Tobias Ecosystem Restoration Project Transportation/Operations/Economics...

Tobias Ecosystem Restoration Project Transportation/Operations/Economics Report

Prepared by:

Francis J. Yurczyk, Forester/Transportation Planner

USFS TEAMS Enterprise Unit

for:

Western Divide Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest

Tulare County, California

02-2015

Updated 11-17-2015

Tobias Ecosystem Restoration Project, Transportation/Operations/Economics Report

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 TTY). 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 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Page i

Table of Contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Issues ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Resource Indicators and Measures ........................................................................................................ 2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Affected Environment .............................................................................................................................. 3 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................ 3 Management Direction .......................................................................................................................... 4

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................................... 5 Alternative 1 – No Action ..................................................................................................................... 5 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 6 Alternative 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Activity summary under Alternatives 2 and 3 ...................................................................................... 7 Operations under Alternative 2 ............................................................................................................. 8 Operations under Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................... 21 Non-harvest Vegetation Treatment Operations Under Alternatives 2 and 3 ...................................... 21

References Cited ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................ 29 Appendix A – Tobias Project Alternatives 2 and 3 Treatment Maps ..................................................... 29 Appendix B – Tobias Project, Cost Summary ........................................................................................ 29 Appendix C – Tobias Project, Alternative 2 LogCost Details ................................................................ 29 (1 spreadsheet, group) ............................................................................................................................. 29 Appendix D – Tobias Project, Alternative 2 HaulCost Details .............................................................. 29 (1 spreadsheet group) .............................................................................................................................. 29 Appendix E – Tobias Project, Timber Sale Evaluation (model spreadsheets) ....................................... 29 Appendix F – Tobias Project, QuickSilver7 Harvest PNV (model spreadsheets) .................................. 29 Appendix G – Tobias Project, QuickSilver7 Project PNV (model spreadsheets) .................................. 29 Appendix H – Tobias Project, Transportation GIS Files ........................................................................ 29 Appendix I – Tobias Project, Transportation Operations Design Features ............................................ 29 Appendix J – Tobias Project, Deferred Maintenance ............................................................................. 29 Appendix K - Tobias Project, Temporary Road Costs ........................................................................... 29

Appendices are filed on O drive, each in a separate subfolder at:

NFS\Sequoia\Project\WDRD\ProjectPlanning\Tobias\4_REPORTS\TransportationOperations\

List of Tables

Table 1. Existing National Forest system roads within the project area ...................................................... 3 Table 2. Proposed activities under alternatives 2 and 3 ................................................................................ 7 Table 3. Existing National Forest system roads to be used for hauling under alternative 2 ......................... 8 Table 4. National Forest system road haul route maintenance for alternative 2 ......................................... 16 Table 5. Temporary roads to be constructed under alternative 2 ................................................................ 17 Table 6. Existing temporary roads to be used under alternative 2 .............................................................. 17 Table 7. Alternative 2 Sawlog acres, volume and removal costs ................................................................ 19 Table 8. Harvest related activities costs ...................................................................................................... 20


Page 1

Introduction The Tobias Ecosystem Restoration Project (Tobias Project or project) includes proposed vegetative fuel

treatments designed to provide ecological restoration by thinning dense, timber stands and by prescribed

burning.

There is a need for ecological restoration of a healthy, diverse, forest ecosystem that is resilient to the

effects of wildfire, drought, disease and other disturbances.

The 11,000 acre analysis area is located in the Greenhorn Mountains, Portuguese Pass area, of the

Western Divide Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest, between Alta Sierra and Johnsondale in Tulare

County, with a small area within Kern County, California.

Vegetation types consists primarily of Sierra mixed conifer with areas of red fir, oak, pine plantations,

chaparral and open meadows. Proposed actions would move the existing conditions toward desired

conditions identified in the Sequoia National Forest LRMP as amended by The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment (SNFPA 2004) consistent with the Mediated Settlement Agreement to the Sequoia National

Forest LRMP (MSA 1990).

Project objectives include:

Increase forest age diversity, density, and stand structure.

Modify tree species composition to favor oaks and pines over incense-cedar and white fir.

Modify fuel conditions within the project area to reduce risk of uncharacteristically large, stand-

replacing fires.

Improve wildlife habitat for sensitive, forest-dependent wildlife species, including the Pacific

fisher, California spotted owl, California condor and goshawk. Suitable wildlife habitat is now

limited by small tree size, fragmentation, and stand-replacing fire.

Prepare an economical, efficient project that requires the least outside funding to offset costs, and

provide support for local economies, while not compromising other resource values.

The proposed action to restore a healthy, diverse, fire-resistant forest structure through vegetative

treatments that reduce tree densities, reduce fuel loads and modify species composition.

Reducing stand density by removing understory trees and changing forest composition, would reduce risk

of uncharacteristic wildfires and insect infestation risks that could adversely affect soil, water resources

and wildlife habitat. Vegetation treatments would reduce hazardous fuels in the project area.

Proposed actions would provide a cost-efficient vegetation treatment operation within forest plan

standards to maintain, and manage a transportation system that supports management objectives including

obliterating or decommissioning unneeded system roads (USDA.FS 1988).

The purpose of this transportation, operations and economic analysis is to determine the most efficient

and environmentally sound methods to access, remove products, and treat on-site fuels on the proposed

Tobias Ecosystem Restoration Project while maintaining water quality, soil productivity and protecting

other resource values. Vegetation treatment methods (Tobias Forest Ecosystem Restoration Project

Proposed Silvicultural Activities and Predicted Forest Vegetation Changes Affecting Environmental

Quality 2016) would meet forest plan goals and standards to provide and maintain a safe and efficient


Forest transportation system that incorporates best management practices (BMPs) that meet water quality

standards, resource management and access needs.

The transportation system should be safe and responsive to public needs and desires, affordable and

efficient, produce minimal adverse effects on ecological processes and ecosystem health and diversity,

does not reduce productivity of the land, and is in balance with available funding for needed management

actions

Issues

Public scoping identified the operation issue that removing trees larger than 8 inches in diameter may

have adverse effects on wildlife and other resources. This issue generated alternative 3. Alternative 3

addresses potential effects on fuels, wildlife, visuals, soils, and watershed resources related to using

mechanical equipment to thin trees larger than 10 inches in diameter. Alternative 3 would limit thinning to

hand felling trees less than 10 inches diameter. California spotted owl habitat was excluded from harvest.

Resource Indicators and Measures

System roads used for access to treat and remove forest fuels from the project area would require

maintenance. The Sequoia Forest Plan direction is to maintain, and manage a transportation system that

supports management objectives (USDA FS 1988).

Merchantable live and recently dead understory trees proposed for removal on parts of the project area

could be offered for sale as sawlogs or other products. Sale and removal of forest products would help

meet Forest Plan allowable sale quantity goals and desired future condition of the forest. Timber removal

would help achieve sustained yield, even flow of high-quality forest products.

Opportunities to gather firewood would be maintained by keeping some roads open seasonally to provide

the public an opportunity to use logging residue for firewood.

Methodology

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The spatial boundary for operations and transportation system needs is the project boundary and national

forest system roads outside of the project area boundary, needed for access and to haul products from

harvest units.

Most proposed action operations would occur two to five years after the decision is signed, prescribed

burning would take longer to complete. Effects were determined for the specific treatment units within

the project area (Appendix A, alternatives 2 and 3 maps). Costs were developed for the expected life of

the project, financial efficiency for proposed activity costs and revenues were discounted at four

percent/year.

Effects of temporary roads and main skidtrails would be long term where vegetation recovery would be

longer than five years. Road maintenance effects related to proposed project activities would be short

term. Recurrent, scheduled system road maintenance would continue (long term) after proposed

operations are complete.


Page 3

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

The 11,000-acre Tobias Ecosystem Restoration Project is located in the Portuguese Pass area of

southeastern Tulare County, with a small area within Kern County, California.

The arterial, collector, and local roads are suitable for proposed operations access and product hauling.

Arterial or major collector roads are in good condition with highest priority for seasonal maintenance.

Secondary roads are maintained for high clearance vehicles. Road maintenance funding is limited with

primary roads receiving highest maintenance priority.

The project area has about 6 miles of maintenance level 4 roads, 7 miles of maintenance level 3, open

system roads suitable for passenger car travel, 31 miles of maintenance level 2 roads suitable for high

clearance vehicles and 5 miles of maintenance level 1 closed roads. Access for resource management

includes consideration for soil and water protection, public safety, efficiency of access, and effects on

wildlife and other resources.

The existing road system provides access for fire protection, administration, recreation, timber harvest,

firewood gathering and other forest product removal, fuels management, mineral extraction, private land

access and other forest management activities. About 11.29 miles of system roads, not needed for

foreseeable future resource management, are planned to be decommissioned. No other road management

or travel management changes are proposed on this project.

Table 1 displays existing system roads in the project area, maintenance level, surface and function.

