UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of five timber harvesting systems used for streamside logging Kiss, Leslie 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A6 K57.pdf [ 4.48MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095953.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095953-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095953-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095953-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095953-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095953-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095953-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095953-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095953.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF F I V E TIMBER HARVESTNG SYSTEMS USED FOR STREAMSIDE LOGGING BY L E S L I E K I S S B . S . F . , THE U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1976 A T H E S I S SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF FORESTRY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( F a c u l t y o f F o r e s t r y ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA D e c e m b e r 1984 © L e s l i e K i s s , 1984 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e h e a d o f my d e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f Ftui*jjU^ crj f~o*JLiU-^ The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 1956 Main Mall V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V6T 1Y3 D a t e DE-6 (3/81) i i Abstract A survey of thirty-nine (39) ind u s t r i a l forest engineers was conducted to provide guidelines as to what harvesting system is best suited to s p e c i f i c stand and topographic variables when extracting streamside timber. The advantages and disadvantages of the operational ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the standard highlead spar, mini spar, s l a c k l i n e , grapple yarder and rubber t i r e skidder are discussed both in terms of s i t e disturbance and wood debris in B r i t i s h Columbia Coastal streams. Productivity and cost data are analyzed for the standard highlead spar, grapple yarder and rubber t i r e skidder for three selected streamside conditions. The extra cost incurred by the forest sector to comply with stream protection measures requested by f i s h e r i e s personnel for pre and post harvesting treatments is also presented. Findings indicate that s p e c i f i c topographic and timber conditions, plus the limitations of each harvesting system dictate the selection of the system when logging adjacent to small B r i t i s h Columbia Coastal streams. The grapple yarder is shown to be the most cost e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t system for streamside timber harvest and stream debris management. i i i The s tump t o dump p r o d u c t i v i t i e s f o r t h e h i g h l e a d s p a r , g r a p p l e y a r d e r and r u b b e r t i r e s k i d d e r a r e f o u n d t o d i f f e r . For t h e t h r e e t e r r a i n c o n d i t i o n s c i t e d , t h e g r a p p l e y a r d e r i s shown t o be m o s t p r o d u c t i v e , w h i l e t h e rubber t i r e s k i d d e r i s t h e l e a s t c o s t l y . S t r e a m p r o t e c t i o n c o s t s f o r f i s h e r i e s c o n c e r n s w e r e f o u n d t o be a s u b -s t a n t i a l e x t r a c o s t t o t h e f o r e s t s e c t o r . D e b r i s c l e a n - u p c o s t s i n p a r t i c u l a r , r a n g e d f r o m $ 3 . 0 0 to $ 1 5 . 0 0 p e r l i n e a l m e t r e o f s t r e a m . The r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s of t h e s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s and c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e a l l c l e a r l y d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t e a c h a r e a t o be h a r v e s t e d h a v i n g f i s h v a l u e s m u s t be d e a l t w i t h on a s i t e s p e c i f i c b a s i s . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 'U Li s t of Tables v i i Lis t of Figures ix Acknowledgements x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 4 Purpose of the Study 5 Limitations of the Study 6 Review of the Literature 7 II METHODOLOGY... 18 Questionnaire Description 18 Questionnaire Sample Selection 19 Harvesting Cost Data Description 19 Data Analysis 20 III REGULATION OF THE FOREST SECTOR Introduction 21 Forest Harvesting Regulatory Agencies 22 Legislation Regulating Forest Harvesting Practices 24 The Referral Process 31 Summary 32 V CHAPTER IV VANCOUVER FOREST REGION STUMPAGE APPRAISAL Introduction 34 Appraisals for Stumpage 35 Calculation of Stumpage 37 V TIMBER HARVESTING SYSTEMS EMPLOYED IN THE VANCOUVER FOREST REGION Introduction 46 Standard Highlead Spar 48 Mini Spar 50 Slackline Yarder 50 Grapple Yarder 52 Rubber Tire Skidder 55 Summary . . 55 VI THE COST OF TIMBER HARVESTING Introduction 57 Harvesting Cost Data Description 58 Road Construction 60 Logging Systems Recognized by the Vancouver Forest Region Appraisal System. 62 Summary 67 VII THE COST OF STREAM PROTECTION TO THE FOREST SECTOR Introduction 69 The Costs of Regulation 70 Summary 76 v i CHAPTER VIII HARVESTING QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS Introduction 77 Description of the Sample 77 Variables Affecting Coastal Stream-side Harvesting 78 Cost and Effectiveness Rating of the Individual Harvesting Systems 88 Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Harvesting System 93 Summary 96 Comments and Recommendations of the Study Participants 97 IX CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDA-TIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Conclusions 102 Implications of the Study 103 Recommendations for Further Research. 104 REFERENCES 107 GLOSSARY 112 APPENDICES I Harvesting System Questionnaire 115 II Logging Equipment Hourly Cost Schedule 121 III Botancial Names of Major Tree Species 123 v i i LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1 Disturbance and Compaction of Soil Caused by Three Harvesting: Systems 10 4-1 Sample Cutting Permit I Phase Costs 41 4-2 Cutting Permit I Data 42 4-3 Stumpage Calculation for Cutting Permit 1 43 4-4 Stumpage Calculation for Cutting Permit I Recognizing Cost of Stream Protection 45 6-1 Logging Machine Hourly Costs 59 6-2 Sample Cutting Permit II 62 6-3 F a l l i n g Productivity and Cost Allowance 63 3 6-4 Yarding Productivity (m /hr.) 64 6-5 Yarding Cost Allowances ($/m3) 64 3 6-6 Loading Productivity (m /hr.) 65 3 6-7 Loading Cost Allowance ($/m ) 65 3 6-8 Stump to Dump Cost Allowance ($/m ) 66 3 6- 9 Total Operating Cost Allowance ($/m ) 67 7- 1 Comparison of Estimated Stream Cleaning Costs and Forest Service Appraisal Allowances 72 8- 1 Experience of Respondents 78 8-2 Opinions Regarding the Cost Rating of the Harvesting Systems for Flat Terrain 89 8-3 Opinions Regarding the Effectivenss Rating of the Harvesting Systems for Flat Terrain.... 90 8-4 Opinions Regarding the Cost Rating of the Harvesting Systems for Moderately Sloping Terrain 91 8-5 Opinions Regarding the Effectiveness Rating of the Harvesting Systems for Moderately Sloping Terrain 91 v i i i TABLE 8-6 Opinions Regarding the Cost Rating of the Harvesting Systems for Very Steep Slopes 92 8-7 Opinions Regarding the Effectiveness Rating of the Harvesting Systems for Very Steep Slopes 92 ix LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 5-1 Standard Highlead Spar Yarder System 49 5-2 Slackline Yarder System 51 5-3 Grapple Yarder System 54 8-1 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding System for Selected Terrain 81 8-2 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding System for Selected Sideslopes 81 8-3 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding System for Selected Yarding Distances 82 8-4 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding System for Selected Log Sizes 82 8-5 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding System for Selected Volumes per Hectare 85 8-6 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding System for Selected Deflections 85 8-7 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding System for Selected Stream Gradients 86 X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would li k e to express a sincere thank you to those who made this study possible. F i r s t of a l l , I thank my thesis committee chairman, Doug Golding, for his continual guidance, expertise and encouragement throughout the study process and Tom Northcote and Bob Willington, thesis committee members, for t h e i r c r i t i c a l reviews and e d i t o r i a l comments. Special thanks go to the forest engineers who participated in the study and to Rose Brisky for typing the f i n a l draft and Mark Spycher for drafting the figures in the text. Last, but not least, I am especially grateful to my wife Linda, who without her sustained support and encouragement, this thesis would not have been completed. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The challenge is to maintain a mandate of multiple use and at least, be able to negotiate forest land alienation with a clear understanding of i t s impacts, both economic and s o c i a l . Furthermore, economic analysis should help to strengthen the argument for the long-term benefits which flow from the i n t r i c a t e chain of inter-dependent resources and thereby reduce forest land alienation and c o n f l i c t s (Jeanes, 1983). Since the introduction of the B r i t i s h Columbia Forest Service, "Planning Guidelines for Coast Logging Operations" in 1972, there has been an increasing awareness of the need to maintain a l l forest resource values, s p e c i f i c a l l y f i s h and forests. Improvement in understanding these two diverse resources is required by a l l agencies given the mandate to manage them. Both the f i s h and forest sectors share a common base-the watershed. Forest harvesting may create situations whereby the fishery and/or f i s h habitat is affected. Some of the most recent examples of the user c o n f l i c t s are evident at Riley Creek in the Queen Charlotte Islands 2 (f i s h / f o r e s t ) and Meares Island near Tofino (forest/water supply/tourism) which have both received prominent media coverage. Current research demonstrates that timber harvesting a c t i v i t i e s may have harmful effects on f i s h and f i s h habitat (Gibbons and Salo, 1973; Hartman, 1982; Young,1984; Toews and Brown 1 ee , 1982 ; Lantz, 1971; Swan-son, Lienlcaemper and Sedell, 1976). Such findings suggest that wood debris created by the harvesting process has the most potential to a l t e r f i s h habitat and water quality. To reduce these effects resource agencies entrusted with the mandate to protect the f i s h resource have imposed r e s t r i c t i o n s on timber f a l l i n g and yarding operations adjacent to streams (Toews and Brownlee, 1982; Toews and Moore, 1982; Lantz, 1971; Young, 1984). In areas where forest land is to be withdrawn from timber production to accommodate f i s h habitat, the value for timber can be assessed. For Coastal B r i t i s h Columbia, the Ministry of Forests (MOF) stumpage appraisal system takes into account three key components: existing market values, timber quality and the cost of extraction to determine the value of a tract of timber. The cost of timber harvesting adjacent to streams i s , in turn, influenced by stream protection requirements and selection of the logging equipment. 3 Edie (1982) stated that there is a need for information that can support confident choices between land-use alterna-t i v e s . Information that enables provision of s p e c i f i c con-stra i n t s or techniques for mitigating impacts, or sometimes information that can identify circumstances under which part i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s may or may not occur. Some under-standing of harvesting systems and the appraisal cost allowances associated with them should help resource mana-gers make appropriate stream protection prescriptions when required. Limited research has been done to describe the c a p a b i l i t i e s or the cost of harvesting systems u t i l i z e d to extract timber adjacent to streams. Since each system has i t s own rigging and operational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , each is adaptable to certain topographic conditions. In addition to the physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the logging system, i t may be possible to c l a s s i f y logging systems on the i r potential impact on streams and the i r usefulness for debris manage-ment. One can only discuss potential impacts as the actual impact on debris and water is l i k e l y to vary greatly from s i t e to s i t e (Froehlich, 1978). The author has noted a general d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the resource information data base and current approaches being used in the regulation of timber harvesting adjacent to streams. Pearse (1982) also recognized that this lack of basic information stands in the way of ef f e c t i v e planning. He recommended a comprehensive inventory of f i s h habitats 4 in fresh water streams in B r i t i s h Columbia describing the biophysical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of individual areas of f i s h habitat and also assessing t h e i r potential for producing f i s h . There appears to be a need for the selection of appropriate c r i t e r i a to assess the f u l l implications of alternative logging systems in such areas. There is an even stronger need to ensure resource agency personnel are consistent in both t h e i r approaches with and recommendations to the forest sector when stream protection requirements are being made. When a s p e c i f i c logging system is suggested, i t must be p r a c t i c a l , s i t e s p e c i f i c , and cost e f f e c t i v e . This study provides a composite picture of the f i v e main harvesting systems employed in the Vancouver Forest Region - the standard highlead spar, mini spar, s l a c k l i n e , grapple yarder and rubber t i r e skidder. The findings should prove useful to forest resource managers in planning more ef f e c t i v e harvesting plans for streamside timber, both in terms of cost and stream protection. Statement of the Problem Timber harvesting r e s t r i c t i o n s and f i s h habitat managment prescriptions are becoming more complex in recent years as i t is recognized that certain harvesting a c t i v i t i e s may have some harmful effects on f i s h and f i s h habitat. Fisheries personnel may dictate the method in 5 which these a c t i v i t i e s may be conducted, s p e c i f i c a l l y by imposing f a l l i n g , yarding, and post-logging debris clean-up constraints. However, in the opinion of many f i e l d engineers, fishery o f f i c e r s make decisions with limited knowledge regarding forest harvesting methods, the i r costs, and additional costs incurred to achieve stream protection requirements. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to consider the harvest-ing systems that are available for streamside logging and to recommend that method that is most e f f i c i e n t for parti c u l a r topographic and stand conditions. E f f i c i e n t within the context of thi s study implies the best alternative for achieving reasonable logging costs, required stream protection and acceptable debris manage-ment. With a better understanding of the appraisal system and existing harvesting systems, resource managers should be able to make sound decisions and encourage an adequate u t i l i z a t i o n of the forest resource while s t i l l maintaining the fishery resource at acceptable le v e l s . The s p e c i f i c objectives of the study were: 1. to identify the main resource agencies given the authority to regulate the forest sector. 2. to describe the B r i t i s h Columbia stumpage appraisal 2. system as i t applies to the pricing of timber in Coastal cutting authorities. 3. to identify stumpage appraisal cost allowances for the stump to dump phases of the highlead spar, grapple yarder and rubber t i r e skidder. 4. to identify additional costs incurred by the forest sector for stream protection requirements and post-logging debris clean-up. 5. to identify forest stand and ground c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that may influence the selection of a s p e c i f i c logging system. Limitations of the Study 1. The survey information was obtained through question-naires and is therefore subject to the limitations of self-reported data. 2. Findings of the study are generalizable only to Coastal B.C. areas with similar c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to the three streamside conditions presented. 3. Appraisal cost allowances for the stump to dump phase was presented for only three of the f i v e systems being discussed. The current Coastal Appraisal Manual only provides a means to assess the highlead spar, grapple yarder and rubber t i r e skidder. 7 Review of the Literature Public forest lands are capable of a variety of uses that have value to society. Timber production is only one of these uses, f i s h production is another. Hartman and Holtby ( 1982, p.348) wrote "When one considers the impacts of a complex process such as forest harvesting on f i s h populations, i t is necessary to recognize that there are many di f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s associated with timber removal. These include road construction, tree cutting on h i l l s i d e s , streamside cutting, yarding and post-logging treatment". Also, in a typ i c a l coastal stream there can be several species of f i s h , each with a series of d i f f e r e n t l i f e stages and requirements, some of which can be altered by the logging process into a more favourable range or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , into a range of adverse effects (Hartman and Holtby, 1982). Small streams in Coastal areas of B r i t i s h Columbia, respond quickly to r a i n f a l l . V i r t u a l l y a l l water passes through the s o i l mantle on i t s way to streams instead of flowing over the s o i l surface. This lack of overland flow is perhaps the most important hydrologic character-i s t i c of undisturbed forest land and one of the character-i s t i c s most easily altered by timber harvest a c t i v i t i e s (Fredriksen and Harr, 1979). 