

Craig Davis, Logging Systems Specialist


H-2

I. Introduction The High Cascades Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest considered the current needs of various watersheds for vegetation management, restoration and road management, and implementation of land management direction. The Bybee project planning area is located within the Upper Rogue River Watershed between Crater Lake National Park on the east, Highway 230 on the west, Highway 62 on the south, and Forest road (FR) 6535-900 on the north. Within the project planning area, vegetative conditions of all stands were evaluated to identify “candidate stands,” stands that could benefit from needed and appropriate silvicultural treatments. The Bybee project planning area was chosen for treatment because there is a need to treat diseased conditions and thin stands to provide for fire/insect/disease resistance and release for increased tree growth.

Additionally, much of the Bybee project planning area is allocated to the Matrix land allocation—which specifically calls for programmed timber harvest for both forest health and timber production. The area also includes the Foreground Retention and Big-Game Winter Range management areas, which allow for management activities that maintain or promote the scenic and big game values of the area.

A. Bybee Project Planning Area The project planning area for the Bybee Vegetation Management Project is approximately 16,215 acres and is located on federally managed lands within the Upper Rogue River Watershed. Figure H-1 shows the Bybee project planning area.

The legal description of the Bybee project planning area:

sections 13 and 24-26, Township 30 South, Range 3 East; sections 6-30 and 33-36, Township 30 South, Range 4 East; sections 7 and 18, Township 30 South, Range 5 East; and sections 1 and 2, Township 31 South, Range 4 East, of the Willamette Meridian

The area is essentially a gently sloping plain with some deeply incised pumice canyons from the eruption of Mount Mazama covered by a fir-dominated mixed conifer forest in an assorted mix of patch sizes and stand conditions created by clearcutting, shelterwood cutting, and selective cutting over the past 50+ years. There are few natural openings or early seral forest conditions.

Appendix H

H-3

Figure H-1. Bybee project planning area

B. Background and History of the Bybee Project Planning Area The Bybee project planning area falls within the Upper Rogue River 5th field watershed, and the Foster Creek, Bybee Creek, and Castle Creek 6th field subwatersheds. The Upper Rogue River Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service 1995) was conducted within these drainages and contains a synthesis of scientific knowledge about watershed trends and conditions.

The 1860s “John Day Trail” branched off the Crater Lake Road (present-day Crater Lake Highway/Oregon Highway 62) near Farewell Bend, linking the Rogue Valley with the new gold mines of Oregon’s Blue Mountains. This route generally paralleled the present-day Diamond Lake highway (Oregon Highway 230), which provides the western boundary of the Bybee project planning area. In 1910 Forest Service crews repaired and widened portions of the old Crater Lake Road and John Day Trail to facilitate travel by wagons and automobiles. However, this work was soon taken over by Oregon’s highway department, which continued construction and maintenance in subsequent decades.

The 1930s brought an infusion of road building funds and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) crews to the area. The CCC helped build many miles of Forest Service road system in the Cascades portion of the Rogue River National Forest. The main objective of these roads was to provide improved firefighting and eventual timber-harvest access.


H-4

World War II and the post-war economic boom witnessed the first large-scale, sustained logging of National Forest timber in the southern Cascades. It was during the late 1940s through the early 1960s that Forest Service timber-haul roads reached up into most of the remaining major drainages of the area. These included roads located in and near the Bybee project planning area: Foster Creek (FR 6520 and 6540) and Bybee Creek (FR 6500-200).

Much of the 1940s to 1960s timber harvest in the Cascades was accomplished by tractor logging. By the 1970s, however, more advanced skyline-cable systems permitted full-suspension logging across long distances and over very steep slopes. Roads built specifically for setting up skyline yarding (with the loads of logs hauled back down the roads to the mill by fleets of high-powered trucks) ascended into some of what had previously been the most remote and inaccessible stands of timber. Roads of this type increased throughout the period of intensive timber management and high harvest volumes of the 1970s and 1980s (USDA Forest Service 2004).

C. Proposed Action and Alternatives The only candidate stands considered for treatment are those in need of some form of silvicultural intervention to support continued development into healthy, biologically diverse, and fire resilient forest and to meet Northwest Forest Plan objectives. These were further assessed concerning whether they could be treated in compliance with the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. If so, they were carried forward into the first draft of the proposed action and named the “Bybee Vegetation Management Project.” These vegetation treatments were then assessed and modified to minimize adverse resource impacts as much as possible, creating the final version of the proposed action.

For example, all stands that met the Forest’s definition of high quality northern spotted owl habitat (261 acres), designated owl 100 acre core areas, and areas within the 300-meter protection buffers around current northern spotted owl nest sites were removed from consideration to minimize adverse effects to the local population of the northern spotted owl. Fully functional, disturbance-resilient, late seral or younger stands within the project planning area that are not in need of treatment for disease, fuels reduction, or growth would not be treated.

1. Alternative 1 (No-Action) Alternative 1 identifies and describes the current conditions of the physical, biological, social, and economic environments within the Bybee project planning area. The term “no-action” means no change to present conditions; the current set of previously authorized restoration and management activities would continue, with none of the proposed activities under the action alternatives occurring.

Under this scenario, no project activities would take place, and the resulting environmental effects of no-action would be compared to the environmental effects of permitting the proposed action, or another alternative to go forward. Alternative 1 is not designed to address the stated purpose and need.

2. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) This alternative would treat approximately 3,622 acres with a variety of silvicultural treatments. The proposed treatments include a combination of silvicultural methods within individual units to account for variations in stand conditions and to meet multiple objectives.

Appendix H

H-5

The total of these treatments would yield an estimated 45 million board feet (MMBF)1 of commercial volume that would be offered in multiple timber sales over a period of several years. The silvicultural treatments proposed under this alternative include:

Free thinning (2,881 acres) – The removal of trees to control stand density and favor desired tree species, using a combination of thinning criteria without regard to crown position.

Overstory removal (438 acres) – Trees constituting an upper canopy layer are cut to release trees or other vegetation in an understory.

Modified shelterwood with reserves (106 acres) – A two-aged regeneration method where during harvest shelter trees are retained after regeneration has become established.

Group selection (106 acres) – An uneven aged regeneration method to establish and maintain multiaged structure by removing trees in small groups.

Group selection and free thinning (91 acres) – A combination of the group selection and free thinning treatments described above.

Riparian Reserves would be treated following the project design criteria (PDCs) designed to achieve Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives. Overly dense, at-risk young forest (up to 80 years old) within Riparian Reserves would be thinned and/or underburned to increase their resistance to loss from stand replacing wildfire and to improve conditions for more rapid development of larger trees and forest. Root-rot pockets may be treated where the disease threatens long-term attainment of ACS objectives.

A combination of logging systems would be utilized to harvest the trees: tractor, or other ground-based systems, would be used on approximately 3,381 acres, or 93 percent of the treated area. Skyline systems would be used on approximately 207 acres, or 6 percent of the treated area. In addition, one 34-acre unit, or 1 percent of the treated area, would be harvested using a helicopter.

Alternative 2 would also enact the following vegetation management actions: 467 acres of natural fuels treatment units; construction of 12.9 miles of temporary roads (in 28 segments), 8.8 miles of which is located on an existing road template; decommissioning of 5.4 miles of existing system roads (in 21 segments); and implementation of several other post-harvest treatments.

3. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would treat approximately 2,990 acres with a variety of commercial and non-commercial silvicultural treatments. The proposed treatments include a combination of silvicultural methods within individual units to account for variations in stand conditions and to meet multiple objectives. The total of these treatments would yield an estimated 34 MMBF of commercial volume that would be offered in multiple timber sales over a period of several years. The silvicultural treatments proposed under this alternative include:

Free thinning (1,928 acres) – The removal of trees to control stand density and favor desired tree species, using a combination of thinning criteria without regard to crown position.

