HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20090602lom
MEMORANDUM
0
TO: Mayor, City Council, and Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Chris Forman, City Forester Parks Department
Gary Tennenbaum, Land Steward n
THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager Parks and Recreation \
Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Di to�
Dale Will, Pitkin County Open Space and Trails irector
DATE OF MEMO: May 29, 2009
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2009
RE: Smuggler Mountain Open Space Forestry and Mountain Pine
Beetle Management Recommendations
CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
Hilary Fletcher, Pitkin County Manager
SUMMARY: The Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan, the guiding document
for the management of the open space, provides specific direction on the management of forest
resources on the property, including direction to complete data inventory, analysis, and
management recommendations for the forest resources on the property. The inventory and
analysis portions of this effort have been completed and were presented to both City and County
Open Space Boards on May 6, 2009. Since that time, professional forestry consultants (Colorado
State Forest Service and Jeff Webster RPF) have been hired to provide specific management
recommendations along with the associated costs and impacts of implementing those
recommendations as well as providing feedback on the proposed stewardship plan offered by For
the Forest. Staff has reviewed these recommendations and prepared a list of various actionable
items to present as recommendations to move forward in regards to forest management within
Smuggler Mountain Open Space. There are negative impacts to some of the action items in this
memo. Staff will attempt to identify and minimize all of them, but some of the impacts will not
be known till further studies and monitoring are complete. Staff intends to keep adapting
Page 1 of 5
management recommendations as conditions change and new science emerges. In summary,
staffs recommendations include ongoing public outreach and education of our changing forests,
hazard tree monitoring and removal along roads and trails, verbenone applications, localized
removal of brood trees, and monitoring for effectiveness of our actions. As a result of the review
process, staff believes that a combination of removing brood (trees containing beetles) and a
verbenone application is a strategy that might work to slow beetle infestation, but ultimately we
agree with the Colorado State Forest Service report that indicates all susceptible lodgepole pines
on Smuggler Mountain will succumb to the mountain pine beetle epidemic over the next several
years. A long term forest management plan with collaboration with the US Forest Service is the
best strategy to adapt to the forest of the future.
City and County staff presented these recommendations to the City Open Space and Trails Board
on Thursday May 28, 2009. The Board unanimously approved these recommendations at that
time.
BAGI' GROUND: The Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan provides specific
directO related to the management of the forest resources on the site, and those guidelines have
been considered throughout this process of developing specific actionable recommendations for
this year. Due to very tight timelines to act this year, it is important to note that all long term
effects of our actions may not be fully realized at this time, including but not limited to public
values regarding recreational use and aesthetic quality of the Open Space. The following
recommendations have been evaluated and made with every effort to make the best possible
management decisions with the information currently available to us and the consultants. One of
the toughest challenges stems from the realization that Smuggler Open Space is surrounded by
the White River National Forest in which mountain pine beetle is currently at pandemic levels.
DISCUSSION: The recommendations made by staff for review of this Board has five
components that we feel are actionable with potential to accomplish this summer. These
recommendations will be presented to both City and County Open Space and Trails Boards with
all management decisions and costs to be shared by both City of Aspen and Pitkin County, with a
contribution from For the Forest.
I. Education/Public Outreach
The next few years will bring quite a change to the surrounding forests, and regardless of what
management activities occur on Smuggler Mountain, mountain pine beetle is going to change our
forests. Due to this inevitable ecological shift, the first recommendation from staff is to continue
our efforts to educate the public regarding these changes here in the Roaring Fork Valley. These
educational opportunities include the development and installation of 2 interpretive signs on
Smuggler Open Space, a cooperative public meeting to be held with US Forest Service, Colorado
State Forest Service, City of Aspen, and Pitkin County, a radio spot discussing changing forest
conditions, as well as a 30 minute `show' on Grassroots TV. We also proposed to continue
working with the Roaring Fork Valley Forest Coalition as well as For The Forest to further
public awareness of the mountain pine beetle role in forest ecology. We anticipate the cost of
these efforts to be approximately $10,000 to be shared equally between the City of Aspen and
Pitkin County. Both parties have appropriated funds to accomplish such tasks.