8 No doubt, the permanent impact that logging makes on the forest landscape is the development of a road system. As the road system has been repeatedly shown to be the source of most of the man-caused sediment reaching streams, i t follows that any logging system which keeps the road mileage to a minimum should have the least impact on s o i l and water (Froehlich, 1978). Long reach skylines (slackline) may require as l i t t l e as 2% of the harvested area for roadways (Binkley , 1976 ). Under favourable topographic conditions, highlead logging may require only 3 to 3.5 percent of the area for roads (Morrison, 1975; Swanson and Dyrness, 1975). However under normal conditions this figure is between 6.5 to 10 percent (Megahan and Kidd, 1972). It is well recognized that forest harvesting practices can, and have, created water quality problems in forest streams, which can have harmful effects on f i s h and f i s h habitat. The major effects of timber harvesting on f i s h and water resources have been summarized by Gibbons and Salo (1973) to be: 1) introduction of sediments, 2) altered stream flow regimes, 3) introduc-tion of logging debris, 4) degradation of rearing habitat through streambank erosion, 5) altered temper-ature regimes, and 6) altered in-stream energy sources. It is noteworthy that in their summary of 193 a r t i c l e s relating to f i s h and logging practices, only seven have actual quantitative, documented evidence on the,detrimenta 1 effects of logging on f i s h populations. Not one of the a r t i c l e s discussed the cost of stream protection, or attempted to put a monetary value on f i s h populations and f i s h habitat. Gibbons and Salo (1973) concluded that in the absence of precise information, biol o g i s t s are inclined to recommend conservative regulations as a safety factor to protect the f i s h resource. The yarding process of logging can expose mineral s o i l , compact the s o i l and create yarding t r a i l s which i turn may funnel overland water and sediment flow into stream channels. Toews and Brownlee (1981) note that sediment can f i l l the gravel interspaces, reducing the sub-gravel flow that is v i t a l to the survival of develop ing eggs, and hindering alevin emergence from the gravel Heavy sedimentation can also reduce aquatic insect populations and high suspended sediment levels can clog g i l l s of f i s h causing respiratory distress or death by suffocation. Soil disturbance and compaction vary among the logging systems that are available to a logging operator According to Table 1, cable operations may cause much less s o i l damage than a tractor (skidding) operation. 10 Table 1-1 Disturbance and compaction of s o i l caused by three harvesting systems (adapted from Fredriksen and Harr,1979) Harvest Method Bare Soil (%) Compacted (%) Tractor(Skidding) 35.1 26.4 Highlead 14.8 9.1 Skyline(Slackline) 12.1 3.4 Clear cut logging,no matter what the logging system, can create increases in stream water temperatures. Fredriksen and Harr (1979) noted that elevated stream temperatures can be detrimental to populations of resident trout and anadromous f i s h . They discussed further, that although temperatures above 25°C may cause mortality, p a r t i c u l a r l y for f i s h in juvenile and embryonic stages, reduced growth, vigor and resistance to disease are probably the main effects of high water temperature. Elevated water temperature can stress salmon and trout since, as the temperature r i s e s , the amount of oxygen that the water can hold declines, and at the same time, the oxygen requirement for the respiration of f i s h increases. Because f i s h must migrate to cooler water to survive, the result of severe increases in temperatures of stream water is loss of habitat for juvenile f i s h . In the same paper*Fredriksen and Harr (1979) noted an interesting result of stream debris and water temperature. They found that logging debris and under-story vegetation l e f t after logging can provide 11 s u f f i c i e n t shade to prevent an appreciable increase in temperature. In one case c i t e d , water temperature of a stream increased 7°C after logging residue and peripheral shade were removed. In a nearby stream flowing through an unburned clear cut, residual vegetation and logging residue over the stream kept the water temperature increase to 2°C. After s1ashburning, water temperature increased 8°Cin this stream. A mu l t i - d i s c i p l i n a r y study of a small West Coast rain forest watershed and the effects of logging upon i t was i n i t i a t e d in 1970 on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. The study, now referred to as the Carnation Creek Project, was designed to compare physical and bi o l o g i c a l conditions in the watershed prior to, during, and after application of various types of logging and post-logging treatments (Hartman,1983). A recent symposium on the results from the Carnation Creek Project concluded that many of the research projects on the effects of logging on Carnation Creek were incon-clusive (Hartman,1982). However, organic debris, both natural and logging, was i d e n t i f i e d as being one of the major influences in altering stream channel form and f l u v i a l processes. A s t r i k i n g feature of the small streams of the over-mature West Coast forest is the number of trees, log chunks, branches, and root .^ads that accumulate naturally in the stream channel. This debris is 12 deposited in the channel by natural processes and remains part of the stream for many years (Swanson, Lienkaemper and Sedell, 1976). Again, one must re a l i z e that not a l l debris inputs can be prevented. Forest harvesting a c t i v i t i e s , however, can accelerate input, size of debris and especially quantities of debris for a particular stream reach. This input can be substantial i f there is poor layout, lack of deflection or i f i n s u f f i c i e n t l i f t is given to the yarded logs. Large loads of debris may be deposited into the stream channel u t i l i z i n g any logging system under the above conditions. Clear cutting to the edge of the stream, streamside alder removal, and f a l l i n g trees across the stream, and yarding them from the stream a l l contribute to a red-uction in the volume and s t a b i l i t y of large debris according to Toews and Moore (1982). The results of several treatments carried out on Carnation Creek were somewhat surprising. In a careful treatment, logging on both sides of the stream occurred with a l l merchantable trees f e l l e d and yarded away from the stream with care. In an intense treatment, a l l trees including nonmerch-antable trees were f e l l e d along the streamside with approximately 25 leaning trees and snags f e l l e d into or across the stream and yarded out. Both treatments resulted in some reduced s t a b i l i t y of large organic debris and introduction of small organic debris, and these contributed to some changes in the stream channel and 13 and increased streambank erosion (Toews and Moore, 1982). However, the degree of disturbance was not appreciably d i f f e r e n t between the two treatments. Keller and Talley (1979) noted the to t a l debris loading along a particular channel reach represents a relation between rates of debris entering and leaving the reach. Changes brought about by timber harvesting, p a r t i c u l a r l y during the f a l l i n g , bucking and yarding phases, can be divided into two categories - namely, the loss of tree cover (debris source) and the physical dis-turbance- resulting from tree removal. Froehlich (1973) found, under natural unlogged conditions, to t a l stream debris loading could vary from 5.9 to 23.6 tonnes per 30.5 metres of stream channel. Logging, however, may s i g n i f i c a n t l y increase or decrease the debris balance of stream reaches. Froehlich (1975a) determined that as much as 4.5 to 9.1 tonnes of additional debris per 30.5 metres of stream channel resulted d i r e c t l y from logging in some Coastal Oregon streams. Kiss (1976) measured a to t a l debris load after harvesting of 19.9 tonnes per 30.5 metres of stream channel in a second growth stand located at the University of B.C. Research Forest. He also measured 33.3 tonnes per 30.5 metres of stream channel found in a logged old growth stand near Tofino.B.C. Froehlich (1975a) monitored the various phases of logging and i d e n t i f i e d the major source areas of debris to be: 14 1. debris from f a l l i n g - direct input from breakage (tops, limbs and branches) 2. debris from yarding - direct input by yarding across streams (broken boles, stems, and lost pieces) - direct output by the removal of merchantable natural debris. 3. debris from downs lope movement-gravity input of a l l debris sizes. 4. debris from downstream movement-flow input and output . McGreer (1975) concluded that debris quantities increased during the f a l l i n g phase, but that after yarding, debris volumes were lower than under natural conditions. Toews and Moore (1982) found debris is less stable, the debris volume is similar or lower, the number of pieces is greater and the average piece size is smaller following logging than in undisturbed reaches of Carnation Creek on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The extraction of timber can have s i g n i f i c a n t effects on stream debris loading. Many papers have been written on the s e n s i t i v i t y of a stream ecosystem to such disturbances. Lantz (1971), Narver (1972), Hall and Baker (1975) and Hartman (1981) have a l l summarized possible detrimental effects of harvesting operations on 15 both channel morphology and f i s h and/or f i s h habitat. Toews and Brownlee (1981) have summarized negative impacts of forest harvesting a c t i v i t i e s on water quality and f i s h requirements. A draft Coastal Forestry/Fisheries Guide-lines (1984) has also summarized potential impacts from f a l l i n g and yarding a c t i v i t i e s in streamside areas. It should be noted that not a l l the effects of intro-duced debris and harvesting are negative. Debris may help s t a b i l i z e the channel banks and may affect the development of pools and resting places which are desireable components of f i s h habitat (Keller and Talley, 1979; Hall and Baker, 1975). Debris accummulations are u t i l i z e d as cover by both young and adult f i s h . . Upturned tree roots and areas under logs were preferred hiding and sheltering areas for over-wintering coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and older steelhead (Salmo gairdneri) (Bustard,1973). In addition, bacterial a c t i v i t y and food growth for f i s h is increased in many areas of natural debris accummulations (Cummins, 1975) . Young (1984) recognized both the positive and negative impacts of forest harvesting in respect to f i s h habitat. The draft manual has c l a s s i f i e d Coastal streams on a four class system based primarily on the presence of f i s h species groups and gradient. A Class I stream reach is considered to be of high value and a Class IV reach has no' potential f i s h value. In the context of streamside timber extraction, a l l four classes have protection objectives rnc-1 u d-i ngrcons i derat i on of the following: 1. maintain s u f f i c i e n t stream channel integrity to prevent the degradation of downstream reaches through the accelerated transport of sediments or debris, 2. maintain water quality, 3. preserve the integr i t y of channels and banks by maintaining stable in stream organic debris and the root structures which provide bank cohesion, and 4. maintain the quality of streambed gravels. Toews and Brownlee (1981) have also summarized stream protection objectives and proposed various r e s t r i c t i o n s on a l l phases of the logging operation. However, l i k e many such guidelines, there is no attempt to recognize costs, quantify the value being protected, or address the prac-t i c a l r e a l i t i e s of the logging process. Summary The review of the l i t e r a t u r e has i d e n t i f i e d several important aspects of the f o r e s t / f i s h relationship which occur in B.C. Coastal streams. Debris is a natural component of small streams. Forest harvesting a c t i v i t i e s , however, can accelerate input, size of debris and quantities of debris for a given stream reach. Natural and logging debris have been i d e n t i f i e d as being one of the major factors which may al t e r stream channel form and f l u v i a l processes. Researchers have recognized both positive and 17 negative impacts of forest harvesting in respect to f i s h habitat. It may be possible to c l a s s i f y and select logging systems on their potential for minimizing the negative impacts to stream habitat. 18 CHAPTER II Methods The overall study was conducted to provide guidelines as to what harvesting system is best suited to s p e c i f i c topographic variables ( t e r r a i n , sideslope, yarding distance, log size, volume per hectare, stream gradient and de-f l e c t i o n ) where stream protection is required for f i s h values. The study was also to identify the cost of the individual harvesting methods and additional costs incurred for stream protection requirements. The data were obtained u t i l i z i n g two methods; 1) a questionnaire for the topographic variables and 2) an analysis of existing cost d e t a i l . Questionnaire Description The Harvesting System Questionnaire was developed by the author to determine the timber harvesting systems best suited to B.C. Coastal streamside harvesting. It was segregated into two major sections: one to evaluate s p e c i f i c variables which might effect the potential of each system, and the second to rate each system for harvesting three separate stream conditions. The questionnaire was pre-tested for content and c l a r i t y with six (6) engineers in May,1983. Results 19 indicated a f a i r l y high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y of the responses, especially for the section on ter r a i n and stand conditions. The Harvesting system Questionnaire was then distributed in July, 1983 to f i f t y (50) forest engineers employed by Coastal forest companies. Questionnaire Sample Selection. The Harvesting System Questionnaire was distributed to f i f t y (50) forest engineers employed by member companies of the Council of Forest Industries (COFI). This was done in order to relate the descriptive survey results to actual 1982 costs derived through the COFI Logging Cost Survey since many of the operations constituted the place of employment of the engineers being sampled. Participants completed the questionnaire and returned i t to the author between the months of July and October 1983. Harvesting Cost Data Description The cost data are a summary of average 1982 phase logging costs as experienced by a selection of COFI members. The cost information was provided by twenty-two (22) Coastal operations p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the Council's 1982 logging cost survey. The operations were selected by the Ministry of Forests (MOF), in conjunction with the Council, with the objective of acquiring a representative sample of the industry on the Coast. 20 Data Analysis The cost estimates for the stump to dump phases of each logging system are derived through the use of a productivity system approach. The stand and ground conditions for each of the stream conditions presented were included into phase equations currently employed by the 1984 Ministry of Forests Coastal Appraisal Manual. The use of one s p e c i f i c cutting permit allows comparison of not only the logging system by phase, but also the differences that are created by stand and t e r r a i n conditions. The assumption that cost allowances represent experienced costs with only a small degree of variance had to be made. The results of the cost and productivity analysis are presented in Chapter VI. The responses to the Harvesting System Questionnaire were not computerized, but rather grouped for each section of the questionnaire and analyzed separately. The findings from the Harvesting System Questionnaire are discussed in Chapter VIII. 21 CHAPTER III Regulation of the Forest Sector Introduction "Protection measures for streamsides e s s e n t i a l l y focus on the questions of what harvesting methods should be applied, how much and what kind of vegetation should be l e f t on the streamside, a l l within the context of what uses other than timber production are important" (Young, 1984 ^ . 8 ) . Planning and administration of timber harvesting in B r i t i s h Columbia with respect to stream habitat management is generally the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of one federal and two provincial agencies, namely Canada Fisheries, B.C. Ministry of Forests and the B.C.Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch. The Federal Fisheries Act, Ministry of Forests Act and related regulations provide the principal direction for stream protection in the Province. The three agencies which are described in the following text are charged with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of ensuring the perpetuation and enhancement of their individual resources. 22 Forest Harvesting Regulatory Agencies 1. B r i t i s h Columbia Ministry of Forests The mandate for forest management by the Ministry of Forests is expressed in a statement of objectives from Section 5 of the Ministry of Forests Act: -to encourage the attainment of maximum productivity of the forest and range resources of the Province, -to manage, protect and conserve the forest and range resources of the Crown, having regard to the immediate and long term economic and social benefits they may confer on the Province, -to plan the use of the forests and range resources of the Crown, so that the production of timber and forage, the harvesting of timber, the grazing of livestock and the r e a l i z a t i o n of f i s h e r i e s , w i l d l i f e , water, outdoor recreation and other natural resource values are co-ordinated and integrated, in consul-tation and co-operation with other ministries and agencies of the Crown and with the Private sector, -to encourage a vigorous, e f f i c i e n t and world competitive timber processing industry in the Province, and -to assert the f i n a n c i a l interest of the Crown and i t s forest and range resources in a systematic and equitable manner. 