Free thinning (retain patches for hiding cover) (500 acres) – Similar to the free thinning treatment above, except modified to maintain hiding cover patches, dense areas of second growth.

1 MMBF – This is a measure of how many 1000’s board feet would be harvested from the Bybee project planning area under each alternative. For example 45,000 board feet per acre is described as 45 MMBF.


H-6

Mechanical girdling and precommercial thinning (365 acres) – Mechanical girdling (or band girdling) is where a broad band of bark is removed all around a living bole, with some sapwood or without, so as to kill, or at least, weaken the tree. Precommercial thinning is the removal of trees to reduce stocking (tree density) to concentrate growth on the more desirable trees.

Group selection (106 acres) – An uneven aged regeneration method to establish and maintain multiaged structure by removing trees in small groups.

Group selection and free thinning (91 acres) – A combination of the group selection and free thinning treatments described above.

Riparian Reserves would be treated following the PDCs designed to achieve ACS objectives as described above for alternative 2.

A combination of logging systems would be utilized to harvest the trees; tractor, or other ground-based systems, would be used on approximately 2,501 acres, or 95 percent of the commercially treated area. Skyline systems would be utilized on an additional 124 acres, or 5 percent of the treated area, under this alternative.

Alternative 3 would also enact the following vegetation management actions: 467 acres of natural fuels treatment units; construction of 9.4 miles of temporary roads (in 23 segments), 7.8 miles of which is located on an existing road template; decommissioning of 5.4 miles of existing system roads (in 21 segments); and implementation of several other post-harvest treatments.

4. Alternative 4 Alternative 4 would treat approximately 2,915 acres with a variety of silvicultural treatments. The proposed treatments include a combination of silvicultural methods within individual units to account for variations in stand conditions and to meet multiple objectives. The total of these treatments would yield an estimated 10 MMBF of commercial volume that would be offered in multiple timber sales. The silvicultural treatments proposed under this alternative include:

Low thinning (thinning from below) (941 acres) – Controls stand density through the removal of trees from the lower crown classes to favor those in the upper crown classes (a category of the tree based on its crown position relative to those of adjacent trees).

Low thinning (retain patches for hiding cover) (500 acres) – Similar to the free thinning treatment above, except modified to maintain hiding cover patches, dense areas of second growth.

Precommercial thinning (1,474 acres) – The removal of trees to reduce stocking (tree density) to concentrate growth on the more desirable trees.

Riparian Reserves would be treated following the PDCs designed to achieve ACS objectives as described above for alternative 2 and 3.

A combination of logging systems would be utilized to harvest the trees: tractor, or other ground-based systems, would be used on approximately 1,380 acres, or 98 percent of the commercially treated area. Skyline systems would be utilized on an additional 24 acres, or 2 percent of the treated area, under this alternative.

Alternative 4 would also enact the following vegetation management actions: 467 acres of natural fuels treatment units; construction of 2.3 miles of temporary roads (in 5 segments), all of which is located on an existing road template; decommissioning of 5.4 miles of existing system roads (in 21 segments); and implementation of several other post-harvest treatments.

Appendix H

H-7

II. Management Direction

A. Planning Area Land Allocations For this portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, land management direction is contained in the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990b), as amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994), now commonly known as the Northwest Forest Plan. This ROD, jointly signed by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, amended the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Rogue River Forest Plan) and other existing plans within the range of the northern spotted owl. This amendment, which became effective on May 20, 1994, provided additional goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for resource management. It added several new land allocations, each with its own set of standards and guidelines. These land allocations overlay and merge with the allocations from the Rogue River Forest Plan.

The direction in the Northwest Forest Plan supersedes the Rogue River Forest Plan where it is more restrictive or provides greater benefits to late-successional ecosystems. Direction from the Rogue River Forest Plan is retained where it is more restrictive or is unaffected by the Northwest Forest Plan.

The Bybee project planning area contains two management allocations that would be affected by silvicultural treatments. A brief description of applicable management allocations is provided below. More detailed descriptions can be found in the Northwest Forest Plan and the Rogue River Forest Plan.

1. Matrix This allocation emphasizes obtaining a full yield of timber within the capability of the land. Most scheduled timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the Matrix with suitable forest lands (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994, page C-39). Matrix lands allocated under the Northwest Forest Plan that include all areas not otherwise designated to a more protective status under the Rogue River Forest Plan. The Bybee project planning area primarily includes lands allocated to Matrix (12,390 acres), as carried forward from the Rogue River Forest Plan as Timber Suitable 1 (Management Area 20), Big-Game Winter Range (Management Area 14), and Foreground Retention (Management Area 6).

2. Riparian Reserve An estimated 3,580 acres of the Bybee project planning area are managed as Riparian Reserves. As allocated under the Northwest Forest Plan, Riparian Reserve includes lands along all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, unstable areas, and potentially unstable areas that are subject to special standards and guidelines designed to conserve aquatic and riparian-dependent species. The Northwest Forest Plan establishes a minimum protection buffer equal to the height of one site-potential tree, along each side of the riparian feature, which in the case of the Bybee Project, is 156 feet.


H-8

B. Management Direction for Roads One of the goals of the Rogue River Forest Plan is to “[p]rovide safe, efficient, environmentally sound access for the movement of people and materials involved in the use and management of National Forest lands” (USDA Forest Service 1990b, page 4-3). Additionally, each management area in the Forest Plan has been assigned specific standards and guidelines regarding transportation.

C. Transportation Planning Forest Service Manual 7700 – Transportation Analysis (7712.1 – Roads Analysis) provides further direction. If road management activities are planned, decisions are required to be informed by an interdisciplinary science-based roads analysis, if those activities would result in changes in access, such as changes in current use, traffic patterns, and road standards or where there may be adverse effects on soil and water resources, ecological processes, or biological communities.

Direction for transportation planning is also found in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.18 – Timber Sale Preparation Handbook; Chapter 30 – Project Analysis and Design – Gate 2. This section of the handbook calls for integrating transportation and logging systems for the analysis area; ensuring that requirements for road construction, operation, and maintenance for commercial timber sale use are consistent with the Forest Plan; planning timber sale haul roads with the capacity to safely handle the scheduled traffic; and planning for specified road use (classified permanent system).

D. Roads Analysis Forest Service Manual Chapter 7710 provides direction to conduct transportation system planning and analysis using the best available science at the appropriate scale and in conjunction with other analyses to inform transportation management decisions. Ensure that road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance standards or criteria are guided by roads analysis and documented through the use of road management objectives.

When proposed road management activities (road construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning) would result in changes in access, such as changes in current use, traffic patterns, and road standards, or where there may be adverse effects on soil and water resources, ecological processes, or biological communities, those decisions must be informed by roads analysis.

Current policy requires the Forest Service to undertake a “scientifically-based” road analysis procedure, at appropriate scales and coordinated with other ecosystem analyses, in order to make better decisions regarding road management. Roads analysis at the forest-scale will generally provide a broad context for informing road management decisions. Site-specific projects may be informed by project-scale analysis.

Forest Service responsible officials are directed to use a roads analysis process to ensure that road management decisions are based on identification and consideration of social and ecological effects. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System (Miscellaneous Report FS-643) has been provided as guidance for conducting a science-based roads analysis. This document describes the process that was used to evaluate the current road system for current and future needs associated with the Bybee Vegetation Management Project and its project planning area.