Table 1. Existing National Forest system roads within the project area

Road Number

Road Name Miles MLa

Surface Function

23S16 Sugarloaf 5.89 4 bituminous arterial

24S02 Baker Point 2.6 2 native local

24S03 Schultz 1.50 2 native local

24S08 Tobias Peak Lookout 0.9 2 native local

24S09 Panorama 0.33 2 native local

24S10 Portuguese Meadow 0.9 2 native local

24S15 Portuguese Meadow 7.33 3 Improved native arterial

24S15A Portuguese Meadow 0.5 1 native local

24S24 Tobias Meadow 1.3 2 Improved native local

24S24A Tobias Meadow 0.60 1 native local

24S25 McSwiney Bldvd 2.4 2 native local

24S25A Sunday Peak 0.30 1 native local

24S25B Sunday Peak 0.30 1 native local

24S28 Tyler Meadow 0.4 2 native local

24S34 Tyler Meadow 1.55 2 native local

24S34A Tyler Meadow 0.3 2 native local

24S35 Schultz Creek 7.8 2 native collector

24S35A Schultz Creek 0.9 2 native local

24S35C Schultz Creek 1.6 2 native local

24S37 South Dry Meadow 1.10 2 native local

24S37A South Dry Meadow 0.60 1 native local

24S45 Stormy Canyon 0.47 2 native Local

24S45A Stormy Canyon 0.30 1 native local

24S46 Deep Creek 1.20 1 native local

24S46A Deep Creep 0.46 2 native local


Road Number

Road Name Miles MLa

Surface Function

24S50 Greenhorn Mountain 1.1 2 native collector

24S77 East Horse 0.8 2 native local

24S80 Lower Dry Meadow 1.37 2 native local

24S80A Lower Dry Meadow 0.68 2 native local

24S80B Lower Dry Meadow 0.29 1 native local

24S80C Lower Dry Meadow 0.45 2 native local

24S83 Upper Dry Meadow 1.36 2 native local

24S83A Upper Dry Meadow 0.76 1 native local

25S37 Cave 0.60 2 native local

25S37A Cave 0.50 1 native local

25S38A Bull Run Basin 0.53 2 native local aML – maintenance level

Road Maintenance Level Descriptions

o Maintenance level 1 roads are closed. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to protect

adjacent resources and to protect the road for future management activities. Maintenance

emphasis is to ensure drainage facilities are functioning.

o Maintenance level 2 roads are open for use by high clearance vehicles. Maintenance level 2 roads

may not be suitable for passenger car travel.

o Maintenance level 3 roads are open and maintained for passenger car travel by a prudent driver,

user comfort or convenience are not priorities. Roads are typically low speed, single lane with

turnouts and could have spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or

processed material.

o Road Maintenance Level 4 roads provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at

moderate travel speeds.

o Road Maintenance Level 5 roads are designed to provide a high degree of user comfort and

convenience. These roads are normally double-lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate

surfaced and dust abated.

There is a backlog of maintenance work to be done on system roads in the project area. Existing deferred

road maintenance needs and estimated costs are included in Appendix J.

Management Direction

Desired Condition

As noted above, the Sequoia Forest Plan direction is to maintain, and manage a transportation system that

supports management objectives. This direction would maintain a road system that is safe, responsive to

public needs, environmentally sound, affordable to manage, and meets water quality standards and best

management practices. Logging or road construction would not be allowed where it would cause impacts

to exceed resource concern thresholds (USDA FS 1988).

Regulatory Framework

Land and Resource Management Plan

Management direction is under the Sequoia National Forest LRMP (USDA FS 1988) as amended by The

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA 2004) and is consistent with the Mediated Settlement

Agreement to the Sequoia National Forest LRMP (MSA 1990).


Page 5

Timber harvest would help achieve sustained yield, even flow of high-quality forest products, including

timber and non-timber forest products.

Management Area

Vegetation treatment activities are proposed in management areas CF5 and CF7.

CF5: Conifer Forest—Wildlife, Dispersed Recreation, and Timber Emphasis; 950 acres within the project

area.

Management emphasis in CF5 is to maintain diverse timber age classes, improve wildlife habitat and

maintain quality recreational experiences.

CF7: Conifer Forest—Timber Emphasis; 7,154 acres within the project area.

The objective is to promote sawtimber growth and harvest softwood products. Management of the area

would be done with a variety of silvicultural practices and timber removal systems. Firewood gathering

would be a by-product of softwood harvest.

Other compatible use opportunities in CF5 and CF7 areas include both developed and dispersed

recreation, wildlife habitat management, and grazing, in combination with timber harvest.

MC5: Mixed Chaparral—Wildlife and Dispersed Recreation Emphasis; 2,663 acres in the project area.

Management emphasis in MC5 is to maintain diverse timber age classes, improve wildlife habitat and

quality recreational experiences. No timber harvest is proposed in MC5 management area.

The Tobias Ecosystem Restoration Project, Proposed Silvicultural Activities and Predicted Forest

Vegetation Changes Affecting Environmental Quality Report (Powell 2013) describes proposed

treatments, forest plan goals, standards and guidelines and environmental effects of proposed vegetation

treatments.

Federal Law

Transportation and operations effects analysis and disclosure follow National Forest regulations under the

National Environmental Policy Act.

State and Local Law

The California Forest Practices Rules 2013 (California Forest Practice Rules 2013) includes rules relevant

to timber harvesting, road construction, reconstruction and maintenance, temporary road construction,

culvert installation, vegetation treatment, slash management and prescribed fire. California Forest

Practices Rules 2013 would be met or exceeded on harvest operations, temporary road use and closure,

system road maintenance and on-site fuel treatment activities.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no timber harvest, no vegetation treatment and no

additional road maintenance. No costs would be incurred and no revenue earned from harvest and sale of

timber. Roads would be maintained under the annual road maintenance schedule as limited funds are

available. No additional road maintenance or road improvements would be done and roads not needed for

future management would not be decommissioned to improve soil and water quality.


Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Under alternative 2, forest stands would be thinned to restore a healthy, diverse, fire-resistant forest

structure. Vegetation treatments would reduce tree density, reduce fuel loads, and modify species

composition (Table 2). An estimated $1,599,317 (delivered sawlog value) revenue would be realized

from sale of sawlogs.

Proposed vegetation treatments include the following:

o Restoration thinning would support uneven-aged forest structure to accelerate late successional

growth. Mechanical thinning would remove overcrowded trees between 10 and 30 inches in

diameter in mixed conifer and plantation stands, while favoring fire-resistant oak and pine. This

treatment would promote healthy fire-resistant stands and large tree characteristics. It would

provide for structural diversity, while maintaining key wildlife habitat structures such as large live

trees, snags, and downed logs. Mechanical thinning would be implemented with a commercial

timber sale.

o Fuel treatment would include prescribed burning and mechanical and hand thinning trees, to

increase forest stand heterogeneity and reduce fuels. Thinning would help release naturally-

regenerated or planted pine, fir, and oak trees. Fuel treatments would include pile and burn,

masticate, and firewood removal. Prescribed burning would be done on the majority of the project

area when weather and fuel conditions are appropriate to meet fuel load reduction objectives.

Burning would be accomplished over a period of 10 years, to re-introducing fire to the project

area. Prescribed burning is planned on areas with other vegetation treatments to maximize the

effectiveness of fuel reduction and to help restore diverse vegetation age classes, tree sizes, and

species composition.

o Live and recently dead understory trees proposed for removal on parts of the project area could be

offered as sawlogs under favorable market conditions, or offered as other products. Sale and

removal of forest products would help meet Forest Plan allowable sale quantity goals and desired

future condition of the forest.

There are about 50 miles of system road in the project area. The existing road system, with proposed

temporary roads, is adequate for proposed project treatment activities. About 28 miles of existing

National Forest system roads would be maintained and used for equipment access and hauling timber

products.

About 1.78 miles of existing temporary (unauthorized roads) roads would be opened, improved and used

for hauling products. About 3.70 miles of temporary roads would be constructed to access harvest units.

All temporary roads, including unauthorized roads used for harvest, would be closed and disturbed areas

restored (decommissioned) after operations are complete.

About 11.29 miles of system roads no longer needed for resource management would be

decommissioned. About 3.66 miles, of the 11.29 miles, would be used for harvest operations and

decommissioned after treatment operations are complete. About 2.7 of the 11.29 miles would be

converted to trails. No other permanent system road changes are proposed on the Tobias project. Total

system road miles would be reduced from about 50 to 39 miles. Road density in the project area would

be reduced from 2.9 miles/square mile to 2.25.

Prescribed burn is proposed on 4,898 acres under alternatives 2 and 3. Prescribed burning proposed on

4,898 acres, would follow harvest and other mechanical treatments to further reduce fuels.


Page 7

Hand and mechanical treatments would include cutting live and dead trees. Merchantable cut trees would

be removed as sawlogs or other products from harvest units. Submerchantable trees and other fuels would

be treated on site. Treatment areas are displayed on maps in Appendix A.

Alternative 2 activities include:

Harvest (commercial thin) 1,117 acres

Open for use and restore about 1.78 miles of existing unauthorized roads

Construct and restore about 3.73 miles of temporary roads

Hand fell excess small diameter trees (thin) 1,239 acres

Hand pile slash concentrations on 1,239 acres

Machine pile slash concentrations on 600 acres

Chip slash on 120 acres

Burn piles on 1,839 acres

Masticate small trees and shrubs on 2,158 acres

Underburn 384 acres

Prescribe burn 4,898 acres

Decommission 11.29 miles of system road

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3, hand treatment and mastication would be used to thin trees (less than 10 inches dbh)

and shrubs. Prescribed fire would be used to reduce fuels. Personal firewood gathering would be

permitted from treated areas. No commercial products would be removed.