23 2. Canada Department of.Fisheries and Oceans In managing the salmon resource, Canada Fisheries has i d e n t i f i e d a broad set of management objectives as follows: -to ensure the conservation, protection, orderly harvest and best use of the salmon resource to achieve optimum social and economic benefits for Canadians. -to protect and preserve salmon habitat, the quality and productivity of which are jeopardized by con-f l i c t i n g water use, land use and waste disposal practices. -to develop, improve and apply f i s h culture and other enhancement technology to increase the production of salmon to generate economic, social and environmental benefits (Toews and Brownlee, 1981). 3. B r i t i s h Columbia Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch The principles and goals for f i s h e r i e s concerns are: -to produce maximum economic, c u l t u r a l , recreational and s c i e n t i f i c benefits for present and future generations of B.C. by maintaining a l l native and introduced species of f i s h at optimum levels of d i s t r i b u t i o n , abundance and health and protecting or enhancing essential fresh water habitat (Toews and Brownlee, 1981). 24 Legislation Regulating Forest Harvesting Practices Federal Fisheries Act It is important for forest land managers to recognize the f i s h e r i e s mandates are backed by a strong piece of l e g i s l a t i o n , the Federal Fisheries Act. Section 33 is most relevant to the forest industry as i t deals with the injury to f i s h i n g grounds and pollution of waters. Subsection 2 says in part, "no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by f i s h or in any place under any conditions where such deleterious substances or any other deleterious substance may enter into any such water". Subsection 2 and Section 31 (1) of the Fisheries Act are the key sections under which the primary environmental prosecutions occur (Environmental Law and Practice,1983). Section 31 (1) reads: "No person shall carry on work or undertaking that results in the harmful a l t e r a t i o n , dis-ruption or destruction of f i s h habitat". Section 33 (3) reads: "No person engaging in logging, lumbering, land clearing or other operations, shall put or knowingly permit to be put, any slash, stumps or other debris into any water frequented by f i s h or that flows into such water". 25 Toews and Brownlee (1981) noted that in September, 1977 f i n a l assent was given to B i l l C-38 introduced to amend the Fisheries Act. These amendments relevant to the B.C. forest sector, both in terms of protection and enforcement included: 1) The d e f i n i t i o n of f i s h was expanded to include eggs, spawn, spat and juvenile stages of f i s h . 2) Fish habitat was defined as spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which f i s h depend d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y in order to carry out t h e i r l i f e processes. 3) The basic prohibition against depositing a deleterious substance into f i s h bearing waters was retained, and amendments relating to protection of habitat were introduced. 4) Monetary fines for each infraction were to be levied for each day the infraction continued and/or the operation could be curtailed at the discretion of the Fisheries O f f i c e r . Snow (1983) cites a court case in which the resultant decision has become the corner stone for the Crown's proof of deleteriousness. If a substance in any concentration in any waters could harm any f i s h , then i t must be con-sidered deleterious. This seems a handy test as most substances in s u f f i c i e n t quantity and in the right circumstances are harmful to most l i v i n g creatures. 26 Snow (1983) also gives two examples where operators charged under the Fisheries Act may be able to get some re 1 i ef : 1) where the defendant can demonstrate in evidence that there would be no likelihood that a pa r t i c u l a r deposit would harm the f i s h that frequent the waters in the area of that deposit, i . e . no link between the deposit and any fishery to be protected, there should be an a c q u i t t a l . 2) that the Fisheries Act had no application to landlocked f i s h that were too small to ever be a fishery and were not part of the food chain for a fishery. Ministry of Forests Act The Ministry of Forests Act is of particular importance because i t demands ef f e c t i v e and consistent management of forest resources. It emphasizes the social and economic well being of B r i t i s h Columbians - not just the tasks of growing, protecting and s e l l i n g wood. It i n s i s t s on co-operative e f f o r t s with other agencies (Forest Range and Resource Analysis, 1980). The Act stresses the need for consideration of a l l uses of forest land and provides for consultation with other ministries and agencies so that forest management decisions r e f l e c t the concerns of other users of forest land and watersheds. 27 Apsey (1984) warned foresters "that a l l resource values must be considered" and that while timber prod-uction w i l l always be an important consideration, " i t is no longer pre-eminent and must take i t s place in the overall scheme". In addition to the mandate expressed in the Ministry of Forests Act, the Ministry of Forests includes standard stream protection clauses in every cutting authority approved by Ministry s t a f f . Section 8.01 and Section 8.02, referred to as P.1 clauses, contained in a l l Coastal cutting permits, read as follows: 8.01 In respect of timber harvesting and related operations carried on under this Cutting Permit the licensee w i l l not permit (a) a lake, stream or spring that supplies water for any purpose, to be rendered unfit for that purpose, or (b) trees, logs, logging debris or any polluting substance to be deposited into a lake, stream, or spring, unless authorized by a Forest O f f i c e r , , or (c) logs to be skidded or equipment to be operated below the high-water mark of a lake or stream, unless authorized by a Forest O f f i c e r , or (d) any obstruction, gravel or f i l l to be placed below the high-water mark of a lake or stream, unless authorized by a Forest O f f i c e r , or 28 (e) a landing to be located within 40 m of a lake or stream or in an area that is not designated for harvesting in this Cutting Permit, unless authorized by a Forest O f f i c e r , or (f) slash to be burned closer to a lake or stream than the distance specified by a Forest O f f i c e r . 8.02 In respect of timber harvesting and related operations carried on under this Cutting Permit the Licensee w i l l (a) remove logging, m i l l i n g and road-building debris deposited in and on the banks of lakes and streams, (b) direct f a l l i n g and yarding of timber away from lakes and streams and t h e i r banks, (c) protect natural growth in and on the banks of lakes and streams from damage from logging and burning, (d) build a bridge or i n s t a l l a culvert at every stream crossing, designed to accommodate the maximum flow of the stream and to permit un-obstructed f i s h passage, and (e) schedule the construction of stream crossings, as directed by a Forest O f f i c e r . 29 Fisheries personnel have the opportunity to add other protection measures during thereview of cutting permit applications. These are usually s i t e s p e c i f i c and may contain certain r e s t r i c t i o n s before a particular harvesting proposal such as cross-stream yarding may take place. Many of the requested measures usually relate to f a l l i n g , the method of yarding and post yarding debris removal as evidenced by the following examples: 1. Trees which would have to be f e l l e d into the creek are to be f e l l e d just prior to yarding. Where possible, d i r e c t i o n a l f a l l i n g with a timber tipping system should be used. 2. To prevent debris loading, trees f a l l i n g into the creek are to be limbed after removal. 3. The yarding crew is to be advised to use extreme caution when setting turns and yarding to minimize or eliminate butt drag and to attempt maximum l i f t while yarding. If required, then smaller turns are to be taken to achieve maximum l i f t . 4. Yarding on that portion of the setting adjacent to the creek is to take place between June 1 and September 15 or during other periods of low flow as authorized in writing by the D i s t r i c t Manager. Yarding is to be completed within the ye a r -laf ..commeacemen t. 30 5. A debris catchment f a c i l i t y ( g r i z z l y ) must be i n s t a l l e d and cleaned out regularly u n t i l such time as i t can be removed once clean-up is completed to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of a Forest O f f i c e r . 6. Debris introduced to streams, as well as any unstable natural debris shall be removed con-current with the progress of yarding. Debris removal is to be done to machine c a p a b i l i t y . Debris is to be deposited in a location where i t cannot find i t s way back into the stream. 7. Natural debris which is stable cannot be removed. These so-called P clauses in Coastal cutting permits provide a workable means between the Fisheries Act and day to day administration of cutting permits. The clauses allow a Forest O f f i c e r to approve logging practices which may contravene a rigorous interpretation of Section 33 of the Fisheries Act following consultation with Fishery and Conservation O f f i c e r s . The clauses constitute, in e f f e c t , an interpretation of the Fisheries Act and afford licensees a degree of protection from prosecution under the Act. Even so, licensees must comply with a l l contractual requirements protecting stream quality. 31 The Referral Process In accordance with an approved Management and Working Plan, each licensee must prepare a Five Year Development Plan for each of i t s operating areas. The plan i d e n t i f i e s a l l cut blocks proposed for harvest within the next f i v e years. Usually the f i r s t two years of any particular plan are l a i d out in the f i e l d . The remaining years are generally paper projections based on a i r photos, prelim-inary ground investigations and forest inventory maps. The forest engineer responsible for a par t i c u l a r drainage attempts to identify potential c o n f l i c t areas with other resource values. Involvement by other agencies occurs once the Plan is submitted to the Ministry of Forests for review and approval. The Plan is then referred to other agencies for review and comments which must be returned to the Ministry of Forests within a specified time frame in some Forest D i s t r i c t s . Some licensees arrange for j o i n t Five Year Plan meetings with representatives of a l l agencies, including the Ministry of Forests in an attempt to speed up the approval process. Possible c o n f l i c t areas are i d e n t i f i e d and discussed at this stage in relation to a l l resource values. High value or sensitive sites are then f i e l d inspected, and in most cases, harvesting techniques and stream protection 32 requirements i n i t i a l l y proposed. The Ministry of Forests D i s t r i c t s t a ff then send an approval of the Plan to the •licensee. This approval is sometimes dubious, as i t is in many cases, r e s t r i c t e d to approval in pri n c i p l e and subject to further on s i t e examination. The r e f e r r a l process is hindered as i t can take an excessive amount of time due to staff shortages of key agency personnel and thereby incur further costs to industry in delays. In addition, unlike the timber resource, stream inventories, f i s h presence and f i s h value data are not available for many Coastal areas currently under application for harvesting. Summary It is clear, that before any timber extraction can take place on Crown land in B.C., a l l the regulatory agencies must concur with the operators' proposal for harvesting a given area. The pr i n c i p l e objectives of the three agencies with respect to stream and debris management are: 1. prevention of physical damage to the natural stream channel and adjacent vegetation during logging operations through tight limitations on machine a c t i v i t y and yarding in streams, 2. removal of introduced debris from streams following the yarding operations, 33 3. leaving debris of natural origin in place, unless i t s i g n i f i c a n t l y interferes with f i s h passage, and 4. careful placement of roads and careful planning of operations in sensitive or unstable areas. To meet these objectives and abide by r e s t r i c t i o n s on f e l l i n g and yarding procedures, licensees must employ s p e c i f i c yarding systems and in the process may incur extra costs. 34 CHAPTER IV . VANCOUVER FOREST REGION STUMPAGE APPRAISAL : Introduction Timber is a valuable commodity and when l e f t in leave s t r i p s or alienated from logging to protect f i s h habitat, regulatory agencies must assure themselves that the values to be protected outweigh the timber values l o s t . This section b r i e f l y describes the pricing of timber for Coastal areas within the Vancouver Forest Region. The pricing and assessment of timber values requires q u a l i f i e d personnel from the Ministry of Forests and Industry to secure a f a i r return for the Province's timber resource. Regulatory agencies with mandates to protect and enhance the Province's fishery resource must be made aware of timber values and the procedures u t i l i z e d to price Crown timber. Many individuals have a misperception that any added cost of stream protection or clean-up incurred by a logging operator is reimbursed via the stumpage appraisal system. Resource managers having a base under-standing of the appraisal process and how i t works during low and high market conditions would be in a better position to negotiate alternative logging treatments for streams of varying f i s h values. 35 Timber appraisal refers to the procedures for deter-mining the minimum acceptable price to the Crown for public timber harvested in B r i t i s h Columbia. It is designed to establish the net value of a tract of timber to be harvested by subtracting from the estimated value of the products that can be recovered from i t , the costs necessary to re a l i z e these values, including a p r o f i t to the operator. The price of the timber is thus in the nature of a residual value i . e . , the unearned increment or surplus of value over the necessary costs of u t i l i z i n g the resource (Ministry of Forests Kamloops Appraisal Manual, 1978). As approximately 95% of the forest land in B r i t i s h Columbia is owned by the Crown, stumpage represents the public equity in i t s forest s . It is therefore the amount which the B.C. forest industry must pay to the government for timber. Stumpage payments represent approximately 10% of the to t a l annual revenue to the Crown in a given year. It represents the majority of revenue from the provincial category called forest revenue. Appraisals for Stumpage The appraisal for stumpage is one of the functions of the forest valuation branch of the Ministry of Forests (MOF). The organization has been structured s i m i l a r i l y in V i c t o r i a and the Forest Regions, in order to simplify 36 administration and communication. Provincial p o l i c i e s are created and administered by the MOF located in V i c t o r i a . Each Region and associated D i s t r i c t s administer and perf/o>rm the appraisal at the local l e v e l . The forest land tenures upon which timber is appraised for stumpage are those Crown lands within Tree Farm Licences, Forest Licences and Timber Sales. Leasehold lands and Crown Granted Lands are normally reserved from stumpage. However, Licensees have the option of electing to pay stumpage instead of royalty on Timber Licences to take advantage of access road and s i l v i c u l t u r e funding programs. With the exception of Timber Licences, the tenures do not actually grant the right to cut any timber. Actual harvesting is authorized by cutting permits for which timber dues are calculated through the stumpage appraisal system. Appraisals of timber are the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of D i s t r i c t MOF s t a f f with s i g n i f i c a n t input from licensees. The unit of timber which is appraised is calle d a cutting permit. Appraisals are done on an annual basis -the f i r s t one at the i n i t i a t i o n of the cutting permit and subsequent ones at the anniversary date of the permit. This procedure has evolved in an attempt to maintain current cost allowances and to revise any of the details which were o r i g i n a l l y submitted, should further knowledge of the area show necessity for revision - such as the re-location of roads, changes to f a l l i n g boundaries, and updating of log size and log grades. 37 The forest system of appraisal provides the method for the determination of a reasonable value for an individual tract of timber by considering various deta i l s about the timber, the extraction processes, a l l costs related to the movement of logs to market, the value of logs and a margin for p r o f i t and r i s k . Cost estimates normally include a l l the necessary expenditures that would be incurred by a reasonably e f f i c i e n t operator to produce raw logs and to comply with the provisions of the cutting permit and the tenure being operated on. Calculation of Stumpage The basic calculation of stumpage is r e l a t i v e l y simple and is known as the Rothery Method. Individual values for the three main components of s e l l i n g price, p r o f i t and risk and operating cost can be of extreme importance in the determination of stumpage. The Interior stumpage calculation is somewhat more complicated than the Coastal system, as i t is based on end product (lumber) values and takes into consideration m i l l -ing costs as well as logging costs. Other differences exist between the two systems, but the main thrust of this report concentrates on the Coastal log based procedure, The appraisal formula applied i n d i v i d u a l l y to each timber species in a Coastal cutting permit is simply: 38 Stumpage = Sellin g Price of Logs - Operating Cost - P r o f i t and Risk Allowance. The system is thus broken down into procedures for determining each of the three components of the above formu1 a. 1. Sel l i n g Price - the MOF compiles log sales values by species and grade monthly. These values are for the Vancouver log market which represents approximately 14% of the Coastal log harvest. The individual s e l l i n g price for each grade is then pro-rated by the percentage of that grade in the cutting permit (refer to Table 4-3). Grades are usually derived from h i s t o r i c a l scale of adjacent or similar timber. 