Appendix H

H-9

The goal of this project-scale analysis is to compare the need for roads to access the project planning area, with the effects roads have on natural resources.

This roads analysis is not a decision document. It is designed to provide a site-specific assessment of existing conditions within its analysis area and aid land managers in making more informed decisions in managing National Forest lands for multiple uses.

At the Forest-scale and in conformance of the Roads Management Policy, a more general assessment of roads in the northwestern portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest was conducted and compiled in 2004 (Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Roads Analysis). The guidance provided in this document was used to assist in project-specific analysis for the Bybee Project.

III. Current Road Information

A. Definition of Roads The following definitions are from Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7705 and are pertinent to this roads analysis process.

Forest Roads. As defined in Title 23, Section 101 of the United States Code (23 U.S.C. 101), any road wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, and serving the National Forest System and which is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources.

Roads are further defined:

Road. A motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail (36 CFR 212.1). For this analysis, a road may be classified, unclassified, or temporary.

a. Classified Roads. Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands that are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including State roads, county roads, privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and other roads authorized by the Forest Service.

b. Temporary Roads. Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system and not necessary for long-term resource management.

c. Unclassified Roads. Roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail; and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization.

It is important to note that roads occurring on Forest Service managed lands are not public roads in the same sense as roads under the jurisdiction of public road agencies, such as states or counties. Forest Service roads are not intended to meet the transportation needs of the public at large. Instead, they are authorized only for the administration and utilization of National Forest System lands. Although generally open and available for public use, such use is at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. Through authorities delegated by the Secretary, the Forest Service may restrict or control use to meet specific management direction.


H-10

B. Current Road Inventory – Bybee Project Planning Area The Roads Analysis process starts with an inventory of all roads in the project planning area. There are various scales that can be used when assessing road systems. This roads analysis utilizes a project-scale road analysis area. The analysis area for this assessment includes those roads that access or are proposed to be used in conjunction with Bybee Vegetation Management Project activities (see table H-2). A database was developed to inventory all roads that are within the analysis area.

Digital files representing road locations were secured from the Forest Service geographic information systems (GIS) for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. A review in the field and of aerial photos was completed to locate any unclassified roads in order to utilize an existing road template (e.g., previously disturbed area) for temporary road locations.

1. Classified Road System The following discussion includes the basis for use of (classified or permanent system) roads. Forest System roads are under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and are deemed necessary for protection, administration, and use of National Forest System lands. These roads are inventoried, maintained, and managed by the Forest Service. Generally, these National Forest System roads are identified as maintenance level 1 to 5, under the following definitions:

Level 1 – Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. While being maintained at level 1, roads are closed to vehicular traffic.

Level 2 – Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses.

Level 3 – Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material.

Level 4 – Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated.

Level 5 – These roads are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated.

Most of the classified road system within the Bybee project planning area is currently managed as maintenance level 1 or 2. There are approximately 78 miles of roads within the project planning area. Figure H-2 shows the project planning area and its current condition regarding roads.

Appendix H

H-11

Figure H-2. Bybee project planning area – current roads

2. Unclassified Roads The Bybee project planning area contains additional roads, trails or grades that are not inventoried, maintained, or currently managed by the Forest Service. Further use of unclassified roads is discussed below under proposals for temporary road access, or use as part of the Bybee Project.

C. Existing Uses Commercial – Usually non-Forest Service employees conducting commerce activities, such as delivering goods and services in, adjacent to, or out of the National Forest. Commercial use of the roads within this roads analysis is primarily related to delivery of goods and services (e.g., hauling of commercial timber) to attain timber commodity output goals.

Recreation – Typically members of the public who use Forest Service roads to access trails, campsites, hiking, hunting, sightseeing and other similar activities. These roads also allow public use of firewood and special forest products.

Administrative – Forest Service or other agency employees acting in official capacity conducting day-to-day work activities. Administrative access needs include, but are not limited to, law enforcement, fire prevention and control, resource surveys, road maintenance, and other activities associated with managing land, vegetation, water, fish, and wildlife.


H-12

D. Analysis of Existing Roads This analysis utilizes a project-scale roads analysis area. The analysis area for this assessment includes those roads that access or are proposed to be used in conjunction with Bybee Vegetation Management Project activities. Table H-1 displays the classified roads that would be used for timber hauling under the action alternatives.

Table H-1. Proposed classified road use

Road number Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

6260 8.5 miles 8.5 miles 6.6 miles

6260-100 7.3 miles 6.8 miles 6.4 miles




6260-170 1.0 miles 1.0 miles --

6260-200 3.2 miles -- --

6260-250 0.2 miles -- --

6260-300 2.7 miles 2.7 miles --



6260-428 0.6 miles 0.6 miles --
























Appendix H

H-13

Road number Alternative 2





6535-984 0.4 miles 0.4 miles --

6535-995 0.1 miles 0.1 miles --

Total 59.4 miles 53.4 miles 40.6 miles

Roads analysis identified a need for most of the existing roads for long-term management of the Forest, and for access to recreation opportunities. Most of the existing roads are typically open to the public and maintained for vehicular traffic. These existing roads provide the long-term transportation network necessary to meet forest management objectives. However, approximately 5.4 miles of road were identified for potential road decommissioning. It should be noted that other land management efforts have previously decommissioned approximately 22 miles of roads within the Bybee project planning area.

The existing road system is programmed to receive annual maintenance in accordance with established road management objectives. However, over the last decade, a limitation on road maintenance funds on the Forest has resulted in a backlog of maintenance work to reduce brush, clean out drainages, and repair road surfaces on many of the existing roads in the Bybee project planning area. There are drainage improvements which would need to be implemented prior to commercial haul, in order to protect water quality. Many of the culverts on the roads are in poor condition or undersized, and in need of replacement. Many of the roads are becoming brushed in.

1. Upper Rogue River Watershed The 2004 Forest-level Roads Analysis document presented data on the Cascades Mountains area of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. This area covers the High Cascades Ranger District—the former Prospect Ranger District, Butte Falls Ranger District, and the northeastern portion of the Ashland Ranger District.

Issues regarding management of the roads within the analysis area were divided between those relating to potential or actual environmental effects (termed “environmental costs”) and those issues related to the ways that the roads are utilized (termed “road benefit”). To model these issues, factors were developed and analyzed using GIS software programs.

The values for each of the access need categories were summed to get a composite benefit rating for each road segment. These composite scores were broken down into three categories to get an overall road benefit rating of high, medium, or low. However, if any of the roads received a rating of a 3 for any category, then the overall road benefit rating would be high due to the high need for access.

The overall environmental cost and road benefit ratings were applied to the matrix shown in figure H-3. This matrix is a tool (from the Forest-level Roads Analysis) to aid in developing site-specific recommendations for Forest road management decisions.


H-14

The following is an explanation of terms used in this matrix:

Consider decommission – Generally, roads with a low road benefit rating would be candidates to decommission. Decommissioning includes treatments that range from blocking the entrance, scattering limbs on the roadbed, revegetating, water barring, removing road fills, re-establishing drainage-ways, and pulling back unstable road shoulders; to full obliteration by re-contouring slopes.

Keep – Roads that have a high or medium road benefit would generally be kept on the system. There may be opportunities to change maintenance levels to help decrease maintenance costs.

Keep road and review for further analysis and/or mitigation – Roads in this category have a need to maintain access but also have environmental concerns. Further analysis that is more site-specific may be necessary to determine how to best mitigate the environmental effects. Measures such as resurfacing, improving drainage structures, gating to reduce use but still allow access or even reconstruction may be employed to mitigate the environmental effects.