Alternative 3 activities include:

Fell excess small diameter trees (thin) 1,636 acres

Pile slash concentrations on 1,516 acres

Burn piles on 1,516

Masticate small trees and shrubs on 2,878 acres

Underburn 384 acres

Prescribe burn, 4,898 acres

Decommission 11.29 miles of system road

Activity summary under Alternatives 2 and 3

Table 2 displays proposed activities under alternatives 2 and 3.

Table 2. Proposed activities under alternatives 2 and 3

Activity Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Groundbased skid harvest 720 acres 0

Skyline yard harvest 397 acres 0

Improve and maintain haul route roads 29 miles 0

Open existing non-system roads for use and restore sitesa

1.78 miles 0

Construct and restore temporary roads 3.70 miles 0

Hand fell sub-merchantable trees, thin 1239 acres 1636 acres

Hand pile slash 1239 acres 1516 acres

Machine pile slash 600 acres 0

Chip slash 120 acres 120 acres

Burn piles 1839 acres 1516 acres

Under burn 384 acres 384 acres

Masticate fuels 2158 acres 2878 acres


Decommission system roads 11.29 miles 11.29 miles

Convert system road to trail 2.73 miles 2.73 miles

Prescribe burn 4898 acres 4898 acres

Total area treated 5412 acres 5412 acres aUnauthorized roads proposed to be used and sites (road beds) restored after use

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures

Project design features related to transportation and operations are included in Appendix I. All resource

design features are included in the EIS.

Operations under Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2

Haul Route Maintenance

Alternative 2 road maintenance includes ongoing upkeep necessary to retain or restore the road to

approved management objectives. Maintenance activities could involve hazard tree removal, cross drain

construction and surface drain installation, culvert inlet armoring, minor culvert installation and

replacement, drop inlet installation, catch basin cleaning and reshaping, road side brushing, ditch

cleaning, and surface grading. The intention of these activities is to maintain existing road features and to

comply with best management practice standards. Maintenance would be performed to the standard of

each road’s assigned maintenance level. Maintenance costs on roads used for timber hauling would be

included in the appraisal (if a timber sale contract is used for implementation) and road work would be

done before, during, and after timber removal actives. System roads not associate with timber harvest

activities would be maintained under the scheduled District road maintenance program. Maintenance

costs associated with roads used to access on-site vegetation treatment areas would be provided with

recurrent scheduled road maintenance funds. Table 3 displays haul roads under alternative 2.

Table 3 displays system roads that would be used for hauling sawlogs.

Table 3. Existing National Forest system roads to be used for hauling under alternative 2

Road Number

Road Name Haul Use

Miles MTC Level Surface Jurisdiction Function

23S16 Sugarloaf 15.09 4 Paved FS Arterial

24S02 Baker Point 2.50 2 Native FS Collector

24S03 Schultz 0.86 2 Native FS Local

24S08 Tobias Peak Lookout 0.69 2 Native FS Local

24S09 Panorama 0.28 2 Native FS Local

24S10 Portuguese Meadow 0.65 2 Native FS Local

24S15 Portuguese Meadow 1.30 3 Native FS Arterial

24S15A Portuguese Meadow 0.46 1 Improved Native FS Local

24S24 Tobias Meadow 2.16 2 Improved Native FS Local

24S24A Tobias Meadow 0.30 1 Native FS Local

24S25 McSwiney Blvd 1.13 2 Improved Native FS Local

24S25B McSwiney Blvd 0.30 1 Native FS Local

24S28 Tyler Meadow 0.37 2 Native FS Local

24S34 Tyler Meadow 1.55 2 Native FS Local

24S50 Greenhorn Mountain 1.03 2 Native FS Collector

24S80 Lower Dry Meadow 0.29 2 Native FS Local

24S80A Lower Dry Meadow 0.07 2 Native FS Local

Total 29.03


Page 9

Haul roads, in the project area, by maintenance level (ML) include; ML 1, 1.06 miles; ML 2, 11.58 miles;

ML 3, 1.30 miles; ML 4, 15.09 miles.

Temporary Roads

In addition to the existing road system, about 5.48 miles of temporary roads are needed under alternative

2 to access harvest areas. Of that total, about 1.78 miles of proposed temporary road would be located or

reconstructed on existing, non-system road locations (unauthorized roads) that have been used for past

timber harvest (cleared disturbed areas). About 3.70 miles of temporary road construction is proposed.

Twelve foot wide temporary roads would be adequate for equipment needed to harvest timber proposed

for removal. Temporary road construction on 20 percent side slopes or less would average about 1.8 acres

clearing per mile. Temporary roads constructed on 30 percent side slope would have an average 2.5

cleared acres per mile. Roads constructed on 50 percent side slope would have about 3.5 cleared acres per

mile. Total cleared area for proposed temporary road construction would be about 10 acres, less than 0.1

percent of the project area.

Temporary roads would be obliterated or decommissioned and disturbed areas restored by, scarifying to

reduce soil compaction where needed, drainage features restored, disturbed areas planted to reestablish

vegetation cover and woody debris placed on the road bed clearing to discourage off road vehicle use

after operations are complete. Placing woody debris on the road beds would help restore soil organic

material.

Temporary roads would not become part of the long-term road system. Temporary roads needed for

harvest operations are identified and described below by treatment area or unit groups. Some temporary

road segments would have grades over 10 percent with pitches up to 18 percent, suitable for hauling on

native surface roads under normal operation period conditions. Harvest areas and proposed temporary

road locations are displayed on Tobias project area alternative 2 map in Appendix A.

Temporary Road Descriptions

Proposed temporary roads to be constructed are shown on ARC GIS file “TempRds092314”. Existing

temporary roads to be used for harvest operations are shown on ARC GIS file

“ExistingTempRdsUsed092514”. Road numbers and length are included in respective ARC attribute

tables (Appendix H).

Temporary Road Construction

Temporary roads 1, 2 and 6: Proposed temporary road 1 (ARC GIS file TempRds092314, Appendix H),

0.93 miles, road 2, 0.34 miles and road 6, 0.37 miles (1.64 total miles) would access about 110 harvest

acres east and north of Portuguese Peak. About 1,400 feet of road 1 is projected at 15 percent favorable

grade, about 3,500 feet is projected at 10 percent grade or less. About 700 feet is on 46 to 55 percent side

slope, as noted below.

Road 1; 0.93 miles, 1,520 feet is located on greater than 46 percent side slope (820 feet on 56%;

700 feet on 46 to 55%); 3,390 feet is on less than 35 percent side slope

Road 2; 0.34 miles, 475 feet is located on 46 to 55 percent side slope; 1,320 feet is on less than 35

percent side slope. If rock is encountered at this proposed road location, road 2 location could be

moved lower and connect to temporary road 1 without a switchback. This operation plan would

work with a loaded truck turnaround at the flat saddle.

Road 6; 0.37 miles; 700 feet is located on 58 percent side slope; 230 feet is on 50 percent; 2,449

feet is on less than 35 percent side slope


Temporary road 7: Proposed temporary road 7 (ARC GIS file TempRds092314, Appendix H), 0.62

miles, would access about 45 harvest acres north of Portuguese Pass. About 2,000 feet of road 7 is

projected at 15 percent grade, 1,270 feet is proposed at 10 percent or less grade.

Road 7, 0.62 miles; 358 feet is located on 58 percent side slope; 342 feet is on 50 percent; 2,574

feet is located on less than 35 percent side slope

Temporary roads 3 and 5: Proposed temporary road 3 (ARC GIS file TempRds092314, Appendix H),

0.88 miles and road 5, 0.56 miles (1.44 total miles) would access about 120 harvest acres east and north

of Bull Run Peak. About 700 feet of road 3 is projected at 15 percent grade. This 15 percent segment

could be reduced to 10 percent grade or less and access the control point (saddle) on the ridge, the

proposed 15 percent grade location avoids steeper side slopes and rock outcrops. A 15 percent pitch may

be needed to avoid exposed rock below Bull Run Peak and below the high point about 1,500 feet south of

Bull Run Peak.

Road 3; 0.88 miles; 1,280 feet is located on 50 to 55 percent side slope; 3,366 feet is located on

less than 35 percent side slope

Road 5; 0.56 miles; 400 feet is located on 55 percent side slope; 2,557 feet is on less than 35

percent side slope

Truck turnarounds would be needed on proposed temporary roads. An empty truck turnaround would be

located in the saddle about 800 feet north of Portuguese Peak. This is a flat (less than 15 percent slope)

ridge top, no excavation would be needed for a turnaround. Empty trucks would back in to landing 50,

about 1,200 feet, for loading. Empty trucks would also back in about 1,200 feet to load skyline decks

along temporary roads 1 and 2. A truck turnaround would be located at about MP 0.16 (mile post or

survey station) on the flat ridge top on road 1. An excavated truck turnaround would be located on road 1

at about MP 0.38. The excavated turnaround would be about 12 feet wide (at bottom), 30 feet long cut

into the road cut bank. About 60 CY (cut/fill) would be excavated on a 30 percent side slope with 15

percent grade at the “J-hole” turnaround.