2. P r o f i t and Risk - also referred to as a p r o f i t ratio and represents a percentage return on the tot a l cost of the operation. It is calculated by adding allowances for risk to a basic p r o f i t allowance of 10% for Coastal cutting permits. Other additional factors which are assessed and added to the basic allowance are: a) an allowance for market risk - the higher the t o g ^ p r i c e s , the higher the r i s k . b) an allowance for defect and breakage - the more defective the timber, the higher the r i s k . c) an allowance for risk of logging chance - the more d i f f i c u l t the t e r r a i n , the higher the r i s k . 39 d) an allowance for investment risk - the more costly the road construction, the higher the r i s k . The to t a l p r o f i t ratio is usually in the range of 15-20%. The p r o f i t ratio would be much lower for an operation logging excellent Fir-Cedar stands near Vancouver, than for an operation logging rugged decadent, Hemlock-Balsam stands in the north coast area. 3. Operating Cost - represents the to t a l costs re-quired to process the logs from a given t r a c t of timber to market. Appraisal manuals det a i l i n g the procedure for determining the operating cost have been developed by the MOF (with input from industry) for each of the eight appraisal regions within the Province. Although each region has a few s p e c i f i c procedures peculiar to operations within t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n , the basic concepts are the same. Costs are developed for each logging phase and for overhead items. Table €-1 indicates a l l phase costs recognized in a typi c a l Coastal cutting permit. The phase costs which are considered when a tra c t of timber is appraised have been projected with an indication of the cost allowances. Each one is assessed in variable d e t a i l to define the factors which affect i t . For example, the allowance for yarding is based on a fixed s h i f t pro-duction, which in turn is determined by the cutting permit slope, obstacle index and log size. Administration costs 40 on the other hand, for operational and administrative 3 overhead are a standard $7.93/m for a l l cutting permits. Table 4-1 presents a t y p i c a l coastal cutting permit 3 which has a calculated operating cost of $46.93/m effe c t i v e July 1, 1982. The phases can be separated into d i s t i n c t categories for development costs (road, bridge and landing construction), stump to dump costs ( f a l l i n g and bucking, yarding, loading and hauling), and a l l other costs as defined in the table. Minimum Stumpage Rate The appraisal system can and does indicate very low and negative stumpage rates when market prices are low or where estimated operating costs are high. Minimum stumpage rates for the Vancouver Forest Region are 8% of the Average Market Value (AMV) of logs traded on the Vancouver Log Market. Table 4 - 1 Sample Cutting Permit I Phase Costs Logging Phases Cost($/m ) Development Costs Road Construction $ 4.46 Bridges 0.12 Landings 0.68 Sub-Total $ 5.25 Stump to Dump Costs Fal 1 ing & Bucking $ 3.54 Yarding 6.77 Loading 3.85 Hauling 3.60 Sub-Total $ 17.76 A l l Other Costs Road Maintenance $ 1.82 Road Use Charges 0.05 Sorting & Booming 3.30 Scaling 0.19 Contractual Obligations 0.08 Camp & Cookhouse 3.68 Crew Transportation 3.54 Towi ng 1.13 Administration 7.93 Operational Engineering 0.97 Cruising 0.06 Remoteness 1.16 Sub-Total 23.91 Total Operating Cost $ 46.93 Table 4-2 Cutting Permit I Data Term: 1 year e f f e c t i v e July 1, 1982 Area: 1 1 2 . 0 hectares Volume: Ba1sam (BA) = = 2 2 , 0 0 0 m 3 m Cedar (CE) = = 1 0 , 6 0 0 m 3 m F i r (FI) = = 5 , 4 0 0 m 3 m Hem lock (HE) : = 2 3 , 0 0 0 m Total Volume = 6 1 , 0 0 0 m 3 m The stumpage calculation employed in the Vancouver Forest Region for Coastal cutting permits is represented in Table 4 - 3 . The example i d e n t i f i e s how the s e l l i n g price, p r o f i t and r i s k , and operating cost components of the appraisal system are u t i l i z e d in determining stumpage rates for individual species contained in a given cutting permit. An example of a Coastal cutting permit is presented in Table 4 - 2 . 43 Table 4-3 Stumpage Calculation for Cutt ing Permit I BA CE FJ_ HE Market Risk (%) 3 3 3 3 Defect & Breakage (%) 0 2 0 0 Risk of Chance [%) 3 3 3 3 Investment Risk {%) 2 2 2 2 Basic Allowance (%) 10 10 10 10 Total Allowance (%) 18 20 18 18 Price/Grade A ($m/3) - - 148 .50 _ B - - 106 .15 -C 52. 44 - 56 .87 -D 56. 79 109. 25 120 .13 61 .90 F - 104. 04 - -H 47. 64 84. 72 50 .36 49 .62 I 38. 01 73. 25 45 .01 38 .52 J 27. 72 60. 98 31 .90 28 .35 K - 86. 38 - _ L - 71 . 43 - -M - 53. 56 - -X 13. 24 22. 49 16 .91 16 .20 Y 1 1 . 1 1 6. 04 3 .76 14 .92 Percent Grade A _ _ 2 _ B - - 5 -C 2 - 15 -D 1 - 3 1 F - - - _ H 16 23 20 1 1 I 34 25 15 35 J V 25 6 20 17 l\ L _ 17 _ M - 20 - -X 19 6 15 32 Y 3 3 5 4 Operating Cost ($/m ) 46. 93 46. 93 46 .93 46 .93 Base A.M.V. ($/m3) 33. 20 70. 30 48 .10 30 .50 Minimum % ~ 8 8 8 8 Minimum Rate ($/m ) 2. 66 5. 62 3 .85 2 .44 Pro-rated S e l l i n g -Price ($/mo) 31 . 94 65. 84 46 .31 30 .16 Discount Value ($/m ) 27. 07 54. 87 39 .25 25 .56 Indicated Stumpage($/m3) -19. 86 7. 94 -7 .68 -21 .37 Pr o f i t & Risk ($/m3) 4. 87 10. 97 7 .06 4 .60 Final Stumpage ($/m3) 2. 66 7. 94 3 .85 2 .44 44 Using the operating cost of $46.93 determined in Table 4-1 the stumpage rates for the sample permit are: BA $2.66 CE 7.94 FI 3.85 HE 2.44 A l l species with the exception of CE are at minimum rates. If 100% of the available 61,000 m3 is harvested during the term of the permit, the stumpage payable to the Crown is calculated to be $219,595. Should stream protection be required either through the i n s t a l l a t i o n of debris g r i z z l i e s , stream clean-up or end hauling by one of the regulatory agencies, additional costs would be incurred: a sum of $30,500 for a permit of this size not being excessive. This to t a l would increase the operating cost for the permit by $0.50/m to $47.43/m . Table 4-4 shows the stumpage calculated for Cutting Permit I with the Operating Cost r e f l e c t i n g an additional cost of $30,500 for stream protection. Note, however, that the increase in operating cost is only reflected in a decreased stumpage payable for CE, as BA, FI and HE were already below the minimum rate. The stumpage payable with the increased cost of $30,500 for f i s h protection would now be $214,295. 45 Table 4-4 Stumpage Calculation for Cutting Permit I Recognizing Cost  of Stream Protection Species BA C_E FI HE Operating Cost($/m 3) 47.43 47.43 47.43 47.43 Indicated Stumpage -20.36 7.44 -8.18 -21.87 Final Stumpage 2.66 7.44 3.85 2.44 It is important to note that the difference in stumpage payable calculated for the operating cost of $47.43/m3 versus the i n i t i a l value of $46.93/m3 is only $5,300. Because only CE was on positive stumpage rates, the additional cost of $30,500 incurred for stream pro-tection was not f u l l y recovered by the licensee. In fact, only the $5,300 or 17.4% of the added cost of $30,500 was accounted for, through the appraisal system. The fact that the current appraisal system does not recognize any additional costs during low market conditions is an important consideration to logging operators. The added cost of stream protection and clean-up is discussed in greater d e t a i l in Chapter VII. 46 CHAPTER V Timber Harvesting Systems Employed in the Vancouver Forest Region Introduction Logging is a specialized form of materials handling and transportation. The fact that the material in question is logs located on forested land only further defines the handling systems requirements. Environmental factors more s p e c i f i c a l l y define the conditions under which logs must be transported (Studier and Binkley, 1974). Clearcut logging is the general practice for timber harvesting Coastal areas of B r i t i s h Columbia. The practice involves the complete removal of the timber stand over a given area in a single cut. These clearcut areas can range in size from a r e l a t i v e l y few hectares to a hundred hectares. In many Coastal areas, streams can either form a cut block boundary or may disect the cut block several times. Resource managers must develop a background required to obtain a basic understanding of the logging systems currently employed in the Vancouver Forest Region. They must become acquainted with the actual operations of the logging systems and t h e i r general e f f i c i e n c i e s under the various conditions found within the Region to appreciate 47 th e i r advantages and disadvantages in maintaining stream habitat. Clearcuts may be yarded with any logging system, although log length cable yarders are considered to be the norm within the Vancouver Forest Region. There are a few areas within the Region where tree and log length ground skidding operations occur. Large quantities of slash (wood residue) frequently accumulate from clearcutting old growth timber stands as well as from stands characterized by a high degree of decay and windfall timber. The impact of clearcutting on stream habitat and water quality is associated primarily with (1) s i t e exposure and s o i l disturbance, and 2) the presence of large quantities of forest residue (Montgomery, 1976). The logging system used can have an influence not only on the extent of s o i l erosion, but also on the amount of debris concentrated in g u l l i e s and stream depressions. Four cable systems: the standard highlead spar, mini spar, grapple yarder and s l a c k l i n e , and one skidder system, the rubber t i r e skidder w i l l now be discussed in context with t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s and limitations with regard to timber extraction and post logging stream debris clean-up. Some of the requirements and system descriptions have been adapted from "Cable and Logging Systems" by Studier and Binkley (1974). Streamside logging and post-logging debris clean-up c a p a b i l i t i e s have been derived from the author's 48 personal knowledge and discussions with practicing forest eng i neers. 1. Standard Highlead Spar The standard highlead spar (Figure 5-1) has been the most common yarding system u t i l i z e d on Coastal B r i t i s h Columbia forested areas. The main reason for i t s use is i t s a v a i l a b i l i t y and that i t can be used to log on almost any kind of ground, even under adverse te r r a i n conditions. The system employs a mobile 27.5 metre tower, with mainline, haulback line and chokers. The mainline yards in a turn of logs while the haulback line returns the rigging and empty chokers to the setting. The yarder requires clearcut settings and is usually used where yarding distances are between 200 to 300 metres. The system operates better on areas requiring u p h i l l yarding as there is usually a l i f t on the yarded logs. Because the highlead spar is normally used in adverse te r r a i n conditions where poor deflection and obstacles occur,there must be adequate t a i l h o l d stumps for the haulback line and guylines. In terms of concurrent or post logging stream debris clean-up, the highlead spar is useful only for large broken boles or log chunks. Limbs, broken tree tops and smaller sizes of debris cannot be cleaned e f f i c i e n t l y due to the i n f l e x i b i l i t y of the chokers. Nylon chokers have been t r i e d in some operations with marginal success. 2. Mini Spar The mini spar operates on the same prin c i p l e s as the standard highlead spar. Because of the smaller machine size, i t s l i f t c a p a b i l i t i e s r e s t r i c t i t s use to smaller log sizes. The lower 15 metre tower height also l i m i t s clearance for deflection and yarding distances to less than 150 metres. Again, the use of nylon chokers can allow for stream clear-ance of some small debris. The lower operating cost of the unit lends the machine to more intense post logging clean-up when compared to the other cable systems being discussed. 3. Slackline Yarder The slackline (Figure 5-2) is similar to the standard spar, but is equipped with an extra line referred to as a skyline which a carriage rides on. The mainline and haul-back line operate as in the standard spar. The main advantage with the sl a c k l i n e is the skyline can be raised or lowered by winding the skyline drum in or out, tighten-ing and slackening the skyline as t e r r a i n conditions dictate. The skyline set-up is designed to more e f f e c t i v e l y elevate or to f u l l y suspend logs during the yarding phase. It is favoured in areas where logs are to be yarded across streams or cut blocks associated with deep g u l l i e s and canyons. The slackline requires long yarding distances, usually up to 500 metres. It may be used for both u p h i l l and downhill yarding, but u p h i l l yarding is preferred when operating adjacent to streams. Good deflection and adequate t a i l h o l d stumps are a must as f u l l elevation of logs puts additional stress on a l l l i n e s . F i g u r e 5-2 S l a c k l i n e Yarder System 52 If a cut block is properly l a i d out for the sl a c k l i n e , the main advantage over a highlead operation in streamside harvesting :-ijss fewer hangups, less log breakage and less s o i l disturbance. The slackline is not pra c t i c a l for concurrent logging and stream clean-up due to i t s high operating cost and large crew si z e . Because the system is designed to operate on very steep slopes, gravity movement of debris negates clean-up endeavours and endangers employees working in the stream reach. 4. Grapple Yarder A grapple yarder (Figure 5-3) is similar to a heel boom loader, usually mounted on a tracked undercarriage. The system u t i l i z e s two mainlines, one haulback line and generally two guylines. The yarder is not tied to fixed landings, is very manoeuverable, but requires good to excellent deflection, as the operator has to have visual contact with the logs being yarded. The grapple, riding on the haulback, is held open by pulling on one of the mainlines and closed by pulling on the other. The yarding distance can be between 200 to 300 metres with distances of less than 150 metres preferred. One advantage of the system is i t need not be combined with a loading machine at a l l times. The logs can be windrowed along the roadside on f l a t to moderate sloped t e r r a i n and loaded out whenever i t suits the operator. 53 Whenever ground conditions permit, a portable (mobile) back-spar usually mounted on an older crawler tractor is u t i l i z e d to improve deflection and eliminate the need for changing fixed t a i l b l o c k s . Depending on t e r r a i n , a skid t r a i l may have to be constructed along the back of the setting to accommodate the back spar. Poorly constructed back spar roads may cause sediment problems adjacent to streams. The biggest advantage in stream-associated areas is the grapple yarder can log d i r e c t l y away from the stream for the f u l l length of stream being harvested. The grapple can be employed to assist in stream clean-up of medium to large size debris. It is not e f f i c i e n t for the removal of small debris such as broken branches and twigs unless they are in bunches. Another variation of the grapple is a swing yarder which has the capability of both grapple and carriage logging. This machine in the carriage logging set up has the a b i l i t y to assemble a turn before yarding (P.Oakley, personal communication, February 11, 1985). This feature may be especially advantageous in clean-up operations where several log chunks or debris piles may be assembled on either side of the yarding road. Then when enough material is assembled i t may a l l be hooked and yarded away from the stream in one turn. F i g u r e 5-3 Grapple Yarder System 55 5 . Rubber Tire Skidder This system has maximum mobility requiring no t a i l h o l d stumps or rigging time. The skidder can be used for clear-cut or selective logging prescriptions. It is excellent for yarding small, isolated patches of timber on f l a t , dry or frozen•ground. The skidder may cause maximum s o i l disturbance, compaction of s o i l s , increased runoff and s i l t a t i o n in stream situations. The skidder is not pr a c t i c a l for debris clean-up, as the a c t i v i t y of the machine within the wetted perimeter of the stream can cause more disturbance to stream banks which outweigh any benefits accruing from debris removal. The system's i n a b i l i t y to l i f t material is also a hinderance for clean-up operations. Summary Each timber harvesting system has i t s own rigging and operational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Each is adaptable to certain topographic conditions and is capable of prevention of physical damage to the natural stream channel and adjacent vegetation during the logging operation. The key consideration for any operator is to take a f l e x i b l e approach in the application of logging systems at his disposal. One must appreciate that one pa r t i c u l a r harvesting system w i l l not be the best approach for a l l stream circumstances. The operator and his crew having the 56 choice of several harvesting systems must be w i l l i n g to adjust their a c t i v i t y to varying s i t e - b y - s i t e conditions. 