Rating Low Medium High

Low Consider

decommission Keep Keep

Medium

Consider decommission

Keep Keep

High Consider

decommission

Keep road and review for

further analysis and/or

mitigation

Keep road and review for

further analysis and/or

mitigation

Figure H-3. Roads analysis matrix

Map VI-1 in the 2004 Roads Analysis shows that the road system in the Bybee project planning area rated from a low to medium environmental concern. As part of this project’s roads analysis, the road system in the project planning area was analyzed to identify roads with a low road benefit (not needed for recreation needs, fire needs, vegetation management needs, special uses, road maintenance facilities, access to private lands, access to public agency lands, and road maintenance condition) in close proximity to streams. In figure H-4, roads segments shown in Pink have the potential for decommissioning.

Environmental Cost

Road Benefit

Appendix H

H-15

Figure H-4. Roads to decommission

A. Analysis Process (Paper and Field) Most candidate stands have been previously logged, primarily using tractor and skyline/cable systems. Today, some terrain would require partial suspension systems on stands that had previously been cable logged without suspension in the past.

The proposal of system(s) to be used in any given stand is based on existing classified road access, topography, temporary road construction needs, and the economic and technical feasibility for each treatment unit. One of two primary concerns involved with use of the various logging systems is the potential detrimental effects to soils. New temporary roads may be necessary due to the need for a change in the logging system design or to access areas that lack adequate access, reflecting an adherence to current standards and guidelines in the Rogue River Forest Plan. Soil concerns elevate when ground-based equipment is considered for use on steeper slopes, sensitive riparian areas, sensitive soil types, or unstable areas.

Conversely, there is an operational concern for economics between the various systems being considered (i.e., ground based systems are most economic from an operational cost viewpoint, skyline systems increase in operational costs, and helicopter systems are the most costly). Road access and landing accessibility and construction costs are other factors that are considered.


H-16

1. Considerations in Logging Systems and Transportation Access Planning The analysis area for logging systems and transportation access planning includes those roads that access or are proposed to be used in conjunction with Bybee Vegetation Management Project activities. Potential units were proposed considering logical and economic access for these systems. Planning then further segregated and rearranged systems and potential logging settings considering:

Refined silvicultural opportunities (exclusion of too young or not overly dense) Exclusion of clearly unsuitable areas Exclusion of stands clearly representing late-successional habitat Logical road access considering existing and proposed roads Logging systems and their capabilities Consideration of logical operational setting size

B. Logging System Options Within the Bybee project planning area, logging system options include ground-based systems, skyline cable systems, and aerial (helicopter) systems. The logging systems described below are not defining the only possible type of equipment that can be used during implementation, but instead are providing a description of the potentially used equipment and methods for the purposes of analysis. Calling for tractor or skyline yarding in the proposed action or other action alternatives simply establishes a baseline of impacts that have been analyzed. In the event that the proposed temporary roads that would have provided access to certain units are not included in the final decision notice, that lack of access would not preclude these stands from being available for harvest using helicopters, or any other system, so long as their impacts do not exceed what has already been analyzed in this EA.

1. Ground Based Systems This refers to a group of logging methods that may include, but is not limited to, the locally available harvesting equipment described below. Typically, logs are felled using manual or mechanical means (such as a feller-buncher), and then the logs are skidded or forwarded to a landing area, where they would be loaded onto a truck. These ground-based systems are only utilized on terrain where slopes are less than 35 percent.

Landings for units with ground-based systems can generally be located on gentle ground. If the project specifies that tops be left attached to the top log in ground based units, some log processing would be needed on the landings (i.e., the whole tree system, see below). This need would require slightly larger landings in order to accommodate the residual slash from the top log and residual limbs. Log processing can be accomplished by a relatively small and inexpensive “pull-thru” log processor or a more expensive and more efficient mechanical processor.

Tractor – In this system, a cutter would ‘fall’ (cut down the tree), then ‘limb’ (cut off the limbs) and ‘buck’ (cut into lengths) the tree in the ‘bed’ where it landed when it was felled. ‘Choker’ cables are attached to the logs and a tractor equipped with a winch uses a ‘bull line’ to pull the logs from their beds into the pre-designated skid trail.

Appendix H

H-17

When a group of logs is assembled into a ‘turn’ (a group of logs that will be dragged at one time), the chokers are gathered together, the leading ends of the logs are suspended above the ground behind the tractor by way of an integral arch or similar apparatus, and the trailing end of the logs drag along the ground on the way back to the landing. At the landing, a ‘front-end’ or a ‘knuckle-boom’ loader is used to load logs ‘decked’ (piled) at the landing onto log trucks.

Rubber-tired Skidder – This system is essentially the same as tractor logging in technique, although the skidding equipment has some operational and functional differences. While most tractors have a rigid frame and steel tracks with cleats that run along a rigid rail and tend to churn up some soil when it turns, rubber-tired skidders have no tracks (hence rubber-tired), are often articulated in their middle instead of having a rigid frame, and they displace less topsoil than a tractor would when they turn. Both types of equipment have their advantages, depending on the situation.

Feller-Buncher – In some situations, a feller-buncher may also be used to fell trees and gather them into bunches to facilitate skidding, in lieu of manual felling. In this process, the feller-buncher makes a limited number of forays off of the designated skid trails to fell and “gather” several trees at a time, then carries them back to the main skid trail where it places them in small bunches that make the skidding process more cost effective. The soils impacts from these “ghost trails” are usually considered acceptable. Since the equipment normally passes over the same place only one or two times, it does not compact the soil to the extent seen in the pre-located skid trails. This system is generally suitable where the trees to be harvested are small, whole-tree yarding is deemed acceptable, and the need to leave limbs and tops out in the forest for long term site productivity is not evident.

Harvester-Forwarder – A harvester and forwarder are two separate pieces of equipment. The harvester (while traveling on pre-designated harvester trails) reaches its boom out to cut the tree, and lays it down approximately perpendicular to the axis of the skid trail. Rollers on the cutting head of the harvester then pull the tree through cutting knives, which drop the limbs in the harvester trail in front of the harvester as they are severed. As each pre-determined length of log is fed through the de-limbing knives, logs are bucked from the tree and allowed to fall into a stack of uniform length logs alongside the harvester trail. As the harvester travels through the unit, it rides on the bed of limbs that act as a cushion to help minimize soil compaction. Later, a forwarder uses the same trails to pick up the logs, load them onto its bunk, and transport the logs to the landing, completely free of the ground rather than dragging them behind. Since the logs are transported free of the ground and the weight is evenly distributed over the forwarder’s wheels, the resulting ground pressure is less than that of other ground-based systems. This method not only minimizes soil compaction, but virtually eliminates any exposure of subsoil so there is rarely any detrimental displacement or erosion. Harvesters are often used to pre-bunch logs throughout a harvest unit for later yarding to the landing by a skidder or cable system. Such pre-bunching is economically efficient, but practically limited in areas such as the Bybee project planning area where soil compaction constraints limit machines to existing skid roads. These machines can only reach so far, and there are generally areas between designated skid roads that cannot be reached by these machines.


H-18

Designated Skid Roads – ‘Designated skid roads’ are routinely prescribed to limit the area that would experience soil compaction by heavy equipment, to ensure that Forest standards and guidelines would be met. Pre-bunching in unreachable areas between designated skid roads can be considered if it occurs when soils are frozen, or are sufficiently dry to prevent compaction, or when adequate slash is available and used to effectively cushion such operations to prevent compaction, or when the number of passes over “ghost trails” would be so few that the level of compaction experienced will not exceed the threshold for adverse impacts.