A truck turnaround would be needed at about MP 0.13 on road 7 on about 20 percent side slope and

another at MP 0.48 near the ridge top on less than 25 percent side slope. These turnarounds are needed to

haul logs from landings 52 and 54 and skyline yarded decks below temporary road 7. A truck turnaround

would be cleared at the junction of temporary roads 3 and 5 on less than 15 percent slope, this is near

landing 56. Another turnaround, on road 5, would be excavated near MP 0.36 on about 20 percent side

slope. A third J-hole, truck turnaround, on temporary road 3, would be excavated near MP 0.17 on 35

percent side slope. These turnarounds are needed to haul sawlogs from landings 55 and 56 and skyline

yarded decks below roads 3 and 5. Empty trucks would back in to decks for loading.

Existing Temporary Roads

About 1.78 miles of existing closed non-system roads would be opened and used for harvest operations.

These existing (unauthorized) roads with temporary road numbers and lengths are shown on ARC GIS

file “ExistingTempRdsUsed092514”, in Appendix H. Existing temporary roads to be used for timber

harvest include:

Road 1, 0.06 miles on 35% side slope







Page 11



Existing temporary (unauthorized) road descriptions:

Road # 1, west of Portuguese Meadow, 0.06 miles would access an old existing landing. An

earth barrier would be removed, blading and light to moderate brush would be cleared for

hauling. This existing closed road is on less than 35 percent side slope.

Road # 2, 0.10 miles with light shrubs on road bed can be opened with a road grader, an

excavator would be needed to restore the junction at 23S16. The road is located on 30 percent or

less side slope and accesses an old existing landing near the ridge at the road end.

Road # 3, 0.18 miles with light shrubs on road bed can be opened with road grader, an excavator

would be needed to restore the junction at 23S16, about 300 feet is on 40 percent side slope, with

a 16 percent grade/pitch at north end.

Road # 4, 0.79 miles, this is an extension or decommissioned part of 24S25B. Road bed is

moderately brushed-in with three draw crossings. Culverts have been removed at draw crossings

and would be replaced for hauling logs. Road bed is in good condition on 32 percent side slope

in two spots (about 400 feet), most of road is located on less than 25 percent side slope. A dozer

or excavator would be needed to clear shrubs and restore draw crossings.

Road # 5, 0.06 miles is located on the ridge top with +/- 2 percent grade. Imagery indicates road

bed and landing at road end are open (not grown in with shrubs). Road is on less than 20 percent

side slope and landing is on the flat ridge top with suitable area for decking.

Road # 6, 0.46 miles, (in the NE corner of project area) existing condition is driveable (open, no

brush). Road location line on GIS does not follow road on imagery (aerial photos). Road 6 is

located on less than 20 percent side slope, in open timber with shrub patches adjacent to the road.

Road # 7, 0.03 miles, is a short stub road to an existing landing on flat ground, landing and road

appear to be open and driveable.

Road # 8, 0.10 mile stub road, accesses an existing landing on flat ground in open timber.

Landing and road appear to be open and driveable.

Total existing temporary roads to be used for timber harvest are 1.78 miles.

After harvest operations are complete, temporary roads would be obliterated or decommissioned and the

roadbed restored. Restoration would be done by blocking entrance with earth barrier, large rocks, cull

logs, or recontouring, drainage features restored, scarified to reduce soil compaction where needed,

planted to reestablish vegetation cover and woody debris placed on the road bed clearing to discourage off

road vehicle use and to restore soil organic material.

Commercial Timber Removal Methods

Under the proposed action, alternative 2, an estimated 11,170 CCF (100 cubic feet) of merchantable

sawlogs would be removed from 1,117 acres.

Machine felling and mechanized skidding equipment would be limited to areas with slopes less than 35

percent, hand felling would be done on steeper areas. Follow up hand felling small suppressed, diseased

or damaged trees would be done after machine felling, where needed for stand improvement in harvest

units.

Machine Fell


Merchantable trees proposed for cutting, in groundbased harvest units under alternative 2, would be

machine felled, processed and yarded to landings with skidders or forwarders. Trees too large for machine

felling would be hand felled. Trees would be limbed and bucked at the stump.

Machine felling would be done on about 720 acres of harvest units under alternative 2, ground based

harvest units where slopes are less than 35 percent. Large trees (over 28 inches d.b.h) on machine felling

areas, may need to be hand felled due to equipment limitations (Jaffe et al. 2009). Some felling machines

could cut large trees if the tree is machine accessible from opposite directions. Hand felling could be done

on groundbased units as an alternative to machine felling. Harvesters or feller bunchers, with skilled

operator, can efficiently operate on slopes up to 45 percent with minimum ground disturbance.

Hand Fell

Hand felling (chainsaw) is proposed for about 397 acres in skyline harvest areas with slopes over 35

percent under alternative 2.

Ground-based Skid

Ground-based harvest removal operations (tractor) are proposed for 720 acres (7,200 CCF) under

Alternative 2. Merchantable cut trees (logs) would be transported from stump to landing with ground-

based skidders, tractors or forwarders on areas with 35 percent or less slopes; generally within 1,200 feet

or less of existing roads or proposed temporary roads. Harvesters (or feller bunchers) could be used with

ground-based mechanized removal systems. Ground-based external yarding distance (EYD) is generally

less than 1,200 feet. There are small area inclusions, less than 200 feet slope distance, with greater than

35 percent slope in some ground-based-skidding units. On these steeper pitches, logs or trees would be

skidded from the steeper slope areas by directional felling and winching while the tractor or skidder

operates from existing trails or roads or from less than 35 percent slope ground adjacent to the steeper

pitch with limited machine travel on the steeper pitches. Harvesters (or feller bunchers) could be used to

reach in on short steep pitches to cut and place trees (or logs) on 35 percent or less slopes for skidding

equipment to transport to landings.

Where winching is required, a tractor or skidder equipped with synthetic bull line would facilitate pulling

line to felled trees.

Fifty four tractor landings have been identified on GIS shapefiles (“Landings082914”, Appendix H), in

ground-based removal areas for alternative 2. Forty seven are existing landings developed for earlier

timber harvest operations. Seven are new landings.

The number of landings actually needed could be less, and locations may differ from map identified

locations. Some identified landings would have very low volume decked.

Trees would have ground contact while transported to landings with skidders or tractors, logs would not

contact the ground when transported if forwarders are used. Cost estimates are based on harvester felling

with processing at the stump using grapple or choker equipped skidders to transport logs to landings.

Ground-based equipment would be restricted to designated trails spaced about 100 feet apart. Mechanized

stump to truck equipment operations could cause vegetation and soil disturbance or compaction

(detrimental soil conditions) on approximately 12 percent of harvest areas.

Based on resource protection needs identified during IDT (interdisciplinary team) analysis and size of

trees proposed for removal; tractors, skidders, forwarders or other mechanized equipment would be

suitable for ground-based removal.


Page 13

Groundbased skidding units are shown on GIS shape files and identified in attribute table, “tobias_units”.

tractor skidding pattern is shown on GIS shape files, “TractorSkidDirection082914”, Appendix H.

Skyline Yard

Skyline yarding is proposed for 397 acres (3,970 CCF) of harvest units with slopes over 35 percent under

alternative 2.

Skyline yarding would require a skyline yarder with carriage capable of maintaining a fixed position on

the skyline while lateral yarding, with leading end suspension during inhaul. All proposed skyline yarding

is uphill. Multispan rigging may be needed on some sets depending on yarder tower height. A two drum

yarder with multispan compatible carriage would be adequate for proposed harvest areas. Skyline

yarding units are designed for uphill yarding, 1,100 feet external yarding distance or less with incidental

longer corners.

Skyline landings would be located along existing roads and proposed temporary roads at each skyline set,

spaced about 150 feet apart. Landings would generally be within the road and corridor clearing with

minor additional opening required for decking high volume sets. Fan sets on ridge points, where volume

is concentrated, could require larger landing areas, up to ¼ acre, hot decking or swing skidding for

product handling.

Tail trees could be rigged outside of treatment units. Trees outside of some treatment units may be needed

for machine guyline anchors. To meet OSHA safety requirements, anchor trees would need to be felled if

the tree could reach the yarder if pulled. In those areas that require anchor trees to be felled, guylines

would be anchored to the stumps. Equipment could be used for tail or guyline anchors where roads, trails

or terrain permits access. Intermediate supports could be required for efficient payloads on sets with low

deflection. Nylon straps or similar protective devices would be required for rigging tail trees and

intermediate support trees to prevent residual tree damage.

Twelve foot wide roads with turnouts would be adequate for yarding and hauling cut trees.

Under Alternative 2, off-road skyline sets with tractor swing, would be required on about 42 acres (420

CCF). About 1,610 feet of 12 foot wide excavated yarder trails and tractor swing skidtrails would be

needed in three off-road skyline units for efficient off-road yarder/tractor swing operation (ARC GIS

SequoiaFJY.gdb “Off_RdYard013014”, Appendix H). On off-road yarder sets, the yarding machine would

operate from skid trails. Cut trees would be tractor swing skidded from the yarder to landings located

adjacent to existing or proposed temporary roads. A track mounted excaliner, or similar machine, could

be used to yard all skyline units (one yarder to move in).