57 CHAPTER VI THE COST OF TIMBER HARVESTING Introduction Any unnecessary costs b u i l t into the harvesting of timber is actually a reduction in the timber resource value, which depending on market conditions w i l l eventually be borne by either the Province or an individual operator. Therefore, when a recommendation is made by resource agencies to use a costly harvesting system, the decision must be made on a sound foundation of the systems c a p a b i l i t i e s and actual costs. The removal of vegetation and the ensuing physical ground disturbance is generally associated with road construction and the "stump to dump" phases of the harvest-ing process. The machine costs for the standard highlead spar, grapple yarder, mini spar, slackline and rubber tire-', skidder are presented. Road construction costs are also discussed in general terms. The focus of this chapter is the "stump to dump cost"; f a l l i n g and bucking, yarding, loading and hauling, of the standard spar, grapple yarder and rubber t i r e ; skidder. 58 Harvesting Cost Data Description The cost data are a summary of average 1982 phase logging costs as experienced by a selection of Council of Forest Industry (COFI) members. The cost information was provided by twenty-two (22) Coastal operations partic i p a t i n g in the Council's 1982 logging cost survey. The operations were selected by the Ministry of Forests, in conjunction with the Council, with the objective of acquiring a rep-resentative sample of the industry on the Coast. The Ministry of Forests (MOF) requires .input from the logging industry in order to c o l l e c t a broad sample of a l l costs experienced in a l l phases of logging. The MOF compiles productivity and cost data from the annual Logging Cost survey to derive their Logging Equipment Hourly Cost Schedule (LEHCS). The reported rates are intended to demonstrate the industry's cost of operating company owned equipment over an entire year (Appendix I I ) . Regional Appraisal manuals are then updated to r e f l e c t the revised productivity and cost schedules. The manuals in turn provide estimates of logging costs for coastal appraisals for each phase of the logging operation. The estimates allow for a variety of s i t e s p e c i f i c factors and are intended to r e f l e c t normal conditions for the area being appraised. 59 Table 6-1 i d e n t i f i e s the hourly rate for each machine type derived from the 1982 LEHCS rates. The mini spar and slackline costs are based on a very limited sample of nine (9) and three (3) operations respectively. They are presented here to indicate the range of experienced costs for the f i v e harvesting systems described in Chapter V. Table 6-1 Logging Machine Hourly Costs Machine Description Number of Samples Cost/Hour Grapple Yarder 50 $ 156.39 Highlead Spar 120 170.21 Heel Boom Loader 152 103.37 Slackline 3 173.58 Mini Spar 9 134.22 Rubber Tire Skidder 18 44.67 Front End Loader 48 56. 19 Off Highway Truck 182 85.69 Fa l l i n g & Bucking 22 44.02 * A range of values was not given to maintain the confiden t i a l i t y of the par t i c i p a t i n g companies. In any case, the values stated here are u t i l i z e d for Coastal appraisals. If a tr a c t of timber on medium sloped terrain required no environmental considerations, two rubber t i r e skidders ,in combination with a front end loader ($89.34+$56.19 = $145.53/hr.) would be preferred over the slackline - heel boom loader ($173.58+$103 . 37 = $276 . 95/hr.. ) in an economic : compari son. I 60 Road Construction Road development is an integral component of any logging operation. On average, road construction costs derived from seventy-seven (77) Coastal operations con-s t i t u t e 9.7% and ensuing road maintenance, a further 2.4% of the t o t a l operating costs. Of the twenty-two (22) operations included in the 1982 logging cost survey, the cost of road construction ranged from $32,000 to $153,000 per kilometce. The weighted average cost based on volume produced was $62,240 per kilometre. Currently, there is limited data on the road require-ments of each harvesting system. It was generally accepted in discussions with some of the questionnaire respondents that grapple yarding requires more road length for unit area developed when compared to a standard highlead spar. A comparison of volume developed for two (2) Coastal oper-ations indicated that the grapple yarder layout required 11.6% more road for equivalent volumes developed. In this context developed volume refers to timber volume made accessible for harvest by a particular road system. Sauder (1978) noted that the capability of the slack-line system for yarding longer distances should create opportunities to reduce the costs and environmental effects of road development when i t was compared to normal highlead yarding. However, there was no s p e c i f i c decrease in road density specified in the report. 61 For the purpose of the harvesting system cost compar-ison, the author decided to compare only the timber extraction phases of the logging operation; s p e c i f i c a l l y the stump to dump unit costs. This decision was based on two reasons: (1) the extraction phase costs vary for the harvesting systems discussed, while administration, sorting, towing, etc. costs remain constant for a given operating area, and (2) for a cutting permit of the size used in the analysis, the road requirement of approximately 6 k i l o -metres Tor the three systems being compared would not d i f f e r s u bstantially. However, should the decision be made to log a to t a l Coastal d i v i s i o n by a par t i c u l a r system the higher road length would be s i g n i f i c a n t both in terms of cost and area disturbed. With many operating areas having one hundred kilometres or more of roads, an 11.6% difference in road length between the grapple and highlead spar equates to 11.6 kilometres. At the average cost of $62,2407km. , the difference in road construction costs is calculated at approximately $722,000. 62 II. Logging Systems Recognized by The Vancouver Forest  Region Appraisal System The standard highlead spar, grapple yarder and ground skidding alternatives are the current logging systems recognized by the Vancouver Region appraisal system. Only the stump to dump phases ( f a l l i n g , bucking, yarding, loading, and hauling) are compared here as these phases of logging have the greatest impact on other resource values through vegetation removal and ground disturbance. Cost estimates made for the stump to dump phases of logging are based on a productivity system approach. The system consists of methods of determining productivity, or the rate that harvesting can take place. Site and stand variables (e.g., slope and log size) that are s p e c i f i c to the area being harvested are included in separate equa-tions for each logging system. The f a l l i n g and bucking and skidding phase equations are dependent on log size only. The yarding phase costs-are related to log size and side slope of the timber t r a c t being appraised. Loading productivity rates and cost estimates are a function of logs available at the landing, and hence are dependent on the productivity of the skidding or yarding method used. The hauling cost estimate is based on total cycle time. The cost estimate for each phase of the actual logging operation is determined by dividing the hourly rate of the equipment being employed by the calculated hourly production. 62 The productivities presented are derived from equations o in the 1982 Vancouver Forest Region Appraisal Manual. Hourly rates are based primarily on the 1982 Logging Equipment Hourly Cost Schedule. In this analysis, the productivity and cost for each of the three systems can be compared d i r e c t l y . A l l values have been calculated for sample Cutting Permit II presented in Table 6-2. The use of one s p e c i f i c cutting permit allows comparison of not only the logging system by phase, but also the differences that are created by slope and terrain conditions. The productivities and costs presented for each phase and machine type are those recognized under normal condi-tions. Any costs incurred for stream and habitat protection are additional costs which w i l l be discussed in Chapter VII. Table 6-2 Sample Cutting Permit II Total merchantable area: 110.0 hectares Total Volume: 71 ,500 m3 3 Average 1og s i ze : 1.4m Haul distance: 15.0km Estimated cycle time: 125 minutes 3 Load size: 69.0m a -63 F a l l i n g and Bucking Under normal conditions, there is not much variance in f a l l i n g for a pa r t i c u l a r system. The variation in prod-u c t i v i t y and resultant cost allowance is dependent on the timber size and slope and te r r a i n conditions. The rougher the ground, the lower the productivity and the higher the cost allowance. Table 6-3 presents both the f a l l i n g and bucking productivity and cost allowance for the three streamside conditions specified in the Harvesting System Questionnaire. Table 6-3 F a l l i n g Productivity and Cost Allowance 3 3 Slope & Terrain Productivty(m /nr. ) Cost Allowance($/m ) <20% sideslope 12.82 $ 3.43 20-70% sideslope 11.68 3.77 >70% sideslope 10.68 4.12 Yarding The productivity equations for a l l three yarding systems u t i l i z e log size to determine the base productivity, The highlead spar and grapple yarder productivities are further refined by using a combination of sideslope, obstacle index and te r r a i n group ratings for the area being appraised. Table 6-4 and Table 6-5 indicate the variation of productivity and cost allowance between the three systems. 64 In addition, i t is evident from the tables that as the ground conditions become more severe, productivities decrease and cost allowance requirements increase for the individual systems. Table 6-4 Yarding Productivity (m /hr.) Slope < 20% 20-70% > 70% Yarding System Highlead Spar Grapple Yarder Skidder 30.70 33.69 20.28 26.69 28.34 16.63 21.89 25.54 N/A Table 6-5 3 Yarding Cost Allowances ($/m ) S lope < 20% 20-70% > 70% Highlead Spar 5.54 6.38 7.77 Yarding System Grapple Yarder Skidder 4.64 2.20 5.52 2.70 6.12 N/A Loading The loading phase cost for the highlead spar and grapple yarder systems is appraised u t i l i z i n g a heel boom loader. A l l skidder loading productivities and cost allowances are based on a front end loader combination. As stated e a r l i e r the loading productivity is d i r e c t l y related to the yarding system being employed. Table 6-6 and 65 Table 6-7 identify loader productivity and cost allowance for each system. Table 6-6 Loader Productivity (m /hr.) Slope < 20% 20-70% y 70% Highlead Spar 37.08 32.24 26.44 Yarding System  Grapple Yarder Skidder 40.69 34.22 30.85 60.84 49.90 N/A Table 6-7 Loading Cost Allowance ($/m ) Slope < 20% 20-70% > 70% Highled Spar 3.36 3.70 4.18 Yarding System Grapple Yarder Skidder 3.14 0.92 3.56 1.13 3.81 N/A Hauling Log hauling cost allowances are based on truck size, a specified rate per hour and productivity per hour. These in turn are d i r e c t l y related to cycle time. Cycle time is the tot a l time required for loading, round t r i p travel time, unavoidable delay and unloading of a logging truck. The cycle time is normally determined by taking into considera-tion a l l the factors that may affect i t : distance, expected rate of speed, necessary delays, expected standard of roads, 66 and th e i r maintenance. In appraising an individual cutting permit, the cycle time w i l l not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y for the three logging systems being discussed. A cost allowance 3 of $2.59/m is used for a l l three systems. Total Stump to Dump Costs Table 6-8 combines the cost allowances for f a l l i n g & bucking, yarding & loading and hauling for the three logging systems. Table 6-8 3 Stump to Dump Cost Allowance ($/m ) Yarding System Slope Highlead Spar Grapple Yarder Skidder < 20% 14.92 13.80 9.14 20-70% 16.44 15.44 10.19 >70% 18.66 16.64 N/A A sample of seventy-seven (77) Coastal cutting permits indicated that the stump to dump cost (excluding road construction and maintenance) represented 38% of the to t a l operating cost. Road construction and road maintenance comprised a further 12.1%. Table 6-9 presents the to t a l operating cost calculated for the highlead spar, grapple yarder and ground skidder for the three slope and te r r a i n conditions. 67 Table 6-9 Total Operating Cost ($/m ) Slope < 20% 20-70% >70% Highlead Spar 39.26 43.26 49.10 Yarding System Grapple Yarder Skidder 36.31 24.05 40.63 26.82 43.78 N/A Summary It is evident from the Tables presented in this chapter that s i g n i f i c a n t differences in productivity and cost allowances exist in the comparisons of the highlead spar, grapple yarder and skidder logging systems. An operator having the three systems available to log a tra c t of timber with no stream protection or other management constraints would have a substantial advantage over an operator owning only a highlead spar. To log a block of timber on moderately sloping t e r r a i n (20-70% sideslope), i t would cost $43.26/m3 with the high-3 lead system versus $26.82/m with the skidder system - a difference of $16.44/m3. Again i t is important to note that in many situations the operator has only one s p e c i f i c logging system available making such comparisons a moot point. Any recommendations to use a pa r t i c u l a r harvesting system must recognize the high capital investment required to obtain logging equipment 68 A l l costs presented in this chapter for the three te r r a i n conditions of f l a t to gently sloping ground (<20% sideslope), moderately sloping ground (20-70% sideslope), and steep to very steep slopes (>70%) were estimated for normal yarding conditions. Costs incurred for stream and habitat protection are in excess of the above costs. The extra costs of stream protection are discussed in the next chapter. 69 CHAPTER VII THE COST OF STREAM PROTECTION TO THE FOREST SECTOR Introduction The major interaction between the f i s h and forest sectors occurs as a result of forest harvesting, p a r t i c -ularly the timber extraction phases. A l l such a c t i v i t i e s pose a threat to f i s h and f i s h habitat, and i t is through the need to modify these in order to f u l f i l l stream protection requirements that the forest sector incurs i t s major cost of interaction at the f i s h - f o r e s t interface. When harvesting of timber is associated with streams, logging costs w i l l usually be increased to accommodate extra allowances for stream protection. Some of the measures which may involve extra costs include: (1) end hauling of excavated material in road construction, (2) u p h i l l f e l l i n g of trees, (3) stream clearance of logging debris, (4) special cable yarding - yarding systems for f u l l suspension of logs, (5) r e s t r i c t e d oper-ations in and around streamside buffer s t r i p s , and (6) special road maintenance requirements to prevent excessive s i l t a t i o n from runoff and s o i l erosion. 70 The Costs of Regulation To date, very few licensees have segregated the additional cost of stream protection in t h e i r accounting systems, and as a result, the available information is limited. A review of existing l i t e r a t u r e , however, does indicate that the stream protection costs are an added cost to the forest sector. Ottens (1975) i d e n t i f i e d the percentage of damage-prevention cost to be 18.6% of to t a l road construction costs for a road system requiring environmental and aesthetic constraints. The forest logging guidelines introduced in 1972 for Coastal harvesting resulted in about a 16% increase in logging costs (COFI, 1972). Dykstra and Froehlich (1976) estimated that the direct cost of cable-assisted f a l l i n g ranged from 1.68 to 2.06 times higher than conventional f a l l i n g because of the additional labour and equipment required. McGreer (1975) indicated that cable-assisted f a l l i n g costs were 2.36 times higher than conventional f a l l i n g . He also noted that since this increase in f a l l i n g cost was derived where the entire cutting units were cable-assist f e l l e d , the cost per unit volume for f a l l i n g lesser amounts would be appreciably higher. One of the respondents to the Harvesting Questionnaire also added f a l l i n g and bucking costs from three cutting permits within a Coastal operation. Considerable d i r e c t -ional f e l l i n g by hydraulic tree jacking was required to 71 keep debris from entering streams flowing through the cut blocks. The f a l l i n g and bucking costs experienced for dire c t i o n a l f e l l i n g were approximately three times greater than for blocks where normal f a l l i n g techniques could be performed. For the moderately sloping cost allowance determined from Table 6-3, three times the normal allowance of $3.77/m3 would result in $ 11.30/m3 for the f a l l i n g and bucking allowance. If one considers the sample Cutting Permit I described in Chapter IV, (Table 4-2) which contained 61,000 m3, the extra f a l l i n g cost impact is s i g n i f i c a n t . It would be 3 erroneous to infer the cost of $11.30/m would be borne by the t o t a l cutting permit volume. Even i f only 10% of the volume required special f a l l i n g techniques the difference 3 of $7.53/m would result in a substantial extra cost of $45,935 (10% x 61,000 m3 x $7.53), for the f a l l i n g phase alone. Post-logging debris clean-up can be a substantial extra cost to an operator. Froehlich ( 1 975b.) found hand cleaning debris from streams ranged from $3.00 to $15.00 per l i n e a l metre of stream, depending on the amount of debris to be removed and the adjacent topography. One key note he emphasized was that machine cleaning results in a double cost: the amount required to operate the machinery and compensate the crew, and the amount of revenue forgone due to lost production. In units with stream clean-up, 72 from 10 percent to 50 percent of the yarding crew's time may be spent in stream cleaning work. Dykstra and Froehlich (1976) compiled estimates of stream-cleaning costs compared with estimates that resulted from the application of Forest Service appraisal allowances. They found (Table 7-1) that their estimates were approx-imately f i v e times higher than the Forest Service allowance. Table 7-1 Comparison of estimated stream cleaning costs and Forest Service Appraisal Allowances Dollars per 30.5 metres of stream Estimated Cost Appraisal Allowance $ 1,380 $ 186 753 169 135 111 795 204 1,628 204 409 225 262 178 754 149 1,477 179 928 187 Mean $852 Mean TT79" Marsh (1971) related that stream clearance a c t i v i t i e s along approximately 1,220 metres of M i l l Creek in the M i l l Creek Gorge area near Alsea, Oregon developed into a complex and expensive project. This cleaning operation involved the removal of log jams existing prior to logging and the removal of logging induced debris. The cost of debris removal ranged from $3.00 to $4.00 per metre of stream for hand cleaning and from $7.00 to $13.40 per metre of stream for machine assisted cleaning. Supplemental hand cleaning 73 after December freshets ranged from $0.40 to $3.50 per metre of stream. Sydneysmith (1978) estimated that f i s h - r e l a t e d concerns created additional costs for logging ranging from 2.6 to 4.6% of tot a l logging costs. He also indicated that blow-down or recovery of leave s t r i p s increased the cost by another 7%, while post-harvest stream cleaning was another 1.0%. 