2. Skyline-Cable Systems This method of transporting logs from stumps to landings utilizes a wire rope cable that is suspended between two high points. This cable (or skyline) functions as an overhead track for a load-carrying carriage. Cables, or other devices attached to the carriage, lift logs and pull them into a skyline corridor. The carriage is then pulled to the landing by a mainline powered by a yarder. The skyline provides vertical lift so that the logs have their leading end suspended above the ground during inhaul. In some cases, the entire log may be suspended above the ground. Next to aerial systems, this is the next most expensive harvest system.

3. Helicopter Though not specifically planned for the vast majority of this project, heavy-lift helicopters could be used to fly the logs from where they are cut to a landing where they are loaded on trucks for haul to a mill. Helicopters are divided into three classes, depending on their lift capabilities. Helicopters have high operating costs and are usually utilized where there are specific resource concerns for ground disturbance or where road building is not desired.

C. Mitigation Measures and Potential Contract Language Note: Other methods and equipment may be identified during sale preparation and/or field verification.

C(T)6.42# – Special Yarding/Skidding Methods. (1/93) Methods other than those specified may be approved. When appropriate, such approval shall include changes in current contract rates and sale area map shall be revised.

Table H-2. Yarding / skidding methods

Yarding / skidding methods Units

1 All skyline logging will be done with equipment capable of suspending one end of the log; up to 150-foot lateral yarding required to skyline corridors.

all skyline areas

2 The carriage shall be positioned such that during lateral yarding, logs are yarded away from stream courses.

all skyline areas

3 Yarding corridors shall target a spacing of no closer than 150 feet as much as possible

all skyline areas

4 Skyline corridors shall be only wide enough to allow free passage of the carriage and turn of logs. Corridors shall normally not exceed 12 feet in width.

all skyline areas

5 A carriage capable of a means of pulling slack and maintaining a fixed position on the skyline during lateral in-haul as required.

all skyline areas

6 Location of all skyline roads and tail trees shall be agreed upon by the Forest Service prior to felling.

all skyline areas

Appendix H

H-19

Yarding / skidding methods Units

7 Tail trees and intermediate supports may be necessary to achieve suspension requirements.

all skyline areas

8 All yarding across designated stream courses and within 50 feet slope distance of designated streams must be done with the logs suspended free of the ground.

all skyline areas

9 All yarding across wet areas must be done with the logs suspended free of the ground.

all skyline areas

10

Helicopter yarding specified. Logs must be broken free of their beds vertically and totally suspended during the in-haul except that during log pick-up, logs may move up to 50 feet in any direction from their original lay when required by local conditions or circumstances.

all helicopter areas

11 Trees shall be felled, insofar as safety permits, to angle in the direction of skidding.

all ground based areas

12 Tractor/skid trails or harvester-forwarder trails shall be approved by the Forest Service prior to felling.


13 Skid trails shall be located, as much as possible on skid trails used in previous logging operations.


14 Skidders will stay on approved skid trails and landings at all times. Skid trails will be on average greater than 100 feet apart, except where converging near the landing.


15 Skidders equipped with an integral arch and winch system capable of elevating the leading ends of the logs during in-haul will be required.


16 Ground based skidding equipment shall not operate on slopes greater than 35 percent unless otherwise approved by the Forest Service.


Table H-3. Yarding / skidding equipment

Yarding / skidding equipment Units

1 The carriage must be capable of lateral yarding up to 150 feet perpendicular from the skyline (either side).

all skyline areas

2 A yarding system (helicopter) capable of lifting and transporting logs fully suspended at least 3,000 feet.

all helicopter areas

Potential Prospectus Language: Note: Other prospectus statements may be identified during field verification and/or sale preparation.

1. Payload analysis calculations for skyline equipment were based on specific skyline diameters, tower heights, log lengths, and assumed a motorized carriage. One end log suspension and full log suspension were analyzed.

2. In order to get adequate skyline deflection for payloads, tail trees may be necessary in some skyline units and skyline settings.

3. In order to get adequate skyline deflection for payloads, intermediate supports may be necessary in some skyline units and skyline settings (multi-span skyline system).

4. Multiple stump guyline anchors or machine anchors may be needed on some landings. 5. A helicopter yarding system capable of lifting 4,500 pounds at an elevation of 3,500 feet

above sea level at 69 oF, and transporting logs fully suspended at least 3,000 feet uphill and downhill.

6. Pre-bunching may be allowed in helicopter units on slopes less than 50 percent upon approval by the Forest Service.


H-20

7. Ground skidding on slopes greater than 35 percent by use of winch lines or loaders may be allowed in small, localized areas upon approval by the Forest Service.

V. Road Access Needs The proposal of system(s) to be used in any given stand is based on existing classified road access, temporary road construction needs, as well as the economic and technical feasibility identified for each treatment unit.

The primary concern involved with use of the various logging systems is the potential detrimental effects to soils. Temporary roads may be necessary due to the need for a change in the logging system design or to access areas that lack adequate access, reflecting an adherence to current standards and guidelines set forth in the Forest Plan. Soil concerns elevate when ground-based equipment is considered for use on steeper slopes, sensitive riparian areas, sensitive soil types, or unstable areas.

There is an operational concern for economics between the various systems being considered, i.e., ground based systems are most economic from an operational cost viewpoint, skyline systems increase in operational costs, and aerial (helicopter) systems are the most costly. Road access and landing accessibility and construction costs are also factors that have been considered.

A. Existing Road (Access) Systems

1. Product Transport or Haul Hauling involves loading and transporting logs or other products on log trucks along roads associated with harvest activity areas. These roads need to be in a safe and acceptable condition for this purpose, and could require reconstruction or maintenance prior to this use. Hauling occurs on all road surface types including asphalt, aggregate gravel, and native-surfaced.

2. Classified Road Maintenance This activity includes several related activities which maintain drainage, cuts and fills and surfacing of the road prism to accommodate light and commercial road traffic, while maintaining the integrity of the road facility and minimizing effects to natural resources adjacent to the road. Much of this work is done with a motor grader, dump trucks, and backhoe.

Road maintenance includes travel way surface maintenance, drainage ditch maintenance, culvert cleaning, surface rock replacement, shaping of the roadway and ditches by blading, removal of slough materials, compacting, and other mechanized and hand work. Classified road maintenance involves activities of a lesser scale and effect than classified road reconstruction. Some items associated with road maintenance are sometimes included in contracts and identified as specified road reconditioning or reconstruction. These items typically consist or replacing road surface rock, reconditioning roads and ditches where engineering oversight of the work is needed.

It is estimated that road maintenance would be needed on the road system utilized for this project, over a number of years. This would vary by alternative due to stand treatment locations, the proposed harvest access and logging system, and the conditions preceding the need for the road. Road maintenance renders the road durable and useable, and when this project has been completed, allows it to be in a storage condition that minimizes effects on soil, water, and other resources.

Appendix H

H-21

Road maintenance includes use of rock quarries and water sources, roadside brushing, grading, ditching, rocking of perennial stream crossings on native surface roads, and other activities needed to maintain the road facility in good condition. Maintenance work is usually performed commensurate to the use of the road and the condition of the road.

3. Classified Road Reconstruction Reconstruction involves improvements to existing classified (system) roads, to make them suitable for logging equipment and harvest treatment access. Treatments could include grading, clearing, restoring road width loss, or stabilizing a cut or fill (embankment) slope that was lost due to storm damage, by placing riprap materials (large boulders) against existing slopes, and may include widening.

It is estimated that road reconstruction would be needed on portions of the road system utilized for this project, over a number of years and projects. This would vary by alternative due to stand treatment locations, the proposed harvest access and logging system, and the conditions preceding the need for the road. Performing road repairs could also be accomplished by future commercial timber sales that would include requirements to perform minor road reconstruction work and applicable road maintenance work.