A two drum aftermarket excavator type yarder (“yoader or excaliner”) equipped for 1,100 foot skyline

spans would be suitable equipment for off-road skyline yarding. Additional costs for swing skidding the

estimated 420 CCF, off-road skyline/swing volume, (under alternative 2) is included in stump to truck

costs.

Profiles would be run and payloads analyzed to determine yarder requirements and unit boundaries during

contract preparation, unit layout.

Typically, skyline yarding results in disturbed soil or disturbed vegetation on less than five percent of the

treatment unit area. Vegetation and detrimental soil disturbance could occur in the center of skyline

corridors and at landings. With cut tree diameter limits, small diameter trees proposed for cutting, leading

end suspension, and intermediate supports rigged where needed, soil displacement and vegetation

disturbance in corridors and at landings would be very low.


Road 24S09, Panorama Camp area, does not extend as far to the northwest as shown on project area

maps. Merchantable cut trees in the area north of the high point (north of Panorama Camp) could be off-

road skyline yarded and tractor swing kidded to landing 25.

Skyline yarding units and skid direction are displayed on GIS shape files, “Skyline_082714FJY”. Skyline

skidding pattern is shown on GIS shape files, “SkylineSkidDirection082914”, Appendix H.

Tractor Swing Skid

As described under skyline yarding above, ground-based or tractor swing skidding is planned for 42 acres

(420 CCF) of off-road skyline yarding areas under alternative 2. The off-road yarder and skidders would

use the same tractor swing skidtrails for access and skidding. Soil and vegetation disturbed areas are

included in ground-based and skyline yarding effects. As noted above, estimated swing skidding cost is

included in stump to truck costs for alternatives 2. GIS files, Appendix H displays planned off-road

skyline skidding areas and skid direction (Off_RdYard013014”).

Landings

As noted above under groundbased skidding, approximately 54 tractor (ground-based) landings would be

used for ground-based wood removal under alternative 2. Forty seven tractor landings are existing old

landings that have been used in previous harvest operations (labeled “Existing” in GIS attribute table).

Some existing landings are grown in with shrubs and small trees where clearing brush and small trees

would be needed, no additional excavation would be done. Average existing landing size would be about

¼ acre.

Seven tractor landings are new sites where logs would be hot decked and loaded out after no more than

four loads are decked. New landings are labeled “hot deck” in the GIS attribute table. Less than 50 mbf,

total volume, would be skidded to any of the hot deck landings. Decking would be on the road, below and

above the road, similar to skyline decking. No excavation would be done at the hot deck landings.

Decking would be done in existing openings or cleared areas limited to about 70 feet by 50 feet opening

or less. Some groundbased landings would have less than four total loads decked at the site. Two loads

could be decked in a 50 x 35 foot opening.

Four groundbased landings are located adjacent to 23S16, skidder operations and loader operation on the

road could affect the asphalt surface, road cut and fill slopes. Road restoration may be needed after

operations are complete.

Skyline landings are described above under skyline yarding.

Project cost estimates include landing slash disposal and rehab. Landings would be rehabilitated after

operations are complete. Incidental slash and woody debris left on landings would be scattered for course

woody debris as part of landing restoration. Disturbed areas would be re-contoured and drainage restored,

soil scarified where compacted, and seeded with a Forest approved certified noxious weed seed free seed

mix, after operations are complete. Main skidtrails to landings would be restored, (drainage restored,

scarified and seeded) and skidtrails would be blocked where needed with large rocks, logs, trees or woody

debris, or recontoured where effective to discourage off road motorized travel.

Landing locations and landing type are shown on alternative 2 map in appendix A, and on GIS,

FJYOperations082914.gdb “Landings082914” shapefiles described in Appendix H,


Page 15

Haul

Roads needed to haul sawlogs from the project area are shown in Table 9. Haul costs were determined for

a weighted average 54 mile haul to Terra Bella.

Trees (small round wood generally six to ten inches dbh) that do not meet merchantable sawlog

specifications, could be removed as firewood or other products.

Cost Development Methodology

Proposed action operations would occur two to five years after the decision is signed, prescribed burning

would take longer to complete. Cost effects, determined for site specific treatment units within the

project area (Appendix A maps) are discounted in Quicksilver7, financial efficiency, analysis. Operation

costs were developed for alternatives 2 and 3 with the following methods:

Road Related Costs

Road maintenance, temporary road construction and reconstruction, decommissioning and converting

roads to trails costs were developed using average cost/mile by maintenance level, from similar project

costs on recent Region 5 (Six Rivers and Shasta-Trinity) and Region 6 projects. Costs could vary due to

fuel cost changes. Fuel price variations would have a greater effect on items that are equipment oriented

such as clearing, grubbing and excavation, than on material and labor oriented cost items.

Harvest Costs

o Stump to truck costs for, ground-based, skyline and swing skidding, for Tobias project site

specific unit data, were determined with LOGCOST 15.0 (USDA 2015) for alternative 2.

o Hand fell and buck was determined with LOGCOST 15.0 for skyline units (USDA 2015).

Harvester felling and processing stump to truck costs, LOGCOST 15.0, that include felling, were

used for groundbased removal units.

o Haul costs, for alternative 2, were determined with HAULCOST version 15.0 (USDA 2015a).

Merchantable cut trees would be hauled from the project area. Haul roads are shown in Table 3

above. Haul costs were determined for a 54 mile weighted average haul to Terra Bella. Trees

that do not meet merchantable sawlog specifications, small round wood generally six to eight

inches dbh, could be removed as firewood, chips or other products.

o Road maintenance including blading, ditch and culvert cleaning, light brushing, dust abatement,

surface replacement, are average/mile costs based on maintenance level haul miles (Table 3

above).

o Temporary road construction and obliteration (restoration) cost, were developed from Region 1,

Estimating Cost Guide for Road Construction, February 2011 (USDA.FS 2011) updated and

adjusted for on-site construction difficulty, rock outcrops, and ground conditions on the Tobias

project area.

o Landing and skidtrail restoration costs/acre were developed with estimated equipment operation

and labor time, equipment and wage rates.

o Sale evaluation with appraised stumpage value was determined with R5 Sale Evaluation model

version 3 (USDA FS 2015b) with delivered sawlog values adjusted to current market. Logging

costs are weighted by groundbased and skyline volume from LOGCOST 15.0 model results. Haul


costs were developed within the R5 Sale Evaluation model and may be slightly different than

HAULCOST version 15.0 model results.

o Sale preparation and administration costs are R5 averages applied to Quick Silver 7 model

analysis (QuickSilver7).

o Financial efficiency (benefit/cost) for the project as a whole and for the timber sale portion

analysis was determined with QuickSilver7 (QuickSilver7).

Financial efficiency provides information relevant to the future financial position of the proposed

activities when the project is implemented. Financial efficiency considers anticipated costs and

revenues that are part of Forest Service monetary transactions. Present net value (PNV) is used as

an indicator of financial efficiency and presents one tool used in conjunction with other factors in

the decision-making process. PNV combines benefits and costs that occur at different times and

discounts them into an amount that is equivalent to all economic activity occurring in a single

year. A positive PNV indicates that the alternative is financially efficient. Financial efficiency

analysis is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis that incorporates monetary expressions of

all known market and non-market benefits and costs. Many of the values associated with natural

resource management are best handled apart from, but in conjunction with, a more limited

financial efficiency framework. Non-market benefits and costs associated with the project are

evaluated in other resource specialist’s reports.

o On-site fuel treatment costs (restoration activity costs) are Sequoia National Forest recent

experienced costs. Non-harvest fuel treatment related costs are included in the project financial

efficiency QuickSilver 7 PNV analysis. Non-harvest related costs are not included in the

QuickSilver 7 timber sale benefit and cost evaluation analysis (QuickSilver7).

Cost details are included in Appendix B, C and D.

Timber Harvest Cost Development

System Road Haul Route Maintenance Cost

Maintenance work on roads used for timber hauling (included in the sale evaluation and timber harvest

Quicksilver results) would be included in the appraisal and would be done before, during, and after timber

sale harvest operations. System roads used to access on-site vegetation treatments, not associate with

timber sale activities, would be maintained under the annual District road maintenance program or funded

from sources other than timber sale receipts. Table 4 displays costs to maintain roads used to haul timber

under alternative 2.

Table 4. National Forest system road haul route maintenance for alternative 2

Road number Road Name Haul Miles Cost $/milea Cost $

23S16 Sugarloaf 15.09 3,385 51,080

24S02b

Baker Point 2.50 4,888 12,220

24S03 Schultz 0.86 1,300 1,118

24S08 Tobias Lookout 0.69 900 621

24S09 Panorama 0.15 650 98

24S10 Portuguese Meadow 0.65 1,950 1,268

24S15 Portuguese Meadow 1.30 1,950 2,535

24S15A Portuguese Meadow 0.46 650 299

24S24 Tobias Meadow 2.16 650 1,404


Page 17

Road number Road Name Haul Miles Cost $/milea Cost $

24S24A Tobias Meadow 0.30 900 270

24S25 McSwiney Blvd 1.13 900 1,017

24S25Bb

McSwiney Blvd 1.04 2,092 2176

24S28 Tyler Meadow 0.37 650 240

24S34b

Tyler Meadow 1.55 4,910 7,610

24S50b

Greenhorn Mountain 1.03 875 901

24S80 Lower Dry Meadow 0.29 650 188

24280A Lower Dry Meadow 0.07 850 60

Total 29.03 83,105 aMaintenance, $83,105/11,170 CCF = 7.44/CCF applied to QuickSilver financial efficiency analysis.

bRoads 24S02, 24S34, 24S50, 24S25B include costs to restore drainage structures, restore surface (washouts, remove or fill over

large rocks in road bed).