Page 2 of 5
II Hazard Tree Monitoring and Removal
The Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan, the guiding document for the
management of the open space, provided specific direction on the management of forest
resources on the property, including hazard trees in regards to public safety. It is important to
note that all dead trees do not constitute a hazard and do not harbor any beetles. Typically, it
takes 5 to 10 years for a dead tree to structurally fail; therefore removal of large quantities of
trees due to mountain pine beetle impact is not necessary all at once. It is recommended that we
continue monitoring trees on an annual basis to locate and mitigate any tree that poses a threat
along designated trails. A field survey was conducted by City and County staff on May 13, 2009,
revealing 24 trees that are hazards. Some of the trees are subalpine fir, Douglas fir, and aspen
that can be felled and left onsite with no threat of spreading insects or disease. All trees are
easily accessible and can be removed by in-house staff as part of our already budgeted
responsibilities. These trees will be used on the property for slope and road stabilization this
summer.
III. Verbenone Applications
Verbenone is a semiochemical that mimics a pheromone produced by mountain pine beetle. This
product essentially indicates to beetles that there is no room and they should find another area to
inhabit trees. This technology is still being studied for its effectiveness, and is not a way to stop
the beetles just on its own merit. hi two separate reports provided to staff by Colorado State
Forester Kelly Rogers and professional forester Jeff Webster, both indicate that on most accounts
Verbenone does not work well in epidemic situations (Attachments A and B). The good news
about this product is that it is simply a behavioral manipulator of beetles and their insect
predators and has not shown any ill effects on the environment or wildlife.
Staff is recommending the use of Verbenone this year as an experiment to potentially slow the
impacts of mountain pine beetle, though we expect that the beetles will eventually overcome the
effectiveness of this product. It is also important to note that if this product works to slow the
beetle attack, it is necessary to apply annually for the next 5 years at a minimum. We have no
information regarding how long applications must continue, but we do know that they must
continue until the surrounding populations of mountain pine beetle decrease significantly.
Application of this product must be done in one of two ways; pouches or flakes. Pouches are
currently available and must be stapled to tree trunks at a rate of 20 to 30 pouches per acre.
Effectiveness of this treatment is directly proportionate to the amount of area covered, and it has
been noted by the Verbenone experts that only treating areas along trails and roads are not
advisable. The recommended treatment area would encompass the roads and trail, but would
also cover approximately 120 acres at a cost of approximately $40,000 assuming $50 per man
hour of application and 30 pouches per acre per year. This includes the cost of removal of the
pouches after use.
Page 3 of 5
The other application method is the dispersal of small flakes containing Verbenone. Staff does
not recommend the use of the non -biodegradable flake, as it will persist in our environment
indefinitely. The other option is a biodegradable flake currently in the research phase, but the
manufacturer is not willing to allow the use on public property, so this option is not available this
M111,1111r.10
We have initiated conversations with For the Forest to share costs associated with the verbenone
pouch applications and they have shown a willingness to provide funds to offset some costs with
the application in 2009.
IV. Removal of Brood Trees
This action item consists of the removal of trees that currently hold live beetles in the operable
areas of the Open Space. The recommendation from staff is to limit the removal of brood trees
in areas with slopes of 40% or less. The exact location of these areas are shown on Attachment
C, and were defined by staff as a recommendation by the Colorado State Forest Service report to
operate in areas of 40% slope or less and west of the large drainage that runs north into Hunter
Creek. Within this area, there are 77 trees to be removed, which can be done utilizing existing
roads and traditional log skidding equipment. This will create the need for trail closures, but it
has been estimated that this work could be done over the course of 1 week. Some of these old
roads are now non -motorized trails, an example is the Hunter Creek Cutoff, and there will be
impacts to areas that have been revegetating naturally from years of no motorized use.