Culvert replacement may occur in some stream channels and drains that relieve road ditches. Many culverts in channels are determined to be undersized to handle the water and sediment from areas above the structure. Culverts have a lifespan and effectiveness that diminishes as rust and corrosion decrease the strength and integrity of the structure. These culverts would be replaced as necessary. This project provides the opportunity to upgrade culverts for additional resource protection and enhancement.

Work would entail excavating the fill covering the current culvert and removing the culvert. Fills placed over the new pipe would be compacted and the road prism shaped to provide good drainage in and around the new culvert. Project design criteria and preventive mitigation measures would be used to minimize stream channel disturbance at the site and reduce the amount of unconsolidated material remaining in the channel after installation of the new culvert is completed.

B. Temporary Road (Access) Systems and Landings

1. Temporary Roads Temporary roads are generally proposed where single entry access is needed as part of a timber sale, for access to harvest units. Temporary roads are defined in 36 CFR 212.1 as: “Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to be part of the forest transportation system and not necessary for continuous resource management.” In this analysis, a temporary road can be further defined as a created travelway, for the purpose of transporting logs, which is built, utilized, and rehabilitated over the course of the harvest operation under the direct supervision of the Timber Sale Administrator. They typically have a lower planning, design, and initial development cost than permanent system roads. Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 223.37) require temporary roads to be re-vegetated within 10 years. These roads cannot be compared to engineered roads (permanent system roads) as they are not designed for multiple uses or long-term resource protection (e.g., all-weather maintenance). They do not add to the Forest’s road maintenance costs since all costs associated with the development, use, and rehabilitation of these roads are covered by the associated timber sale.


H-22

Temporary roads are generally less than one mile long and are open only during use and/or the life of the timber sale contract.

Temporary Roads Located on Existing Non-System Road Template – Wherever possible, temporary roads are located on existing non-system road templates, also called unauthorized roads. Unauthorized roads have been defined as roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, re-vegetated former temporary roads, and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a road. It is preferable to re-use these existing unauthorized roads rather than to construct new temporary roads whenever feasible. Regarding soils, the area within these existing locations have already been affected. Re-conditioning them for use with the current project does not contribute to any additional areas being compacted or displaced, whereas not re-using them in favor of constructing new temporary roads in a different location would create new and additional effects. Utilizing unauthorized roads provides the Forest Service a mechanism to rehabilitate them during sale activities.

For the purposes of this document “road reconstruction” refers to work that is needed on system roads. In engineering terms road reconstruction can refer to a number of activities, including heavy maintenance work such as filling ruts or reprocessing the surface. Thus, during implementation, the accumulation of road packages may indicate a higher mileage of “road reconstruction” than was listed in this document as road reconstruction.

The development of new temporary roads would be managed in accordance with water quality best management practices (BMPs) R-23. In order to prevent continued low level casual use, and to minimize resource impacts, such roads and landings would be rehabilitated at the completion of their intended use. Effective rehabilitation is generally achieved through a combination of the following measures:

Temporary culverts are removed and natural drainage configuration is re-established; Road surfaces are deeply ripped or scarified; Sideslopes are reshaped and stabilized; Fill slopes are recovered with partial recontouring; Roads are effectively drained; and Roads are blocked to further use, and Returned to vegetation production through revegetation (seeding, planting browse

species, or hardwood/conifer trees).

The final temporary road (and landing) locations and stabilization measures are determined by the Forest Service Timber Sale Administrator, with agreement by the purchaser. There would also be consultation with other Forest Service resource specialists (i.e., soil scientist, hydrologist, etc.) as necessary. The temporary roads would be located in the approximate location and be of approximately the same length as is detailed under each alternative.

Table H-4 lists the temporary roads proposed under alternative 2 (proposed action), including the mileage of the road segment and the silvicultural unit(s) that the temporary road would provide access to.

Appendix H

H-23

Table H-4. Alternative 2 temporary road construction and reconstruction

Road number Length Silvicultural unit access

Temporary road construction on existing non-system road template

1A 0.7 miles 18, 19, 21, 22, 34

1B 0.5 miles 17, 24

1C 0.4 miles 2

1D 0.2 miles 28

1E 0.1 miles 7

1F 0.3 miles 7

1G 0.5 miles 7, 10

1H 0.1 miles 10, 11

1I 0.1 miles 3

1J 1.4 miles 45, 47, 48, 77

1K 0.3 miles 70

1L 0.4 miles 70

1M 0.5 miles 72, 73, 74, 76, 78

1N 1.0 miles 32, 67, 68

1O 0.4 miles 25, 35

1P 0.2 miles 54

1Q 0.3 miles 73, 74

1R 0.1 miles 26, 35

1S 0.1 miles 35

1T 0.3 miles 33, 39

1U 0.4 miles 44

1V 0.2 miles 66, 76

1W 0.3 miles 41

Total 8.8 miles

New temporary road construction

2A 0.4 miles 5, 6

2B 1.5 miles 38, 49, 50, 51, 52

2C 1.3 miles 49, 50, 51, 52

2D 0.8 miles 67, 68

2E 0.1 miles 30

Total 4.1 miles

Table H-5 lists the temporary roads proposed under alternative 3, including the mileage of the road segment and the silvicultural unit(s) that the temporary road would provide access to.


H-24

Table H-5. Alternative 3 temporary road construction and reconstruction



1A 0.7 miles 18, 19, 21, 22, 34

1B 0.5 miles 17, 24

1C 0.4 miles 2

1E 0.1 miles 7

1F 0.3 miles 7

1G 0.5 miles 7, 10

1H 0.1 miles 10, 11

1I 0.1 miles 3

1J 1.4 miles 45, 48, 77

1K 0.3 miles 70

1L 0.4 miles 70

1M 0.5 miles 74, 78

1N 0.9 miles 32

1O 0.2 miles 35

1R 0.1 miles 26, 35

1S 0.1 miles 35

1T 0.3 miles 33, 39

1U 0.4 miles 44

1V 0.2 miles 66, 76

1W 0.3 miles 41

Total 7.8 miles

New temporary road construction

2A 0.4 miles 5, 6

2B 1.1 miles 51

2E 0.1 miles 30

Total 1.6 miles

Table H-6 lists the temporary roads proposed under alternative 4, including the mileage of the road segment and the silvicultural unit(s) that the temporary road would provide access to.

Table H-6. Alternative 4 temporary road construction



1A 0.7 miles 18, 19, 21, 22, 34

1B 0.5 miles 17, 24

1C 0.4 miles 2

1H 0.1 miles 10, 11

1O 0.2 miles 35

1U 0.4 miles 44

Total 2.3 miles

Note: No permanent classified road construction is proposed by the Bybee Project.

Appendix H

H-25

2. Landings Some of the areas associated with the candidate stands have an existing network of roads and landings from previous harvests. However, there would also be a need for some additional areas created for log landings. These would primarily occur in areas where no landings currently exist or where a change in logging systems (e.g., where skyline logging is now prescribed in areas previously ground based or railroad logged) has taken place.

These additional landings are highly variable by action alternative and the selected logging system. For example, helicopter systems typically require larger (up to 1 acre) landing areas, whereas a tractor system could utilize areas barely larger than a road-width. Tractor and skyline systems would typically require many more, but much smaller, landings.