Dust abatement, water = $3.81/CCF is based on weighted average haul off blacktop, not included in Table 4 costs.

All deferred maintenance costs for system roads in the project area are not included in the timber sale

economic analysis or project financial efficiency results. Road maintenance needed to meet BMPs and to

protect soil, water and other resources are included. Deferred road maintenance needs are shown in

Appendix J.

Temporary Roads

Table 5 displays proposed temporary road construction, road number, lengths, construction and

restoration costs. Temporary road locations are shown on alternative 2 map in Appendix A. Temporary

road numbers are included in GIS TempRds092314 file attribute table, Appendix H.

Table 5. Temporary roads to be constructed under alternative 2

Road number Miles Average

cost/mile a

Total

Cost $a

1 0.93 21,045 19572

2 0.34 21,994 7,478

3 0.88 21,466 18890

5 0.56 19,000 10,640

6 0.37 19,000 7030

7 0.62 21,994 13,636

Total 3.70 77,246 a Cost includes clearing, grubbing, excavation, culvert installation, restoration, seeding after use.

Table 6 displays existing (unauthorized) temporary road lengths and costs to improve the roads for

harvest unit access and for hauling logs. Roads would be obliterated and sites restored after use. Existing

non-system road locations are shown on alternative 2 map in Appendix A and on GIS files

(ExistTempRdsUsed092514) listed in Appendix H.

Table 6. Existing temporary roads to be used under alternative 2

Road

number Miles Cost $

a

1 0.06 300

2 0.10 500


Road

number Miles Cost $

a

3 0.18 900

4 0.79 3,950

5 0.06 300

6 0.46 2,300

7 0.03 150

8 0.10 500

Total 1.78 8,900 a Estimated cost is $5,000/mile to reconstruct, close and restore disturbed sites after use.

Mobilize Road Equipment

Mobilize road equipment is 7% of total road cost, (new temporary road construction, $77,246 plus open

existing temporary roads, $8,900 = $86,146), $6,030.

Off-road Skyline Trails

About 1,600 feet (0.3 miles) of off-road skyline, tractor swing skid trails are needed for harvest. Cost

estimate is $2,000/mile, $600 to construct and restore trails after use.

Stump to Truck Costs

Detailed site specific data used to develop log cost and haul cost are included in Appendices B, C and D.

o Hand Falling (merchantable trees) LOGCOST Version 15.0, Falling costs for skyline units is for

felling, limbing and bucking at the stump, 15 minute walk in time

Alternative 2 skyline units, $24.30/CCF

o Mechanized Groundbased system, LOGCOST Version 15.0, ground based units stump to truck

cost, includes harvester felling and processing, skidding and loading

Alternative 2, $72.08/CCF

o Skyline Yarding, LOGCOST Version 15.0, for skyline harvest units stump to truck cost, includes

hand felling and processing (limb and buck at stump), yarding and loading

Alternative 2, $97.41/CCF

o Tractor Swing Skidding cost, $33.39/CCF, from LOGCOST Version 15.0 is added for off-road

skyline volume;

Alternative 2, (42 acres), 420 CCF, $33.39/CCF

o Loading, as noted above, loading (loader and operator) costs are included in LOGCOST Version

15.0 stump to truck.

Hauling

Sawlog haul cost, $48.87/CCF is for weighted average 54.3 one way miles, 268 round trip (travel time

only) minutes, 7 CCF/load, $4.25/gallon fuel is from HaulCost Version 15.0 Trucking Appraisal. (Two

loads hauled/day would generate about $684/day for trucking.) Haul cost details are in Appendix D.

Clean Off-road Harvest Equipment

To reduce risk of introducing or spreading invasive weed seeds onto disturbed areas, all equipment

operating off roads would be cleaned (pressure washed) and inspected before moving into the project

area.


Page 19

Cleaning off road harvest equipment is estimated at $110 for rubber mounted and $135 for track mounted

equipment. This cost includes transporting to the cleaning site, off load if necessary at cleaning site, and

inspection delay. It would not include removing belly pans or other disassembly for intensive cleaning.

Harvester, two seasons $270

Skidder, two machines, two seasons $440

Off-road yarder, one season $135

D-7, two seasons $270

Excavator, two seasons $270

Total $1385

Mobilize Harvest Equipment

Mobilize harvest equipment is included in stump to truck LogCost Version 15.0 (Appendix C). Harvester,

skidder, and loader mobilization is based on 55 mile one way haul, 5.6 hours round trip lowboy time for

each move, in and move out. Skyline yarder move (excaliner) is based on 350 mile one way haul, 8.5

hour transport time.

Mobilize excavator and D 7 for landing clearing and restoration, machine anchor and miscellaneous use,

is for an estimated 55 mile move in and move out, lowboy rate at $85/hour, 5.6 hour round trip, $480 each

move, two machines, $1,920 to move in and out two seasons.

Close and Restore Skid Trails and Restore Landings

Costs to dispose landing slash, close and restore skidtrails and restore landings include:

o Costs to close and restore skidtrails and tractor landings include scarify, place woody

debris, recontour or cross drain where needed, and seed skidtrails. Scarify, drain where

needed, place woody debris or scatter slash on tractor landings:

Alternative 2, 54 groundbased landings, estimate $212/landing, $11,448.

o Seed tractor landings and main skid trails

Estimate one acre/landing area; 1/2 acre/landing average for tractor landings (landing size

would vary from less than ¼ to ½ acre), and about 1/2 acres of main skidtrail disturbed

area to seed for each tractor (groundbased) landing, estimate $185/landing for seed and

labor.

Alternative 2, 54 tractor landings at $185/landing, $9,990

Sawlog Removal Costs Summary

Stump to truck cost felling, limbing, bucking, skidding and loading are summarized in table 7. Site

specific cost details are included in LogCost and Haulcost spreadsheets, Appendix C and D.

Table 7. Alternative 2 Sawlog acres, volume and removal costs

Removal Method

Acres CCF $/CCFa Total Cost

Groundbased 720 7,200 72.08 518,976

Skyline 355 3,550 97.41 345,806

Off-road skyline 42 420 97.41 40,912

Tractor swing 42 420 33.39 14,024


Removal Method

Acres CCF $/CCFa Total Cost

Haul - 11,170 48.87 671,425

Total 1,117 11,170 - 1,465,596 aStump to truck cost/CCF and haul cost/CCF are from LogCost and HaulCost models appendix C and D.

Table 8 displays harvest related activity costs applied to timber harvest evaluation (R5 Sale Evaluation)

and financial analysis (QuickSilver) .

Table 8. Harvest related activities costs

Harvest Related Activities Alternative 2

$/CCFa Total Cost$

Road maintenance 7.44 83,072

Dust abatement 3.81 42,558

Temporary roads, open and close, 1.78 miles 0.80 8,900

Temporary road construction and restoration, 3.7 miles 6.92 77,245

Off-road skyline trail construction and close, 0.3 miles 0.05 600

Mobilize road equipment (7% of road cost) 0.54 6,030

Mobilize excavator and D7 (landing use) 0.17 1,920

Clean off-road harvest equipment 0.12 1,385

Close, rehab skidtrails; rehab landings, 54 landings 1.02 11,448

Seed landings and skidtrails, 54 landings 0.89 9,990

Total - 243,148 aCost/CCF is based on 11,170 CCF harvest volume.

Timber Sale Evaluation

Timber harvest related costs for alternative 2 sale evaluation include: stump to truck cost, hauling, system

road maintenance, temporary road construction including obliteration and site restoration, landing and

skidtrail restoration. Alternative 2 expected discounted delivered log price at Terra Bella is $167.50/CCF,

for a discounted $1,559,317 total product value.

Timber Sale Economic Evaluation (Version 3.0, 08-2015) indicated $21.90/CCF advertised rate.

Predicted high bid is $24.33/CCF with stumpage valued at $271,766.

Timber Harvest Related Revenue and Costs, Financial Efficiency

Alternative 2 timber sale financial efficiency analysis is specific to timber harvest and related activity

costs (as directed in Forest Service Manual 2400-Timber Management and guidance found in the Forest

Service Handbook 2409.18).

Costs for sale preparation, sale administration, fuel reduction and restoration activities are included in the

total project economic effects. Cost development is described under cost methodology above. Alternative

2 discounted costs, benefits, benefit/cost ratio and PNV (present net value) were developed with

QuickSilver7 using 4% real discount rate over the project lifespan.

Financial efficiency for timber harvest under alternative 2 indicates a 1.01 benefit/cost ratio. Sale

preparation costs and sale administration costs are not included in harvest related costs. Present net value

for timber sale activities through Quicksilver7 analysis are:

Benefit/cost ratio 1.01


Page 21

Present net value $15,379

Present value benefits (discounted delivered log value) $1,599,317

Present value costs (logging costs) $1,583,938

QuickSilver7 timber sale related cost details are included in Appendix F.