Trees that are cut down must be transported via skidder to a landing located at the former
Wilkinson site to be loaded onto trucks for transport off of Smuggler Mountain. It has been
revealed to staff that there are just a few contractors in Colorado with the equipment to navigate
Smuggler Road with the only improvements to that road being loose rock removal and minor
repair to one cut slope. If a log truck is utilized, it would create 2 to 3 trips up and down
Smuggler Road. If smaller trucks are used to transport logs that are cut into smaller pieces at the
landing, trips up and down the road are increased significantly. Regardless of the size of truck
used, it will be necessary to utilize flaggers during transport. Once the trees leave the mountain,
they will either need to be stripped of their bark, cut up, and utilized for firewood for
City/County residents, taken to the landfill for processing, chipped and taken to the Glenwood
Springs South Canyon Landfill for utilization as fuel in their operations, or taken to a sawmill
located in Silt or Montrose.
The disposal of slash (limbs and tree tops) also has to be addressed, and though possibly the most
expensive method, staff recommends chipping slash into containers/trucks and taken off the
mountain. It is not recommended to leave slash in any form on the mountain during spring, as
this will increase beetle activity. This method of removing slash will create approximately 8
loads to be moved off the mountain.
The cost of the above mentioned logging operation is an estimate but can be utilized as a good
reference point:
• Road improvement $800
• Felling of trees $2,700
Page 4 of 5
• Skidding
• Chipping of slash
• Loading
• Haul costs of trees
• Total Estimated
$3,700
$6,400
$L125
$150/11our
$17,500
Again, we have initiated conversations with For the Forest to share costs associated with the
logging operations and they have shown a willingness to provide funds to offset some costs with
the application in 2009.
V. Monitoring
The implementation of brood tree removal coupled with Verbenone is an experimental process
for our ecotype within the Smuggler Mountain Open Space. In order to determine the success of
this project, it is imperative to monitor the effects once this year's beetle flight has occurred.
These monitoring efforts must continue into the future regardless of what management
prescriptions are implemented, and adaptive management must be applied depending upon the
results of these continued studies within the area. The recommendation to continual monitoring
is of the utmost importance since long term results of our actions may not be apparent for years
to come. The cost of this recommendation will be a combination of City and County staff time
along with contracting professional forestry consultants proficient in Verbenone technology as
well as forest ecology.
There are several impacts of these operations that have yet to be determined to their fullest
potential, which is a product of a short time frame to produce these recommendations. As an
example, the removal of these brood trees will lead to disturbance to the forest floor which could
be significant. It is recommended by staff that a long range plan be carefully created and put into
effect in 2010 which will incorporate an assessment of actions taken this summer. A few things
that will be impacted are recreational use, increased noxious vegetation management needs,
potential impacts to moonwort habitat that was identified on the property along the Hunter Creek
Cutoff Trail, and actual effectiveness of these efforts in regard to slowing pine beetle infestations
within the Open Space. It is imperative that monitoring needs to occur for many years to
carefully understand these impacts and how to manage them into the future.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Colorado State Forest Service Report
B. Jeff Webster RPF Report
C. GIS Map of Brood Tree Removal Areas
Page 5 of 5
•• • .j•
OMY
SERVICE
Grand Junction District
222 S. 6". St., Rm.#416
Grand Junction, CO 81501
(970)248-7325
May 21, 2009
Chris Foreman
City Forester
585 Cemetery Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
Chris,
I've completed a rough reconnaissance of the Smuggler Mountain Open Space Park. Summarized below
are my comments and suggestions for managing the mountain pine beetle (MPB) infestation in this area.