Temporary road (and landing) locations and stabilization measures are typically determined by the Forest Service Contract Administrator, with agreement by the contractor/purchaser prior to the construction of that facility. The contract administrator may request the advice of a watershed specialist in determining the most appropriate location and stabilization measures to be applied. Special stabilization measures would be required if the need for a temporary road would extend for more than one year (seasonal mitigation measures).

VI. Economics Activities associated with the action alternatives may generate various economic benefits and costs and overall present net values or benefit cost ratios. The economic value (cash flow) of commodities provided under these proposals may be less than the associated costs.

Under all action alternatives, varying amounts of commercial timber would be made available to the local wood products industry. Revenue sharing from harvested timber would provide contributions to federal, state, and county budgets relative to the amount of timber offered for sale.

This report includes an economic analysis of the alternatives considered in detail for the proposed timber sale projects. Proposed road related activities that serve the proposed logging systems are primary elements of costs associated with these alternatives.

A. Background

1. Rogue River Forest Plan The decision to provide a sustainable and predictable supply of commercially valuable timber was made and documented in the Record of Decision for the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 1990a), as amended. One of the forest management goals in the Forest Plan is:

Provide for production of wood fiber to contribute to National needs and to benefit local economies consistent with multiple resource objectives, environmental constraints and economic efficiency. (USDA Forest Service 1990b, page 4-2)

Timber sale projects are expected to maximize net public benefits while achieving management goals for other resources in the most economically efficient manner and to contribute toward having total timber sale program benefits equal or exceed the total costs over time.


H-26

The lands of the Rogue River National Forest have demonstrated their capacity to produce timber. Timber supply is critical to the communities of southwest Oregon. The amount of timber supplied by the Forest has been and will continue to be an important part of the economic picture.

The Matrix land allocation, as stated in the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, can be described as follows:

The matrix consists of those federal lands outside the six categories of designated areas (Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, and Riparian Reserves). Most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the matrix with suitable forest lands, according to standards and guidelines. Most scheduled timber harvest (that contributing to the probable sale quantity [PSQ] not taking place in Adaptive Management Areas) takes place in the matrix. The matrix includes non-forested areas, and forested areas that are technically unsuitable for timber production, and therefore do not contribute to PSQ. (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994, page C-39)

Riparian Reserve treatments are to restore lands along all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, unstable areas, and potentially unstable areas that are subject to special standards and guidelines designed to conserve aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Standards and guidelines apply to activities in Riparian Reserves that may otherwise retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives, as defined in the 1994 Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan.

Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Reserves to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994, page C-32)

2. Analysis Area The Bybee project planning area is situated northeast of Prospect, Oregon. In this location, commercial timber products have historically been transported to the communities of White City, Medford, Grants Pass, Roseburg, and other surrounding areas. Timber industry jobs include a variety of logging, forestry, and mill positions. The current level of timber harvesting on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has dropped substantially from the levels of the mid-1980s. This decrease has contributed to a decline in the number of local jobs associated with the wood products industry in this and surrounding areas. Bybee timber sales are proposed for several sale auctions and awards (under separate and unique sales and sale names). There are three action alternatives plus a no-action alternative being considered. The geographic scale used to assess economics includes the project activity units (project areas) associated with the Bybee Project and the surrounding communities that would be affected by the proposed project.

Appendix H

H-27

B. Economic Assumptions

1. Outputs The estimated sale volume varies with each alternative between a high of 44,600 thousand board feet (MBF) in alternative 2 (proposed action), 33,700 MBF in alternative 3, and a low of 10,300 MBF in alternative 4 (table H-8). The difference in volume between the alternatives is a reduction in treatment acres due to harvesting systems and engineering considerations. After the “no harvest” Riparian Reserve acres are deducted (based on Riparian Reserve PDCs), an average volume per acre of commercial product is used to calculate the total harvest volume by yarding system and alternative.

Table H-7. Projected treatment acres and volume by alternative

Alternative 1 (no-action)

Alternative 2 (proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Tractor acres 0 acres 3,381 acres 2,501 acres 1,380 acres

Skyline acres 0 acres 207 acres 124 acres 24 acres

Helicopter acres 0 acres 34 acres 0 acres 0 acres

Total treatment acres 0 acres 3,622 acres 2,625 acres 1,404 acres

Total tractor volume (MBF) 0 MBF 40,900 MBF 31,900 MBF 10,100 MBF

Total skyline volume (MBF) 0 MBF 2,700 MBF 1,800 MBF 200 MBF

Total helicopter volume (MBF) 0 MBF 1,000 MBF 0 MBF 0 MBF

Total volume harvested (MBF) 0 MBF 44,600 MBF 33,700 MBF 10,300 MBF

Harvest volume in this EA is estimated based on generic unit prescriptions and assuming a comparable outcome when compared to similar, recent timber sale projects. The numbers in this table do not represent a target or a threshold.

2. Yarding Costs Current costs and values were used which may not reflect future costs and values, but will show a relative comparison that should remain relatively consistent into the future. Currently, log values are near a historical low and costs are high due to recent increases in fuel costs. It can be expected that log values would increase as the economy improves and demand increases.

For this analysis, the costs are estimates of logging systems and transportation needs by alternative. Each alternative has variations in the units included or dropped (which affect the average volume per acre), the number and lengths of temporary roads (which affect average yarding distances) and other variables which have a direct influence on the logging cost by alternative. The consideration of these variables resulted in slightly different average logging costs by alternative, but are all comparable to costs that have been averaged based on recent timber sale appraisals on similar terrain (table H-8).


H-28

Table H-8. Estimated yarding costs by alternative

Alternative 1 (no-action)

Alternative 2 (proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Tractor yarding $0 $8,265,000 $7,103,000 $2,451,000

Skyline yarding $0 $621,000 $447,000 $56,000

Helicopter yarding $0 $419,000 $0 $0

Total yarding costs $0 $9,305,000 $7,550,000 $2,507,000

Note: Costs are meant to be used for the relative comparison of alternatives only and do not represent actual appraised costs.

3. Roading Costs Reconstruction and maintenance of system roads and temporary road construction were identified and proposed in an effort to reduce associated harvest costs. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new temporary roads to increase access to harvest units and reduce harvest cost. Alternative 4 would only construct temporary roads on an existing non-system road template.

Additional costs are applied to the reconstruction, maintenance, and temporary road construction incurred by each alternative (table H-9). The unit costs used for this analysis were determined by using current bid rates from recent projects in the area and by using local knowledge of construction practices. The rate per mile is not specific to individual roads but rather an average cost per mile of road. Maintenance estimates were determined in the same manner with the addition of surface rock replacement assuming 1 inch of rock loss per 20 MMBF of haul. The need for collections in lieu of performance is due to multiple users at the same time.

Table H-9. Transportation cost estimates by alternative

Alternative 2


New temporary road construction 4.1 miles 1.6 miles 0 miles

Temporary road built on existing non-system road template

8.8 miles 7.8 miles 2.3 miles

Maintenance and reconstruction 59.4 miles 56.2 miles 40.6 miles

Total cost $154,000 $96,000 $25,000

New temporary road development – A created travelway, for the purpose of transporting logs, which is built, utilized, and rehabilitated over the course of the harvest operation under the direct supervision of the Timber Sale Administrator. Temporary road built on existing non-system road template – Temporary road located on existing non-system road template in an area where soils have been already been affected. Maintenance and reconstruction – This designation is for the maintenance of the all roads as a result of log haul for this project, except for alternative 1 (no-action).

4. Revenue The benefit basis of this analysis is the timber sale revenue from the estimated volume. The present value of benefits is based on current log prices for timber sold in Region 6 obtained through the Transaction Evidence Appraisal System. This amount reflects deductions for logging, general logging overhead, road construction, road re-construction, road maintenance, and temporary developments. Additional deductions may include special tree falling costs, slash disposal, environmental protection, engineering design, and operator profit and risk margin.