Operations under Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 3

There would be no sawlog removal under alternative 3, no additional, haul road, maintenance. Under

alternative 3, system roads would be maintained under the scheduled District road maintenance program.

Maintenance would include hazard tree removal. Maintenance costs for roads used to access on-site

vegetation treatment areas under alternative 3, would be done with recurrent scheduled road maintenance

funds. There would be no temporary road construction and no commercial timber harvest under

alternative 3.

Non-harvest Vegetation Treatment Operations Under Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

On-site, Fuel Treatment Costs

On-site fuel treatment includes hand felling understory trees, chipping, piling slash, pile burning,

mastication and prescribe burning.

Mastication

Clean mastication equipment, estimate two machines for two seasons, at $135 each, $540

Mobilize machine (excavator) for mastication, is for an estimated 55 mile move in and move out, lowboy

rate at $85/hour, 5.6 hour round trip, $480 each move, two machines, $1920 to move in and out two

seasons.

Under alternative 2, 2,158 acres would be masticated at $350/acre = $755,300. Under alternative 3, 2,878

acres would be masticated at $350/acre = $1,007,300 total cost.

Hand Fell Thin

Hand fell thinning would be done on 1,239 acres under alternative 2 and on 1,636 acres under alternative

3. Estimated cost is $180/acre, $223,020 for alternative 2 and $294,480 for alternative 3.

Pile Slash

Fuels would be piled for burning on the areas hand felled under alternatives 2 and 3. Under alternatives 2,

machine piling would be done on 600 acres. Estimated machine slash piling cost is $225/acre, $135,000.

Hand slash piling is proposed for 1,239 acres under alternative 2 and 1,516 acres under alternative 3.

Estimated cost is $850/acre, $1,053,150 for alternative 2 and $1,288,600 for alternative 3.

Burn Piles


Slash piles on 1,839 acres under alternatives 2 and on 1,516 acres under alternative 3 would be burned.

Estimated cost is $50/acre. Pile burn cost for alternative 2 is $91,950. Alternative 3 pile burning total cost

is $75,800.

Chip

Chipping slash is planned for 120 acres under alternatives 2 and 3. Estimated cost is $350/acre, $42,000.

Under burn

Under burning is planned for 384 acres under alternatives 2 and 3. Estimated cost is $435/acre, $167,040.

Prescribe Burn

Prescribe burning would be done on 4,898 acres under alternatives 2 and 3 at $400/acre, prescribe burning

cost would total $1,959,200.

Table 9 displays on-site fuel treatment costs for alternatives 2 and 3.

Table 9. Treatment acres, cost/acre and total costs for alternatives 2 and 3

Activity Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acresa Cost/acre $ Total Cost $ Acres Cost/acre $ Total Cost $

Hand fell 1239 180 223,020 1636 180 294,480

Clean off-road equipment - - 540 - - 540

Mobilize equipment - - 1,920 - - 1,920

Machine pile slash 600 225 135,000 0 225 0

Hand Pile slash (fuels) 1239 850 1,053,150 1516 850 1,288,600

Burn piles 1839 50 91,950 1516 50 75,800

Chip 120 350 42,000 120 350 42,000

Masticate 2158 350 755,300 2878 350 1,007,300

Under burn 384 435 167,040 384 435 167,040

Prescribe burn 4898 400 1,959,200 4898 400 1,959,200

Total - - 4,429,120 - - 4,895,065

Decommission System Roads


decommissioned. Decommissioning would include pulling culverts accompanied with stream channel

reconstruction, water-barring (spacing based on road grade), ripping and mulching, and blocking

entrance. Stream channel reconstruction would recreate and stabilize the natural, pre-road stream

channel. Ripping and mulching decommissioned roads would accelerate the roads returning to its natural

state. About 2.73 miles of the decommissioned roads would be converted to trails. Estimated average

decommission cost is $6,000/mile, conversion to trail is $2,500/mile.

System roads proposed to be decommissioned, miles and costs, are shown in table 10.


Page 23

Table 10. National Forest system roads to be decommissioned under alternatives 2 and 3

Road number Road Name Miles Cost $a

24S15A Portuguese Meadow 0.43 2580

24S24A Tobias Meadow 0.60 3600

24S25A Sunday Peak 0.30 1800

24S25B Sunday Peak 0.30 1800

24S34A Tyler Meadow 0.42 2520

24S35C Schultz Creek 1.40 8400

24S37 South Dry Meadow 1.10 6600

24S37A South Dry Meadow 0.60 3600

24S45 Stormy Canyon 0.47 2820

24S45A Stormy Canyon 0.30 1800

24S46A Deep Creek 0.46 2760

24S80A Lower Dry Meadow 0.68 4080

24S80B Lower Dry Meadow 0.29 1740

24S80C Lower Dry Meadow 0.45 2700

24S83A Upper Dry Meadow 0.76 4560

Total 8.56 51360 aEstimated cost is $6000/mile to decommission road, restore site and remove road from data base.

Convert System Roads to Trails

About 2.73 miles of system roads would be converted to trails. Road numbers, miles and costs are shown

in table 11.

Table 11. National Forest system roads to be converted to trails under alternatives 2 and 3

Road number Road Name Miles Cost $/milea Cost $

24S80 Lower Dry Meadow 1.37 2500 3425

24S83 Upper Dry Meadow 1.36 2500 3400

Total 2.73 6825 aEstimated cost is $2500/mile to convert road to trail.

Total Project Financial Efficiency

Total project financial efficiency includes all project costs, timber harvest and non-commercial activities

costs (on-site vegetation/fuel treatments) and sawlog values.

Table 12 displays financial efficiency for the entire project, all project activities costs and sawlog

revenues. This second PNV analysis includes all harvest and non-harvest activity project costs for

alternatives 2 and 3. Costs used in the project PNV calculations are displayed in tables 4 through 11 and

summarized in Appendix B. Sale preparation costs of $17.33/CCF and sale administration costs of $8.67

per CCF, are included in the project financial efficiency for alternative 2. The cost of sale preparation and

sale administration for alternatives 2 is $290,420. Project total Quicksilver7 cost details are included in

Appendix G.

QuickSilver results displayed in table 12 indicates both action alternatives for the project are financially

inefficient with PNVs less than one (timber harvest related and other fuel reduction activity costs).

Alternative 2 has the highest project PNV, -$4,054,058. Under alternative 3, the total project PNV is -


$4,180,969, with no commercial harvest and no revenue from delivered sawlog value. The No Action

Alternative has no planned activity costs or revenues associated with it.

A reduction of financial PNV in any alternative as compared to the most efficient solution is a component

of the economic trade-off, or opportunity cost, of achieving that alternative. The no action alternative

would not harvest or accomplish any fuel reduction or fire protection actions and, therefore, incur no

planned activity costs. As indicated earlier, many of the values associated with natural resource

management are non-market benefits. These benefits would be considered in conjunction with the

financial efficiency information presented here. The non-market values are analyzed and discussed in

each resource specialist’s report and in the specialist sections of the DEIS.

Table 12. Project financial efficiency

Alternative Discount % Discounted

Cost $

Discounted

Revenues $a

Net Present

Value $

Benefit/Cost

Ratio

1 - - - - N/A

2 4 5,653,375 1,599,317 -4,054,058 0.28

3 4 4,180,969 0 -4,180,969 0.00a

.aAlternative 3 has no product revenues and no monetary benefits.

When evaluating trade-offs, the use of economic efficiency measures is one tool used to select a preferred

alternative. Effects on wildlife, watershed, vegetation, fuel reduction and other resources would not have

a monetary value to compare alternatives. The decision maker would include these factors when selecting

an alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Indirect Effects

Off-road equipment operations (felling, skidding, mastication, slash piling and burning) would increase

risk of noxious weeds establishing on disturbed areas. All harvest equipment operating off roads would be

cleaned (pressure washed) and inspected before moving into the project area, to reduce risk of spreading

noxious weed seeds onto disturbed areas. Areas affected by landings and skid trails would be scarified or

ripped to mitigate compaction. Skid trails and landings would be cross-drained or recontoured where

needed, woody debris placed in cleared areas and disturbed areas seeded to establish cover for soil and

water protection and to reduce risk of noxious weeds establishing or invading the sites. Noxious weed

management requirements and road maintenance BMPs would reduce risk of adverse indirect effects on

soil, water and other resources. Road maintenance and drainage improvements associated with proposed

activities would reduce erosion and sediment from roads, and benefit forest users.

Other indirect effects of operations include equipment noise, exhaust, pile burning and prescribe burning

emissions. These effects are addressed under other specialist’s reports, included in the project record.

Cumulative Effects

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Transportation, operations and economic cumulative effects analysis area is the project boundary and haul

roads outside of the Tobias project area. Most project activities would be completed five years after the

record of decision is signed, prescribed burning could take up to 10 years to complete.

Cumulative effects of felling, yarding, processing trees, hauling and on-site fuel treatments were

determined for activities in the project area and would be added to past and foreseeable future harvest and

other vegetation treatment areas for soil, water and other resource effects analysis. Transportation system


Page 25

cumulative effects would include past, present and foreseeable future or continued ongoing road

maintenance. Maintenance is scheduled according to need and maintenance level, for each road, as

funding becomes available and as roads are prioritized for resource protection and user safety.