3 The base operating cost of $46.93/m for the sample cutting permit presented in Table 4-1 would increase by 3 $4.69 to $51.62/m i f a conservative increase of 10% was used for stream protection requirements, a substantial increment at the best of times. Dorcey (1980) however reports forest industry and government costs to be very small for actual costs of environmental regulation. He also infers at least half and, in most cases substantially more than half of the net costs of compliance with f i s h e r i e s protection regulation are borne by the general public as a result of stumpage appraisal allowances . This inference bears truth during times of good lumber markets, but is very misleading for depressed markets under which the B.C. forest industry has been operating since 1982. Again, i f the tot a l operating cost of $46.93 is u t i l i z e d and the $4.69 for stream protection costs is added to i t , the t o t a l operating cost would become $51.62/m3> A U s p e c i e s w i t n t n e exception 74 of CE are already on minimum rates. The stumpage Gal-'s culation for CE u t i l i z i n g the $51.62/m operating cost would 3 y i e l d an indicated stumpage of $3.25/m . As the minimum rate for CE is $5.62/m3, only $2.37/m3 of the $4.69/m3 stream protection cost can be recouped by the operator for only that species. The t o t a l projected stream protection cost using a 10% factor would be (61,000 m3 x 10%) x $4.69/m3 = $28,610. However, only $2,460 or 8.6% of the $28,610 would be re-coverable by the operator who must bear the remaining $26,150 as an operational cost. The above example demonstrates that f i s h protection costs can be s i g n i f i c a n t both in terms of lost stumpage revenue to the Province and increased operating cost to the operator. Working in the f i e l d of appraisals, the invest-igator has witnessed real costs experienced for several cutting permits. Those presented below are a selection of more recent examples: 1. Fisheries and Oceans personnel requested a cross-drainage ditch and s e t t l i n g pond prior to road con-struction approval - t o t a l cost $16,725. 2. Stream clean-up and construction and i n s t a l l a t i o n of two debris g r i z z l i e s to prevent downstream movement of debris - t o t a l cost $43,460. 3. Stream clean-up required concurrent with the yarding operation - t o t a l cost $32,600. 75 4. Due to steep sideslopes on g l a c i a l t i l l , no side-casting was to be allowed during road construction. The excavated material had to be end hauled - t o t a l cost $50,200. 5. Debris clean-up on 325 metres of stream requested by f i s h e r i e s personnel - t o t a l cost $55,570. It is important to note the above stream protection costs are direct costs only. Lost production costs for crew and machinery required for the protection a c t i v i t i e s have not been included. Of the f i v e examples presented, only one stream had f i s h present in the section being protected. Two sections surveyed prior to logging had no f i s h of commercial or sports value present. 76 Summary As evidenced by the preceeding discussion, stream protection requirements may be a substantial added cost to normal costs of timber extraction. It is imperative when stream protection is requested by an agency that the cost of protection be weighed with the value being protected. Edie ( 1982, p.381) speaking on behalf of the B.C.Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch summed up the aspect of stream pro-tection requirements and the cost of constraints: "Further i t is f a i r to assume that the general trend of forestry operations moving into more d i f f i c u l t t e r r a i n to harvest poorer quality timber at greater cost and with more s i g n i f i c a n t environmental constraints w i l l continue through the 1980's. We can expect heightened resistance to any constraints that mean extra costs, and we can expect far more intense scrutiny of the bases for our recommenda-tions, of the i r results, and of the cost effectiveness of our inventory and planning a c t i v i t i e s " . A stream system may be sensitive to modification, but i f there is l i t t l e demand for quality water, there is no j u s t i f i c a t i o n for deferrment of adjacent timber or the expenditure of excessive dollars for protection. Conversely, where there is a high demand for quality f i s h habitat from a small sensitive watershed, the value of the f i s h habitat may well j u s t i f y total protection from logging or the use of a special harvesting system which would minimize the impact on the area (ABCPF, 1981). 77 CHAPTER VIII HARVESTING SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS Introduction The questionnaire survey was conducted to obtain the opini.onsof experienced forest engineers regarding harvesting systems u t i l i z e d for logging timber adjacent to streams. The engineers were asked to rate the e f f i c i e n c y of each harvesting system in terms of acceptable cost and physical c a p a b i l i t i e s . Description of the Sample Approximately 92% of the sample respondents were working in a B. C. Coastal environment at the time of the survey. Three respondents were working in an Interior setting, but had previous Coastal engineering and logging experience. Therefore, a l l the respondents' questionnaires were u t i l i z e d in the data analysis and presentation. Response Rate F i f t y Harvesting System Questionnaires were distributed. Thirty-nine of the questionnaires were completed and returned, giving a response rate of 78%. 78 Experience Level The coastal experience level of the respondents ranged from 3 years to 35 years. The mean experience level was 12.8 years with 77% between 6 and 20 years. The experience d i s t r i b u t i o n of the engineers is presented in Table 8-1. Table 8-1 Experience of Respondents Experience(Years) Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency(%) 0-5 6 15.4 6-10 11 28.2 11-15 10 25.6 16-20 9 23.1 20+ 3_ 7.7 Total 39 100.0 Variables Affecting Coastal Stream Side Harvesting The engineers were requested to identify the best suited harvesting system for logging timber adjacent to streams. They were to do this for seven te r r a i n and stand conditions s p e c i f i f i e d in the questionnaire: t e r r a i n , side-slope, yarding distance, log size, volume per hectare, stream gradient and de f l e c t i o n . In real l i f e , each variable can affect the other and must be treated in combination to achieve the desired outcome for a given logging operation. 79 The variables were isolated in this exercise to determine which machine types were favoured by the participants. Some of the respondents indicated more than one machine type for a s p e c i f i c variable category noting more than one system could be suited to a given s i t u a t i o n . As such, the number of responses in most cases is greater than the number of participants. The responses are presented in histogram form for each variable. Conclusions are those of the investigator drawn from the responses and comments of the engineers. Terra in Terrain c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s were presented as defined in the 1982 Vancouver Region Appraisal Manual as a l l the engineers had worked with and were familar with the def-i n i t i o n s . The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s considered were even, r o l l i n g , g u l l i e d and broken. The skidder was favoured for even ground conditions. The standard highlead spar was indicated for use on r o l l i n g , g u l l i e d and broken t e r r a i n , but d e f i n i t e l y preferred for g u l l i e d and broken ground. The grapple yarder on the other hand, was i d e n t i f i e d for even and r o l l i n g conditions, with preference for even ground. Very few respondents thought the grapple yarder could be e f f i c i e n t l y used in g u l l i e d and broken areas (Figure 8-1). There was no clear indication for the mini spar and slackline systems, although the mini spar was selected for 80 r o l l i n g ground, and the slackline was preferred for gu l l i e d and broken ground. Sideslope The skidder was i d e n t i f i e d for use on sideslopes of 0-20%. The standard spar was preferred on slopes over 51%, while the slackline was i d e n t i f i e d for slopes over 71%. Conversely, the grapple yarder was chosen for slopes between 0-50%, as shown in Figure 8-2. Again, there was no d e f i n i t e conclusion to be drawn for the mini spar. Yarding Distance Yarding distances of up to 75 meters and up to 150 meters were preferred for the skidder and mini spar res-pectively, as can be seen in Figure 8-3. The grapple yarder was also i d e n t i f i e d for distances of less than 150 meters and the standard spar for 150 to 250 meters. The slackline was selected for distances of greater than 225 meters. Log Size The slackline and standard spar were i d e n t i f i e d as best 3 suited for the larger log sizes over 1.8 m , while the 3 skidder and mini spar for log sizes less than 0.5 m and 3 1.7 m respectively. The grapple yarder was indicated for 3 a l l log sizes, but weighted more so for 0.5 to 1.7 m pieces (Figure 8-4). 81 Figure 8-1 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding System for Selected Terrain. Highlead Spar Mini Spar Slackline Grapple Yarder Skidder E R G B E R G B E R G B E R G B JZL E R G B E = even R = ro11i ng G = gul 1ied B = broken Figure 8-2 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding System for Selected Sideslopes. Highlead Spar Mini Spar Slackline Grapple Yarder Skidder 20 10 0 r - i r-r 1 0 21517 0 215 71 0 21 5 0 215171 021 51 71 0 = 0-20% 21 = 21-50% 51 = 51-70% 71 = 71+% 82 Figure 8-3 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding system for Selected Yarding Distances. Highlead Spar Mini Spar Slackline Grapple Yarder Skidder 0 7 1 5 22 0 7 15 22 0 7 1 5 22 0 7 15 22 0 7 15 22 0 = 0 - 75 meters 7 = 75 -150 15 =150 -225 22 =225+ Figure 8-4 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding system for Selected Log Sizes. Highlead Spar Mini Spar Slackline Grapple Yarder Skidder S M A L S M A L S M A L S M A L ttL S M A L S = 0 - 0.5 cubic meters M =0.5 - 1.7 A =1.8 - 2.5 L =2.5+ 83: Volume Per Hectare There were no clear conclusions to be drawn from responses for volume per hectare (Figure 8-5). The mini spar and skidder were thought to be best suited for lower 3 volume stands (350-500 m ), while the remaining three cable systems were suited for stands with greater than 3 500 m per hectare. Deflection There were no conclusions to be drawn for the mini spar s l a c k l i n e , or rubber t i r e skidder with respect to def l e c t i o n . However, i t was d e f i n i t e that the grapple yarder was best suited to areas with excellent to good de f l e c t i o n . The standard spar was preferred for areas having average to poor deflection as shown in Figure 8-6. Stream Gradient The skidder was best suited to operate adjacent to streams having a gradient of less than 5%. The grapple yarder was i d e n t i f i e d for a l l four categories, but weighted to gradients of less than 25%. As can be seen in Figure 8-7, the standard yarder and slackline were best suited for stream gradient of greater than 16%. By reviewing a l l the individual variables and the best suited harvesting system for each, a composite of a l l the variables can be described for each system. The indicated trends are not d e f i n i t e and conclusive for the mini spar and sla c k l i n e systems. This may be a result of the unfami 1i a r i t y of the participants with the systems as they prevalent in the region. 85 Figure 8-5 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding System for Selected Volumes per Hectare. Highlead Slackline Grapple Yarder Skidder N L M A H N L M A H N L M A H N L M A H L M A H N = 0 - 350 L = 351 - 500 M = 501 - 650 A = 651 - 800 H = 800 + cubic meters Figure 8-6 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding system for Selected Deflections. F R E Q U E N C Y 40 . 30. 20 . 10 . 0. Highlead Spar . Mini Spar Slackline Grapple Yarder Skidder E G A P E G A P E G A P E G A P n_ E G A P E = excellent G = good A = average P = poor 86 Figure 8-7 Frequency of Responses for Best Yarding System for Selected Stream Gradients. 30 20 10 Highlead Spar Mini Spar Slackline Grapple Yarder Skidder F R E Q u E N C Y -i—i 0 6 16 25 0 6 16 25 0 6 16 25 0 6 16 25 0 6 16 25 0 = 0 - 5 % 6 = 6-15% 16 = 16 -25% 25 = 25+% 87 Standard Highlead Spar The highlead spar was recommended for stream gradients over 15%. This unit can be used for a l l sideslope condi-tions found on even to broken ground, but was recommended for sideslopes over 50% with g u l l i e d to broken t e r r a i n . Yarding distance should be between 150 to 225 metres and 3 log sizes between 1.7 to 2.5 m . A l l cable systems operate more e f f i c i e n t l y with adequate deflection, with the standard spar preferred for areas of average to poor de f l e c t i o n . Mini Spar The responses for this system were not very conclusive. However, one can generalize that i t could be used adjacent to low gradient streams flowing through r o l l i n g t e r r a i n . It is preferred for lower volume, small log size stands and is most e f f i c i e n t when yarding distances are less than 150 metres. Deflection should be at least average for the system. Slackline The slackline was suggested for logging adjacent to or over streams having steep gradients. Steep sideslopes and long yarding distances over 225 metre's are a feature of the system. High volume stands with large log sizes are a requirement due to the high operating cost. Adequate deflection is preferred butthe slackline could be u t i l i z e d in areas having average to poor de f l e c t i o n . 88 Grapple Yarder The grapple yarder can be used on any stream gradient as long as the terrain is even to r o l l i n g and sideslopes are less than 70%. Yarding distances should be limited to under 150 metres. The system again requires high volume 3 per hectare stands and log sizes less than 2.5 m . Skidder The skidder can be used adjacent to low gradient streams on even ground. The system is operable in low volume stands with smaller log sizes. Sideslopes preferred are less than 20% and yarding distances should be less than 75 metres. Deflection is not a requirement for the skidder system. Cost and Effectiveness Rating of the  Individual Harvesting Systems-The study sample of engineers was requested to rate each harvesting system for both cost and effectiveness for three major stream side conditions. If the general e f f -iciency of a given system was considered not adaptable to certain topographic conditions (sideslope), the respondents were asked to indicate the system to be not applicable. This requirement is the reason why the to t a l observations for each system does not sum up to the t o t a l number of participants in the study. The cost rating result was deemed to be s i g n i f i c a n t i f over 65% of the respondents i d e n t i f i e d the low and medium 89 categories for an individual harvesting system. Conversely, the effectiveness rating for timber extraction was considered s i g n i f i c a n t i f over 65% of the respondents rated a particular system in the medium and high category. Field engineers i d e n t i f i e d the standard spar, mini spar and grapple yarder as viable alternatives both in terms of cost and timber extraction on f l a t to gently sloping terrain (Table 8-2; Table 8-3). The skidder was deemed to be e f f e c t i v e only on areas with dry s o i l conditions and of very limited value in Coastal areas adjacent to streams. 1. Flat lying to gently sloping ground (< 20% sideslope) Table 8-2 1 Opinions Regarding the Cost Rating of the Harvesting System  Harvesting System Low Mediurn High Standard Spar 5 21 9 Mini Spar 8 18 Slackline 4 2 16 Grapple Yarder 17 17 Skidder 16 7 6 1 Cost Rating - was to be interpreted as extracting timber at the most e f f i c i e n t cost - lowest dollars per cubic meter. 90 Table 8-3 1 Opinions Regarding the Effectiveness Rating of the  Harvesting System. Harvesting System Low Mediurn High Standard Spar 3 23 9 Mini Spar 2 16 8 Slackline 8 10 4 Grapple Yarder 1 6 27 Skidder 5 8 16 1 Effectiveness Rating - was to be expressed in terms of timber extraction with minimal disturbance of the stream and streambank area. F'ietd engineers generally i d e n t i f i e d the standard spar, mini spar and grapple yarder as being the most cost e f f i c i e n t systems on moderately sloping terrain (Table 8-4). A l l four cable systems were thought to be e f f e c t i v e in terms of timber extraction adjacent to streams (Table 8-5). However, the mini spar was noted to have limited use in most Coastal areas due to limitations on power and l i f t capacity in large log size stands. The high cost of the sla c k l i n e system l e f t the standard spar and grapple yarder as the two preferred systems for logging moderately sloped areas. 