Appendix H

H-29

5. Economic Indicators The demands for timber harvest are most affected by regional and national economics as well as costs from other markets. One of the outputs and effects is the determination of present net value (PNV), which estimates the maximum value that might be attained by maximizing the net value of priced outputs under a non-declining flow policy. This benchmark serves as a basis for an economic comparison between benchmarks and alternatives, as well as a basis for determining the effects of various constraints on outputs and costs.

The ratio of benefit to cost (B/C) is a useful parameter of economic efficiency intended to complement the PNV calculations associated with projects. The ratio is simply the total discounted benefits divided by the total discounted costs and reflects an average value rather than the total return to the government. This ratio is a measure of cost efficiency given different levels of investment among the alternatives. It does not reflect benefits from future use of a road system developed for future harvests after this entry.

Cost increases, with all other factors held constant would reduce the likelihood that a proposed project would sell. It is obvious to have stumpage values greater than logging costs for projects to be sold. Cost efficiency analysis utilizing PNV calculations can provide an indication of whether or not a timber sale would be “cost efficient”. Increasing logging costs, with all else held constant, will result in projects being below cost.

It is important to recognize the impact more expensive harvest methods such as helicopter yarding in lieu of road construction with cable yarding or ground-based methods has on the economic feasibility of a project. Historical information has shown that the cost to tractor yard (with associated construction for road access) is the least expensive operation. As yarding systems change to cable (skyline) and helicopter, these costs increase with helicopter yarding considered as very expensive due to the price of equipment and required support of material and personnel.

C. Economic Performance of Alternatives

1. Alternative 1 (No-Action) The no-action alternative would not commercially harvest any timber, and therefore, would not generate a PNV or B/C for meaningful comparison to the action alternatives. Road maintenance costs for this alternative (table H-11) represents the cost of reoccurring system road maintenance needed regardless of hauling activities.

2. Action Alternatives The result of the economic analysis shows that the alternative 2 (proposed action) is the most economically feasible (table H-10). The proposed action has the highest positive PNV and B/C ratio. The proposed action utilizes no helicopter yarding by adding engineer specified, low impact roads and spurs to allow access for tractor and cable yarding. Alternatives 3 and 4 have negative B/C ratios with alternative 4 having the lowest PNV. Generally, this decrease of returns among the alternatives is reflected in the use of a greater percentage of high-cost yarding, (i.e., helicopters) as opposed to conventional yarding systems.


H-30

Table H-10. Present net value and benefit to cost ration comparison between alternatives

Alternative 2


Volume in MBF 44,600 MBF 34,700 MBF 10,300 MBF

Total estimated benefit or revenue from sale of timber

$20,783,600 $16,170,200 $4,799,800

Total estimated cost $9,745,000 $1,910,000 $2,697,000

PNV $11,038,600 $8,260,200 $2,102,800

B/C ratio 2.13 2.04 1.78

Note: Based on a market value of $466.00 per MBF; values and costs are meant to be used for the relative comparison of alternatives only and do not represent expected selling values or actual costs.

Region 6 uses Log Lines for west side forests in Oregon, as the basis of relative stumpage values for western Douglas-fir. Market stumpage value or the price per thousand board feet of timber contributes the most to this economic analysis, assuming road and yarding costs remain the same. Slight changes in logging costs or road construction costs do not change the B/C ratio as much as market price. To demonstrate, the outcome of an 11.5 percent increase for the price per MBF is summarized in table H-11.

Table H-11. Present net value and benefit to cost ration comparison between alternatives with an 11.5 percent increase in $/MBF

Alternative 2


Volume in MBF 44,600 MBF 34,700 MBF 10,300 MBF

Total estimated benefit or revenue from sale of timber

$23,192,000 $18,044,000 $5,356,000

Total estimated cost $9,745,000 $7,910,000 $2,697,000

PNV $13,447,000 $10,134,000 $2,659,000

B/C ratio 2.38 2.28 1.99

Note: Based on a market value of $520.00 per MBF; values and costs are meant to be used for the relative comparison of alternatives only and do not represent expected selling values or actual costs.

D. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives

1. Alternative 1 (No-Action) Alternative 1 identifies and describes the current conditions of the physical, biological, social, and economic environments associated with the candidate stands and various analysis areas. As suggested by the NEPA, a no-action alternative is included and analyzed as a benchmark against which the action alternatives can be compared. Under this scenario, alternative 1 (no-action), would not authorize any vegetation management and other connected or associated actions to obtain the purpose and need for the Bybee Vegetation Management Project. Alternative 1 would not implement the Rogue River Forest Plan, as amended.

The no-action alternative should not be confused with a baseline. Whereas a baseline is essentially a description of the affected environment at a fixed point in time, the no-action alternative for this analysis assumes that other things would happen to the affected environment, particularly in a dynamic, changing forest ecosystem over time.

Appendix H

H-31

How this ecosystem could change over time without the proposed management actions is discussed below and more fully in those sections of this EA that describe potential consequences for no-action.

The no-action alternative would not commercially harvest any timber, and thus no sawtimber or other forest products would be provided to regional mills, thus no economic value derived from the sale of forest products. No-action would not support direct, indirect, and induced employment. It would not result in increased income to the regional or local economy (including the counties). Current levels of employment in the wood products sector would not change under this alternative.

2. Action Alternatives No costs or benefits would be derived from alternative 1 (no-action) and no detailed analysis was calculated for it. However, selection of this alternative could lead to costs in the future. These costs would be associated with increased fire suppression costs, road maintenance costs, and other costs associated with failure to treat the vegetation in this area.

Alternative 2 (proposed action) proposes a variety of activities. The PNV and B/C ratio for this alternative are the highest of the three action alternatives. The total estimated cost for treatment is also the highest. Since this alternative has the highest amount of commercial harvest it maximizes the benefits to the regional economy.

Alternative 3 proposes fewer acres of commercial harvest. The PNV and B/C ratio for this alternative are less than alternative 2. The total estimated cost for treatment is the lowest. Since this alternative has less commercial harvest than alternative 2, it would be less of a benefit to the regional economy.

Alternative 4 proposes the least acres of commercial harvest. The PNV and B/C ratio for this alternative are the lowest of the three action alternatives. The total estimated cost for treatment is slightly more than alternative 4. Since this alternative has the least amount of commercial harvest it has the least amount of benefit to the regional economy.

All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The analysis is in accordance with Forest Service manual and handbook guidance to complete a financial analysis for timber sales (FSH 2409.18). It documents the financial monetary measures for timber and the financial costs of removing the timber.

3. Cumulative Effects The Cascade Managed Stands Project overlaps the Bybee project planning area. There is the potential for adjacent Bybee and Cascade Managed Stands treatment units to be combined in future timber sales, which could increase the economic efficiency of treating those units.

Given that the current log prices and reasonably foreseeable future of the regional economy, the speculation is that prices will continue to be low during the life of this proposed project. In an economically depressed area such as southwestern Oregon, the work provided by this project is potentially substantial.


H-32

Literature Cited United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990a. Final Environmental Impact

Statement. Land and Resource Management Plan. Rogue River National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990b. Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5315122.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Upper Rogue River Watershed Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Prospect, Oregon. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5315609.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004. Basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-120. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. Available online at: http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newroda.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. “Recovery Action 32 habitat evaluation methodology, version 1.3.” Medford Bureau of Land Management, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, USFWS Roseburg Field Office.

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

Appendix H Trans Logging Econ -...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix H Trans Logging Econ -...