Soil and water would benefit from road maintenance, drainage feature upkeep and improvements. Most

removal area access is on existing system roads, however, 3.7 mile of temporary road construction and

1.78 miles of existing non-system road use are proposed under alternative 2. Temporary roads would be

restored after operations are complete. Temporary roads would not be added to the transportation system.

Ground based harvest equipment would operate on old skidtrails and old, existing landings would be used

where harvest has occurred in the past. Temporary roads, skidtrails and landing disturbed areas would be

restored and seeded within one or two seasons. Vegetation recovery on temporary road cleared areas

would be long term.

Additional road maintenance performed during project implementation, road reconstruction that would

improve surface conditions, drainage feature function, hazard tree removal, and roadside clearing would

provide a transportation system for long-term safe efficient travel with high user comfort that would have

minimum adverse effects on resources.

Under alternative 2, short-term traffic from harvest operations and forest product removal would require

adequate traffic control, some temporary public road closures, and proper communications to maintain

safe and efficient traffic flow. A short-term reduction in public access would occur in order to minimize

user conflicts during project implementation. Main collector and arterial forest roads would receive the

majority of traffic and would have surface deterioration proportionate to the traffic volume.

Following implementation of alternative 2 activities, a well maintained safer more efficient road system

would exist and provide long-term public and administrative access throughout the project area.

Soil and vegetation cover disturbed areas (acres) from temporary road construction, skidding, landing

clearing, slash piling and pile burning are displayed in table 13.


decommissioned. No other permanent system road changes are proposed. Total system road miles in the

project area would be reduced from about 50 to 39 miles. Road density in the project area would be

reduced from 2.9 miles/square mile to 2.3.

Alternative 1 (no action) and alternative 3 would not provide any timber volume toward the Forest’s

allowable sale quantity (USDA 1988). Alternative 2 would contribute approximately 11,170 CCF

commercial sawlog volume to the Sequoia NF LRMP allowable sale quantity (USDA 1988). Alternative

2 would generate $1,599,317 delivered sawlog value revenue. No commercial sawlogs would be

harvested under no action alternative 1 and alternative 3.

Financial efficiency for timber harvest related costs and revenues under alternative 2 indicates a 1.01

benefit/cost ratio. Alternative 2 total project activity cost and revenue is financially inefficient with a

PNV ratio less than one (sawlog values, timber harvest related and fuel reduction activity costs). Under

no action alternative 1 and alternative 3 no harvest is planned, no revenue is generated. Alternative 2 has

the highest project PNV, -$4,054,058. Under alternative 3, the total project PNV is -$4,180,969, with no

commercial harvest and no delivered sawlog value. The no action alternative has no activity costs (other

than this NEPA planning cost) or revenues associated with it.

Summary

Operations Effects on Vegetation and Soil


Temporary road construction, yarding (landings and skidtrails), road decommissioning and pile burning

operations would disturb vegetation, compact or displace soil. A summary of areas where vegetation

cover would be removed, soil disturbed or displaced, is displayed in Table 13.

Table 13. Operations disturbance to vegetation cover and soils summary

Activity

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres

affected

% of Area

affected

Acres

disturbed

Acres

affected

% of area

affected

Acres

disturbed

Temporary road construction, 3.73

miles alt 2, 9 100 9

Open existing non-system roads,

close and restore sites, 1.78 miles 3 100 3

Ground-based skidding (landings

and main skidtrails)

720a 12 86 - - -

Skyline yarding (corridors and

landings)

397a 3 12 - - -

Masticate fuels 2158 3 65 2878 3 86

Machine pile 609 4 24 609 4 24

Decommission system roads, 11.29

milesb (Convert 2.73 miles to trail)

22 55 12 22 55 12

Total

- 199 - 122 aHarvest treatment acres.

bEstimate 50 % of the 14 foot wide road bed would be disturbed.

Under alternative 2 soil and vegetation cover disturbance would occur on an estimated 199 acres, 2

percent of the project area. Under alternative 3 about 122 acres, 1 percent of the project area would be

affected.

Timber Sale Economic Evaluation

Timber Sale Economic Evaluation (Version 3.0, 08-2015) indicated advertised rate would be $21.90/CCF.

Predicted high bid is $24.33/CCF with stumpage valued at $271,766.

Timber Harvest Financial Efficiency

Financial efficiency for timber harvest activities through QuickSilver under alternative 2 indicates a 1.01

benefit/cost ratio, present net value $15,379, with present value benefits (discounted delivered log value)

$1,599,317 and present value costs (logging costs) $1,583,938. There are no harvest costs and no

revenues under alternative 3.

Total timber harvest costs and benefits related to financial efficiency are included in table 14. Other

project fuel reduction costs are not included in the timber harvest benefit/cost ratio. No harvest is planned

under alternatives 1 and 3.

Table 14. Alternative 2 timber harvest financial efficiency


Cost $

Discounted

Revenues $

Net Present

Value $

Benefit/Cost

Ratio

1 - - - - N/A

2 4 1,583,938 1,599,317 15,379 1.01


Page 27


Cost $

Discounted

Revenues $

Net Present

Value $

Benefit/Cost

Ratio

3 - - - - N/A

Total Project Financial Efficiency

For all project costs and benefits, alternative 2 benefit/cost ratio is 0.31. No timber harvest is planned

under alternative 3, there would be no economic benefits. Total project costs, discounted to 2015, are

$5,653,375 for alternative 2 and $4,180,969 for alternative 3. Project PNV is -$4,054,058 for alternative

2 and -$4,180,969 for alternative 3. Total project activity costs are itemized and displayed in appendix B.


References Cited USDAFS. 1988. Region 5, Sequoia National Land Resource Management Plan, Record of Decision 1988.

USDAFS. 1988. Pacific Southwest Region, Sequoia National Land Resource Management Plan, Record

of Decision 1988.

California Forest Practice Rules 2013

http://calfire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/downloads/2013_FP_Rulebook_with_Tech_RuleNo1.pdf

Powel, George 2013, Tobias Ecosystem Restoration Project, Proposed Silvicultural Activities and

Predicted Forest Vegetation Changes Affecting Environmental Quality, western Divide Ranger

District, August 2013, Sequoia National Forest

USDA 2012. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, LOGCOST Version 15.0,

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsbdev2_027048

USDA 2009. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, HaulCost Appraisal Version 15.0


USDA.FS. 2007, R5 Sale Evaluation, Phase 3 Analysis – Unit/Sale Analysis Version 3.0

Quick Silver 7. 2012. http://frdev.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us:82/economics/software/Quick-Silver/index.shtml

US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011, http://www.bls.gov/bls/wages.htm,

http://www.bls.gov/bls/inflation.htm

USDA.FS 2011 Region 1, Estimating Cost Guide for Road Construction, February 2011,

http://fsweb.r1.fs.fed.us/e/Transportation/Development/2013_Cost_Estimating_Guide_for_Road_

Construction.pdf

Hayes, Steven W., Keegan III, Charles E., Morgan, Todd A. 2011, Estimating Harvest Costs, Bureau of

Business and Economic Research, University of Montana,

http://www.montanarestoration.org/education

Jaffe, Valeria, O’Brien, Stephen “Obie”, Mechanized Equipment for Fire and Fuels Operations, 2009, 146

p, General subject and book composition questions may contact: Valerie Jaffe, owner/manager,

Tea Gardens Technology, LLC, [email protected], 406-459-0324, Helena, MT



http://frdev.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us:82/economics/software/Quick-Silver/index.shtml

http://www.bls.gov/bls/inflation.htm

mailto:[email protected]


Page 29

Appendix Appendices A through K are filed on O drive in separate subfolders at:

NFS\Sequoia\Project\WDRD\ProjectPlanning\Tobias\4_REPORTS\TransportationOperations\

Note: Appendix C, D, E, F, G, are Excel spreadsheet groups (models) in the Appendix folder.

Appendix A – Tobias Project Alternatives 2 and 3 Treatment Maps

Appendix B – Tobias Project, Cost Summary

Appendix C – Tobias Project, Alternative 2 LogCost Details

(1 spreadsheet, group)

Appendix D – Tobias Project, Alternative 2 HaulCost Details

(1 spreadsheet group)

Appendix E – Tobias Project, Timber Sale Evaluation (model spreadsheets)

Appendix F – Tobias Project, QuickSilver7 Harvest PNV (model spreadsheets)

Appendix G – Tobias Project, QuickSilver7 Project PNV (model spreadsheets)

Appendix H – Tobias Project, Transportation GIS Files GIS Layers in FJYOperations082914.gdb and SequoiaFJY.gdb Include:

o Existing non-system roads (unauthorized roads) to be used – (ExistTempRdsUsed092514)

o Temporary roads – (TempRds092314).

o Landings - (Landings082914)

o Skyline Skid Direction – (SkylineSkidDirection082914)

o Tractor Skid Direction – (TractorSkidDirection092914)

o Off-road skyline trails – (OffRdSkylineTrails091914)

o Off-road skyline yarding area – (Off_RdYard013014)

Appendix I – Tobias Project, Transportation Operations Design Features

Appendix J – Tobias Project, Deferred Maintenance

Appendix K - Tobias Project, Temporary Road Costs

Tobias Ecosystem Restoration Project Transportation/Operations/Economics...

Documents

Transcript of Tobias Ecosystem Restoration Project Transportation/Operations/Economics...