91 2. Moderately sloping terrain (20 - 70% sideslope). Table 8-4 Opinions Regarding the Cost Rating of the Harvesting System Harvesting System Low Med i urn High Standard Spar 5 21 8 Mini Spar 7 16 3 Slackl ine 2 10 16 Grapple Yarder 18 14 4 Skidder 4 3 9 Table 8-5 Opinions Regarding the Effectiveness Rating of the Harvesting System. Harvesting System Low Medium High Standard Spar 1 20 14 Mini Spar 2 17 7 Slackline 3 14 1 1 Grapple Yarder 3 13 20 Skidder 1 1 5 -The standard spar, grapple yarder and slackline were rated e f f e c t i v e for logging steep to very steep (Table 8-7). However, only the standard spar and grapple yarder were chosen as alternatives with respect to cost effectiveness (Table 8-6). 92 3. Steep to very steep slopes (>70% sideslope). Table 8-6 Opinions Regarding the Cost Rating of the Harvesting System Harvesting System Low Medi urn High Standard Spar 2 23 11 Mini Spar 8 7 10 Slackline 5 7 14 Grapple Yarder 8 10 11 Skidder - - 2 Table 8-7 Opinions Regarding the Effectiveness Rating of the Harvesting  system Harvesting System Low Med i urn High Standard Spar 5 19 11 Mini Spar 15 7 3 Slackl ine 2 12 12 Grapple Yarder 6 18 15 Skidder 3 _ _ It is evident, given the optimum topographic and timber conditions and the right logging crew, that each of the f i v e logging systems can be e f f e c t i v e in terms of timber removal adjacent to streams. The advantages and dis-advantages of each harvesting system for streamside logging as perceived by the respondents are now discussed. 93 Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Harvesting System A. Standard Spar Advantages The main advantage of the standard spar was i t s a v a i l -a b i l i t y and that i t could log on almost any kind of ground. The system can handle large timber, but is adaptable to a l l sizes. The spar is excellent for medium to long yarding and requires fewer roads than the other systems (except the s l a c k l i n e ) . The 27.5 metEe tower can provide maximum de-f l e c t i o n and l i f t of logs. Another key factor is that the operator does not require visual contact with the logs being yarded. Di sadvantages Fixed landings, the requirement of firm t a i l h o l d s and lack of mobility were i d e n t i f i e d as key disadvantages. In areas of poor deflection (convex topography: yarding one .side of the stream), ground leading tends to leave scour patterns which intercept run-off and create erosion and sediment problems. Meandering streams can present landing problems i f no cross-stream yarding is permitted. Because the landings are fixed, the standard spar cannot yard d i r e c t l y away from a l l sections of the stream. The system is not e f f e c t i v e for clean-up of small sized debris. 94 B. Mini Spar Advantages Low equipment costs, the ease of set up (rigging), and mobility were i d e n t i f i e d as the main advantages. Smaller landing requirements and areas of short yarding (<150 metres) were also indicated. The system was thought to be excellent for small stands of timber and could as s i s t in stream clean-up concurrent with the yarding process. Disadvantages The increased road density and the lower tower height of 15 metres, which limits deflection and subsequent l i f t capacity, were i d e n t i f i e d as major disadvantages. Unless t a i l h o l d s were located across the stream, deflection and ground leading became a concern. The system is not e f f e c t -ive for u p h i l l yarding of large logs. Yarding distance in most cases is limited to 150 meters. c. Slackline Advantages Its capacity for clear l i f t i n g of logs was deemed as the major advantage. Again, t a i l h o l d s across the stream make the system more e f f i c i e n t and minimize scouring and s o i l disturbance. Longer yarding distances (and fewer roads) were also cited as being an advantage. Disadvantages The requirement of a large, experienced crew and d i f f i c u l t y of rigging were noted as disadvantages. Poor 95 production and high costs in low volume stands were also noted. The system requires long yarding distance, large landings and concave slopes for good deflection to be e f f e c t i v e . The slackline is i n e f f e c t i v e for clean-up of medium to small wood debris. D. Grapple Yarder Advantages The system's mobility and smaller crew were cited as the major advantages. The system is not ti e d to fixed landings, is very manoeuverab1e and can log d i r e c t l y away from streams for the f u l l length of the stream. Fewer turns over the same ground decrease s i t e disturbance. The addition of a mobile back spar (especially across the stream) makesthe system very e f f e c t i v e . The safety of crew in steep sideslopes (as no chokermen are required) is also an asset. The system is best suited for stream clean-up of most debris sizes, but the cost of the machine being non-productive has to be weighed in any clean-up operation. Disadvantages Good deflection is required in a l l cases as the machine operator requires visual contact with the logs being yarded. The system requires more roads than the standard spar, as i t is not e f f e c t i v e for long yarding. Sedimenta-tion from poorly constructed back spar roads was also noted as a problem in areas adjacent to streams. 96 E. Skidder Advantages This system has maximum mobility and can function with a very small crew. It has low capital cost and requires no t a i l h o l d or rigging time. There is immediate operator control while getting very close to individual logs being yarded. The system was thought to be excellent for small, isolated patches of timber on f l a t , dry ground. Di sadvantages The system can create a quagmire on wet or s i l t y s o i l s introducing large amounts of sediment into adjacent streams. The system causes maximum s o i l disturbance, compaction of s o i l s , and increased runoff and s i l t a t i o n . If cross stream yarding is necessary, logs have to be dragged through the streams as there is no f u l l l i f t of logs. Most respondents noted that skidders become in e f f e c t i v e when sideslopes are greater than 50%. SUMMARY As evidenced by the preceeding discussion each harvest-ing system has s p e c i f i c advantages and disadvantages when operating adjacent to streams. To be e f f e c t i v e , a l l the cable systems require good delection to provide adequate l i f t of logs being yarded. Most respondents indicated the rubber t i r e skidder should not be used adjacent to streams having f i s h or f i s h habitat values. Some of the undesirable impacts of the harvesting process 97 may be offset by u t i l i z i n g a harvesting system that is considered compatible with streamside timber and te r r a i n conditions. Comments and Recommendations of the Respondents Regarding  Harvesting Systems and the i r Relationship to Harvesting  Streamside Timber. It was gr a t i f y i n g that although Section D of the questionnaire (Additional comments pertaining to streamside harvesting) was optional, 65% of the respondents took time to write down the i r thoughts on the topic. Since many of the comments were similar in nature, the following is a consolidation of the information supplied. 1. Operators should make sure the Ministry of Forests and Fisheries personnel are welJ.1 aware of any harvesting plans adjacent to or across coastal streams. It was emphasized that the absence of f i s h in the reach affected did not imply that n o t i f i c a t i o n to the agencies was not required. 2. Many current harvesting guidelines are based on academic/ theoretical decisions which have not been f i e l d tested adequately and which do not consider s i t e - s p e c i f i c conditions. Several participants indicated they had experienced examples where the prescription recommended resulted in greater damage to the resource intended for protection (marginal leave strips windthrown on many West Coast Vancouver Island streams). 98 3 . While the harvesting system c a p a b i l i t i e s and s i t e s p e c i f i c topographic conditions influence the choice of equipment, i t was emphasized that the willingness of the licensee and operator to protect streamside values was an important factor as well. It was suggested that the operator and crew attitude to environmental protec-tion could make the best of plans go awry. People awareness and education in what was expected on a si t e s p e c i f i c basis was recommended several times. 4. It was emphasized that the f a l l i n g phase is extremely important, as i t can greatly reduce problems encountered in the ensuing yarding phase. If the timber is f e l l e d away from the stream or d i r e c t l y across the stream (tops and limbs i n t a c t ) , the yarding phase should generate minimal additional debris. 5. Roads (no matter which system is u t i l i z e d ) must be located to provide excellent d e f l e c t i o n . This may be best obtained by selecting t a i l b l o c k s and/or backspars on the opposite side of the streams. If. poor deflection is experienced, ground leading can occur with a l l cable systems, creating s i t e disturbance and subsequent sedimentation. 6. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of the harvesting system was a great concern for many respondents. If a given company has only steel spars, then that w i l l be the harvesting method used. 99 Fisheries personnel usually have very l i t t l e p r a c t i c a l experience regarding harvesting. They very rarely consider s i t e s p e c i f i c recommendations as to the method of logging suggested, based on t e r r a i n or stand conditions. Another major problem with agency personnel is the lack of consistency during f i e l d inspections as to what is acceptable from the agency perspective. You can get the same individual dictating the removal of a l l debris in one instance and only fine debris in another on two similar streams. It was emphasized that each stream, regardless of size, is d i f f e r e n t in some way or another from other streams. Where stream protection is required, a commitment from a l l parties involved must be reached for each individual s i t e . Most engineers f e l t paper guidelines to cover an average s i t e would not work. The more varied the yarding system, the more options there are for dealing with streamside timber. However, in most d i v i s i o n s , only a standard high lead spar and/or a mobile grapple yarder are available. In these cases, the most valuable tool is good planning, f u l l knowledge of the streamside management requirements and a commit-ment to doing a good job given proper layout and place-ment of roads and/or landings. 100 11. S p l i t t i n g blocks along a stream and yarding away on both sides is often more damaging than cross-stream yarding, as deflection is reduced by placing t a i l b l o c k s , on stream edges. Also, i f the cut blocks on either side are harvested in di f f e r e n t years, the stream is disturbed twice. Concurrent yarding of the s i t e u t i l i z i n g cross-stream yarding allows for better defl e c t i o n , less stream bank disturbance and more e f f i c i e n t f i b r e u t i l i z a t i o n . 12. Skidder yarding was thought not to be a p r a c t i c a l alternative (especially on the West Coast of Vancouver Island), due to sediment problems i t causes in streams. 13. Streamside logging prescriptions are often not compatible with the terrain or resource supposedly being protected. Extensive high cost and special f a l l i n g and yarding techniques are required to protect a stream with no evidence of f i s h present. 14. Unfortunately, li k e so many environmental problems in the f i e l d of forestry, there is no single solution which adequately achieves i t s intended objectives when applied to a l l situations. Each area must be treated on i t s own merits ( s i t e conditions and systems av a i l a b l e ) . 101 15. Resource agency personnel should have better inventories which c l a s s i f y the stream value in terms of f i s h presence and habitat potential. Many sites are only v i s i t e d once the roads are constructed, making the harvesting options limited. 16. Resource agency personnel should have more information on the quantifiable effects of logging on f i s h and f i s h habitat. Too often r e s t r i c t i o n s on f a l l i n g and yarding processes are made because " i t may a l t e r " the habitat. 102 CHAPTER IX CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Conclusion The purpose of this study was to provide a descriptive overview of fi v e alternative harvesting systems available to log streamside timber. It is intended to be used by resoure managers as a guide from which to evaluate the optimum or preferred timber harvesting system in terms of cost e f f i c i e n t logging and potential impact upon f i s h habitat. As harvest-ing r e s t r i c t i o n s and habitat prescriptions become more complex, resource managers and foresters must become more fami l i a r with logging systems and how they may be employed to achieve maximum land and resource management benefits. Results of the study revealed that s i g n i f i c a n t productivity and cost differences exist between the highlead spar, grapple yarder and rubber t i r e skidder. The hourly 3 costs were found to be $170.21/m for the highlead spar, Q 3 $156.39/m for the grapple yarder and $44.67/m for the rubber t i r e skidder. The stump to dump cost allowances 3 were calculated to be $16.44/m for the highlead spar, o 3 $15.44/m for the grapple yarder and $10.19/m for the skidder when operated on sideslopes between 20-70 percent. 103 Costs incurred for stream protection requirements were determined to be an extra cost to the forest sector, especially during depressed market conditions. Debris clean-up costs in p a r t i c u l a r , ranged from $3.00 to $15.00 per l i n e a l metre of stream. It is concluded that the grapple yarder can be the most cost e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t system for streamside timber harvesting provided: deflection is good, logs are not too large, topography allows for windrowing and yarding distance is not greater than 150 metres. It is important that the selection of the yarding system for a given cutblock associated with streams be based objectively on the following c r i t e r i a : 1. Management constraints - recognition of other resource values and post-harvesting treatments. 2. A v a i l a b i l i t y of the harvesting system to the operator. 3. Site s p e c i f i c factors - timber type, topography, proximity to stream areas. 4. Advantages and disadvantages of the systems being considered. 5. The cost of operating the system. 104 Implications of the Study The reported findings of the study have several impl ications. 1. The study findings indicated the questionnaire p a r t i c i -pants had varied opinions regarding the f i v e harvesting systems. However, opinions confirmed the c a p a b i l i t i e s of each system as i d e n t i f i e d in Chapter V. 2. Streamside timber should be i d e n t i f i e d as early as possible in the planning process. Past logging layout and road location may l i m i t the streamside harvesting options. 3. Restrictions on f a l l i n g and yarding a c t i v i t i e s should be f l e x i b l e to allow for the selection of cost e f f e c t i v e systems. 4. Agency personnel must be educated to understand the logging process and system options available to the forest sector. o 5. Prescriptions must be based on the logging system available to the operator. If an operator only has a highlead yarder, that w i l l be the system employed. 6. The study demonstrates that each area to be harvested having f i s h values must be dealt with on a s i t e - s p e c i f i c basis. 105 Recommendations for Further Research Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations for further research are suggested: 1. The present i n a b i l i t y to measure habitat values in a reasonably objective manner makes any economic analysis of fish-timber values unworkable. Researchers should attempt to develop a procedure for estimating f i s h and habitat values on a monetary basis. A s t r i c t l y economic comparison could then be carried out on a s i t e s p e c i f i c level as there is already a system available to price the timber resource. 2. The method of recognizing stream protection costs in B r i t i s h Columbia stumpage appraisals must be reviewed. When market conditions are depressed, the logging operator may have to incur the tot a l cost of stream protection. Direct reimbursement from the agency requesting the protection measures should be considered. 3. Research on alternative logging systems should be carried out in stream areas to assess t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s in terms of cost and habitat disturbance l e v e l s . 4. The f i v e harvesting systems discussed in this study were compared on descriptive data collected through questionnaires. Further research should be conducted on existing harvesting systems during the logging of streamside timber. The advantages of yarding away 106 from streams, or cross-stream yarding could be evaluated by machine type. Alternative methods of reducing debris loading during the f a l l i n g and yarding phases should be pursued. In a study by Powell (1977), breakage losses were lower for winter f e l l e d areas. In terms of volume, breakage in winter ranged from 1 to 10% of standing merchantable volume compared to 14 to 15% for summer f a l l i n g s . The forest sector harvests in a p a r t i c u l a r drainage for 5 to 10 years and is not back again for another 70 to 80 years for the next crop. Research should be conducted to determine i f streams and f i s h e r i e s tend to r e h a b i l i t a t e themselves over time. If so, the recovery rate of f i s h populations or f i s h habitat should be examined to determine what degree of disturbance would be acceptable for d i f f e r e n t value f i s h streams. 107 REFERENCES A p s e y , M ( 1 9 8 4 ) . What a b o u t B . C . - any hope of s u r v i v a l ? P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 1984 A n n u a l M e e t i n g of t h e A s s o c i a t i o n of B . C . P r o f e s s i o n a l F o r e s t e r s , K e 1 o w n a , B . C . A s s o c i a t i o n of B . C . P r o f e s s i o n a 1 F o r e s t e r s . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . F i s h e r i e s and f o r e s t r y . F o r e s t Memo ( N o . 1 5 ) . V a n c o u v e r , B . C . B . C . F o r e s t S e r v i c e . ( 1 9 7 2 ) . P l a n n i n g g u i d e l i n e s f o r c o a s t  l o g g i n g o p e r a t i o n s . L e t t e r t o a l l L i c e n s e e s on c o a s t r e g i o n o f B . C . V l c t o r i a , B . C . B . C . M i n i s t r y o f F o r e s t s . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . B . C . M i n i s t r y o f F o r e s t s  A c t . ( S e c t i o n 5 ) . V i c t o r i a , B . C . B . C . M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . F o r e s t and r a n g e r e s o u r c e  a n a l y s i s r e p o r t . ( T e c h n i c a l r e p o r t v o l u m e s 1 & 2 ) . V i c t o r i a , B . C . B . C . M i n i s t r y o f F o r e s t s . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . K a m l o o p s r e g i o n s t u m p a g e  a p p r a i s a l m a n u a l . K a m l o o p s , B .C . B . C . M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . V a n c o u v e r r e g i o n  s t u m p a g e a p p r a i s a l m a n u a l . V a n c o u v e r , B . C . B u s t a r d , D . R . ( 1 9 7 3 ) . Some a s p e c t s o f t h e w i n t e r e c o l o g y  o f j u v e n i l e s a l m o n i d s w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o p o s s i b l e  h a b i t a t a l t e r a t i o n by l o g g i n g i n C a r n a t i o n C r e e k , V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d . U n p u b l i s h e d m a s t e r s ' t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , V a n c o u v e r , B . C . 73 p . C o u n c i l o f F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s o f B . C . ( 1 9 7 2 ) . Common s e n s e l o g g i n g r u l e s s o u g h t . F o r e s t I n d u s t r y F a c t s , 1 1 ( 2 ) , 1 - 2 . C u m m i n s , K . W . ( 1 9 7 5 ) . P r o c e s s i n g o f o r g a n i c m a t t e r i n s m a l l s t r e a m e c o s y s t e m s . Jjn L o g g i n g d e b r i s i n s t r e a m s . S y m p o s i u m c o n d u c t e d by t h e O r e g o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e and t h e D e p a r t m e n t of F o r e s t E n g i n e e r i n g , C o r v a l l i s , O r e g o n . D o r c e y , A . H . J . , M c P h e e , M . W . , and S y d n e y s m i t h , S . ( 1 9 8 0 ) S a l m o n p r o t e c t i o n and t h e B . C . c o a s t a l f o r e s t i n d u s t r y :  e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e g u l a t i o n s as a b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s . A s t u d y p r e p a r e d f o r t h e e c o n o m i c s c o u n c i l o f C a n a d a , V a n c o u v e r , B . C . : U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , W e s t w a t e r R e s e a r c h C e n t e r . 108 Dykstra, D.P. and Froehlich, H.A. (1975). Costs of stream protection during timber harvest. Ln Logging debris in streams. Symposium conducted by the Oregon State University Extension Service and the Department of Forest Engineering, C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. Edie, A.G. (1982). Watershed use and planning - what the managers need to know. J j i Proceedings of the Carnation Creek workshop, a 10-year review, P a c i f i c Biological Station, Nanimo, B.C., 379-381. Federal Fisheries Act. (1981). (R.S., C119, Section 31(1); 33(3) ). Ottawa: Government of Canada. Fredriksen, R.L. and Harr, D.R. (1979). S o i l , vegetation and watershed management. J_n Forest s o i l s of the douglas-f i r region. Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, 231-260. Froehlich, H.A. (1973). Natural and man-caused slash in headwater streams. Loggers Handbook 33: 15-17, 66-70, 82-86. P a c i f i c Logging Congress. Portland, Oregon. Froehlich, H.A. (1975a). Accumulation of large debris in forest streams before and after logging. I_n Logging debris in streams. Symposium conducted by the Oregon State University Extension Service and the Department of Forest Engineering Corval 1 i s , Oregon. ( 1975b). Managing the timber resource. I_n Logging debris in streams. Symposium conducted by the Oregon State University Extension Service and the Department of Forest Engineering, C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. (1978). The interaction of skyline logging and soi 1 and water impacts. ln_ Proceedings of the fourth northwest skyline symposium. Forest Engineering Department, Oregon State University, C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. Gibbons, D.R. and Salo, E.O. (1973). An annotated bibliography of the effects of logging on f i s h of the western United States and Canada. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Technical Report. PNW 10. Portland, Oregon. Hall , J.D. and Baker, CO. (1975). Biological impacts of organic debris in P a c i f i c Northwest streams. I_n Logging debris in streams workshop. Oregon State University, C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. 13 p. Hartman,G.F. (1981). Carnation Creek project report for 1979 and 1980. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Nanaimo.B.c. 19 p. 109 Hartman, G.F. (Ed.) (1982). Proceedings of the Carnation Creek workshop, a 10-year review, P a c i f i c Biological Stat 1 on , Nanaimo, B.C. ( 1983). Carnation Creek project report for 1981 and 1982. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Nanaimo, B.C. 20 p. and Holtby, L.B. (1982). An overview of some biophysical determinants of f i s h production and f i s h population responses to logging in Carnation Creek, B r i t i s h Columbia. J j l Proceedings of the Carnation Creek workshop, a 10-year review, P a c i f i c Biological Station, Nanaimo,B.C. 348-372. Hosie, R.C. (1969). Native trees of Canada (7th ed.) Ottawa Canadian Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. Jeanes, T. (1983). Education can stop c o n f l i c t s , erase the scars. The Province Newspaper, February 23, Business Section, p.C-1. Vancouver , B . C. Keller, E.A. and Talley, T. (1979). Effects of large organic debris on channel form and f l u v i a l processes in the coastal redwood environment. Vn D.D. Rhodes and G.P.Williams (Eds.) Proceedings Tenth Annual Geomorpho1ogy Symposium. Binghamton, New York: SUNY. Kiss, L. (1976). A debris evaluation and quantification  system for small order streams. Unpublished Bachelor's thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver,B . C. 47 p. Lantz, R.L. (1971). Guidelines for stream protection in  logging operations. Portland, Oregon: Oregon State Game Commission. 29 p. Marsh, N.T. (1975). Stream channel clearance costs for the Mi l l Creek cleanup. I_n Logging debris in streams workshop. Oregon State University, C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. 3 . McGreer, D.J. (1975). Stream protection and three timber  f a l l i n g techniques - a comparison of costs and benefits. Master of Science the s i s . Oregon State University, C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. 92 p. Megahan, W.F. and Kidd, W.J. (1972). Effects of logging and  logging roads on erosion and sediment deposition rrom steep t e r r a i n . Jour.For. 70(3) : 136-141. 110 Montgomery, J.M. (1976). Forest harvest, residue treatment,  reforestation and protection of water quality. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X. Seattle, Washington. Morrison, P.H. (1975). Ecological and geomorpho1ogica1  consequence of mass movements in the Alder Creek watershed and implications for forest land management. Bachelor's thesis, University of Oregon. 102 p. Narver, D.W. (1972). A survey of some possible effects  of logging on two eastern Vancouver Island streams. Fish, Marine Service Technical Report 323. 55 p. Ottens, J. (1975). Environmental costs in logging road  design and construction. (Report B.C. -X-108). ~ Victoria,B.C . : Canadian Forestry Service, P a c i f i c Forest Research Center. Pearse, P.H. (1982). Turning the tide a new policy for  Canada's P a c i f i c f i s h e r i e s . The Commission on P a c i f i c Fisheries Policy, Final Report, Vancouver,B.C. Powell, L.H. (1977). F a l l i n g decadent cedar-hemlock stands;  a comparison of tree breakage and wood recovery in  summer vs. winter operations. Vancouver, B.C.: Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. Sauder, B.J. (1978). Comparison of shotgun with highlead  yarding. Technical Note N.TN-18. Vancouver, B.C.: Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. Snow, R.A. (1983). Environmental law and practice. Materials prepared for a Continuing Legal Education Seminar, Vancouver, B.C. 5 p. Studier, D.D. and Binkley, V.W. (1974). Cable logging  systems. C o r v a l l i s , Oregon: Oregon State University Book Stores Inc. Swanson, F.J. and Dyrness, C.T. (1975). Impacts of clear cutting and road construction on s o i l erosion by landslides in the western Cascade Range, Oregon. Geology 3: 393-396. Swanson, F.J., Lienkaemper, G.W. and Sedell, J.R. (1976). History, physical effects and management implications of  large organic debris in western Oregon streams. U.S.D.A. For.Serv., Pac.Northwest For. and Range Expt. Sta. Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-56. 15 p. 111 Sydneysmith, S. (1978). A preliminary economic analysis of  the interaction between f i s h and forest sectors in  B r i t i s h Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.: Department of Fisheries and Envi ronment. Toews, D.A.A. and Brownlee, M.J. (1981). A handbook for f i s h habitat protection on forest lands in B r i t i s h  Co 1umbia. Vancouver, B.C.: Land Use Unit, Habitat Protection Division Field Services Branch, Pa c i f i c Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Toews, D.A.A. and Moore, M.K. (1982). The effects of streamside logging on large organic debris in Carnation  Creek. B.C. Ministry of Forests Land Management Report 11,29 p. , (1982). The effects of three streamside logging treatments on organic debris and channel morphology of Carnation Creek. J_n Proceedings of the Carnation Creek workshop, a 10-year review. P a c i f i c Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C. 129-152. Young, W. (1984). B.C. Ministry V i c t o r i a,B.C. Coastal f o r e s t r y / f i s h e r i e s guidelines of of Environment, Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch, 112 GLOSSARY Blowdown: a tree or stand of timber blown down by the wind; also referred to as windfall. Buck: to cut f e l l e d trees into log length; to make any bucking cuts on logs. Butt: the bottom of a tree; also the large end of a log. Cable logging: a yarding system employing winches, blocks and cables. C1earcutting : the complete removal of the timber stand over a given area in a single cut. Clearcuts can be yarded with any logging system, although cable systems are perhaps used more extensively on the B.C. Coast. Costs: costs incurred providing access to and harvesting timber and delivering i t to an approved marketing location in the form of logs. Debris g r i z z l y : a structure constructed from either metal or wood placed in a stream to c o l l e c t and prevent the downstream movement of wood debris. Deflection: t e c h n i c a l l y , the amount of sag at the mid point below a straight line drawn between the two ends where the cable is anchored or supported. Simply, i t is the clearance required between the ground p r o f i l e and the cable u t i l i z e d by various cable logging systems. 1 13 End hauling: the loading and removal of waste s o i l or rock material by truck (to a location some distance from the source) during subgrade construction of logging roads. In areas where stream protection or other environmental considerations are not required this excess material would normally be pushed over the embankment (sidecast). F a l l i n g & bucking: the f e l l i n g , bucking, measuring, topping and limbing of merchantable timber. Gradient: the general slope, or rate of change in v e r t i c a l elevation per unit of horizontal distance (of the water surface of a flowing stream). Hauling: log transportation by truck from the woods landing to a dryland sort or other processing fac i 1 i t y . Highlead: a cable logging system in which running line lead blocks are placed at the top of the spar to provide l i f t to the logs during the yarding phase. Landing: levelled area where trees or logs are yarded to for the purpose of loading onto logging trucks for further transport. Loader: machine used for the loading of logs; either heel boom or front end loaders. 114 Road construction: the building of a l l extraction routes and drainage structures for the purpose of transporting forest products from the logging s i t e . Spar: the tree or mast on which rigging is hung for any one of the many highlead cable logging systems. Stream: any watercourse which has a flow of water for a l l or part of the year and which has a defined channel showing signs of scouring or washing. Stream 'cleanup: the process of removing wood debris from a stream area which has been affected by a p a r t i c u l a r logging a c t i v i t y . Cleanup can be either by hand or equipment assisted. Streamside: the land, and the vegetation i t supports, immediately in contact with the stream or s u f f i c i e n t l y close to i t to have a major influence on, or to be influenced by, i t s ecological character. Stumpage: the value of standing timber. Stumpage appraisal: the estimation of monetary worth of standing timber. Turn: one or more logs that are yarded to the landing at one time. Yarding: the process of pulling logs to a landing either by cable or skidder systems. APPENDIX I HARVESTING SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRE 117 RATING OF THE FIVE MAIN HARVESTING SYSTEMS IN THE VANCOUVER FOREST REGION A. Indicate the best suited harvesting system, for logging timber adjacent to streams under the various terra in and stand conditions spec i f ied below. (Please denote by a v^for each system). Harvesting System* Standard Spar Mini Spar S lackl ine Grapple Yarder Skidder 1. Te r r a i n : * * even r o l l i n g gu l l i ed broken 2. Side Slope: 0 - 20% 21 - 50% 51 - 70% 71 + % 3. Yarding Distance: 0 - 75m3 75 - 150m3 150 - 225m3 225 + m 3 4. Log S ize: < 0.5 m 3 0.5 - 1.7 m3 1.8 - 2.5 m 3 2.5 + m3 5. Volume/hectare: 350 m3 351 - 500 m 3 501 - 650 m 3 651 - 800 m 3 800 + m3 6. Stream Gradient: 0 - 5% 6 - 15% 16 - 25% 25 + % 7. Defl ect ion: Excel lent Good Average Poor * If a spec i f i c variable (e .g . yarding distance) is not appl icable to a given logging system, please denote by N/A. ** Terrain c l a s s i f i c a t i o n is as per the ex i s t ing Vancouver Appraisal Manual. Please f i l l in rating and b r i e f l y note key points for each harvesting system you are fami l iar with for each of the three streamside conditions spec i f i ed : Flat lying to gently sloping ground (<20% s ides lope): Effectiveness Harvesting System** Advantages Problems Cost Rating* Rating* Standard Spar Mini Spar S lackl ine Grapple Yarder Skidder Moderately sloping terra in (20-70% sideslope): Standard Spar Mini Spar S lackl ine Grapple Yarder Skidder Contd.. Steep to very steep slopes (> 70% s ideslope): Harvesting System** Advantages Problems Cost Rating* Effectiveness Rating* Standard Spar Mini, Spar S lackl ine Grappl e Yarder Skidder Rating for Cost and Effectiveness to be classed as High, Medium or Low. If general e f f ic iency of system is not adaptable to certa in topographic conditions, indicate by N/A. 120 C. The following information will be used only to describe the population being sampled. 1. Number of years of experience 2. Experience mainly. Coast Interior 3. Have experience logging adjacent to streams. Yes No D. Additional comments pertaining to streamside harvesting. -APPENDIX II LOGGING EQUIPMENT HOURLY COST SCHEDULE PLATE 1 LOGGING EQCIPMEXT HOt'RLY COST  SCHEDULES EFFECTIVE JULY 1. 1982 Type Descr ip t ion Raced Capaci ty<•)Rate( t/hr ) Bulldozer Bulldozer Bulldozer Backhoe Rock D r i l l Cravel Loader ( r . E . L . ) Cravel Truck (c/w rock box) Grader (blades only) Crader (c/w hydraulic brushcutter) Road Conscruccion Road Mtce. £ Const. Road Construct ion Road Construct ion Road Construct ion Road Maintenance t Construct ion Road Maintenance t Construct ion Road Maintenance Road Maintenance 90-105 kW 120-1S0 kW 17S-230 kW 1.0 1.4 m-> 17.0 - 1 8 . 4 m 3/sec 3.0 - 3.5 K 3 11 - 12 m3 (3.88 m3/hr) 100 - 13S kW 100 - 13S kW 48.48 69.98 86.82 88.02 83.69 54.32 52.08 60.75 82.48 Hand F a l l e r Landing Bucker T a l l e r t Bucker Backhoe Crawler Tractor High Lead Spar Skyl ine Yarder Grapple Yarder R.T. Skidder R.T. Skidder Crawler Tractor Soft Track Skidder Heel Boon Loader Heel Booo Loader Trent End Loader Hwy Log Truck On/Off Hwy Truck Oft Hwy Truck F e l l e r Buncher Tree Shear Log Yarding - Chokers Log Yarding - Chokers Log Yarding — Grapple Log Sk idd ing - L ine Log Skidding - Grapple Log Skidding - L ine Log Skidding - Line Log Loading Access Logging Log Loading Log hau l ing Log haul ing(2.4-3.6m)* Log h a u l i n g ( 3 . 7 - 4 . 3 m ) « 90 90 105 335 165 as 8S 90 105 kW 10 5 kW 37S kW 37S kW 335 kW 105 kW kW 10S kW 135 kW 6 tonnes 260 - 290 kW 260 - 290 kW 300* kW 29.46 23.47 44.02 84.91 77.66 170.21 173.58 156.39 44.67 71.28 54.20 78.13 103.37 103.37 S6.19 51.46 60.48 8S.69 denotes bunk width Rate Includes bas ic machine operat ing cost plus operator , addi t ional crew as requi red and accessor ies as noted. F O R E S T S E R V I C E C O A S T A L L O G - B A S E D A P P R A I S A L M A N U A L APPENDIX III BOTANICAL NAMES OF MAJOR TREE SPECIES 124 Botanical Names of Major Species (Hosie,1969) Coast Abies amabi1is(Doug 1. ) Forbes Amabilis F i r Abies grandis (Doug 1. ) Lind 1. Grand F i r Abies lasiocarpa. (Hook. ) Nutt Subalpine F i r Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D.Don)Spach Yellow Cedar Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. Sitka Spruce Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco Douglas-fir Thuj a p i i c a t a Donn Western Red Cedar Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. Western Hemlock Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carr. Mountain Hemlock 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095953/manifest

Comment

Related Items