First of all, I need to preface any comments or recommendations with a simple observation that I have
gleaned from my professional and personal experience in dealing with the current MPB epidemic in
Colorado: In my opinion it is very likely that all the mature lodgepole pine in this area will be killed by
MPB, within the next 3 years, regardless of the management actions taken. At this point, I feel the best
management of any forest with a heavy component of mature lodgepole pine should include planning for
the forest of the future, by ensuring (as best you can) that there is an adequate and diverse layer of
regeneration to eventually replace the dead lodgepole pine overstory. Having said that, I realize that there
is a certain imperative among land managers and the public to "do something" in an attempt to mitigate
MPB damage, provide for public safety from falling dead trees, and manage future fuel loading. So, here
are some general suggestions for management action, should you make the decision to do something.
Specific answers to the questions you posed in your 5/13/09 e-mail follow as well.
General Observations and Recommendations:
• At this point the MPB activity on the lower slopes of Smuggler Mtn. is generally confined to small
groups of trees, usually 10 to 15 infested trees per group. Older dead trees are intermingled, showing
evidence that the infestation has been building for 5 years or more. The upper, steep slopes near USFS
land show signs of heavier MPB activity, with groups of 75 or more infested trees. The lodgepole pine
overstory on Smuggler Mtn. Open Space Park is generally at an age and size that is very susceptible to
MPB (average age of the trees is 120-180 years). MPB will likely spread exponentially during this
year's flight, and heavy mortality of mature lodgepole will be evident in 2-3 years.
• Sanitation cutting (removing currently infested trees) to reduce the MPB population may slow the
infestation on the lower slopes of Smuggler Mtn., especially if combined with a Verbenone treatment
to disrupt mating behavior. As I have stated, in my opinion it is highly unlikely that the infestation
will be stopped by these (or any other) actions.
• Limit sanitation cutting to that area where work can be accomplished fairly easily. I recommend that
any cutting and removal of trees be confined to the more operable areas of the property, as shown in
the cross -hatched area on the attached map. Operable is generally defined as being less than 40%
slope. Operating ground -based equipment on slopes steeper than 40% will result in excessive damage
to residual trees, grass, shrubs, existing regeneration, and soil. If any cutting or tree removal is done
on slopes over 40%, it should be done by careful hand falling and helicopter yarding only.
I also recommend confining tree cutting and removals to that area west of the deep gully that runs
north into Hunter Creek. There is year-round water in this drainage, and crossing this gully with any
equipment will be problematic. The slopes to the east of this drainage are generally steeper than 40%
anyway.
• Trees to be removed should be located and marked by a professional forester. Identification of
currently infested green trees can be difficult. In terms of MPB control, it won't do any good to
remove older MPB mortality that is not currently infested. Not every tree with pitch tubes needs to be
removed, since only the green trees still have MPB in them. Although some of the older dead trees
may eventually pose a falling hazard or contribute to fuel build-up, I wouldn't consider them a priority
for removal at this time.
• The attached map shows the locations of groups of currently infested trees that were located during
my reconnaissance. The red line shows my track. This is not a complete inventory, and does not
include the steep upper slopes near USFS land. Note that the groups are numbered, with the second
number being the green infested trees found at that location. I will e-mail you a shapefile showing the
MPB spots I found.
• Hire a qualified contractor to do the work. Make sure the contractor has experience in cutting and
removal of large trees. Have a written contract that specifies things like stump height, slash treatment,
how/where trees will be yarded, beginning/end dates, etc. Schedule a trip for potential bidders to look
over the project. The contractor will need to be supervised closely during operations.
• Consult with experienced and qualified experts in the use of Verbenone to help with the control of
MPB. My experience with Verbenone is limited, but by most accounts it does not work well in
epidemic situations.
Responses to your specific questions:
What is the effectiveness of removing brood trees and standing dead trees along these corridors
as an effort to reduce MPB attack in the remaining trees?
Confining your sanitation cutting to only 150 feet from roads will have virtually no effect on MPB
control. The insects will not recognize this or any other boundary. Removal of standing dead trees will
have no effect on MPB control.
What is the feasibility of implementing the removal of these trees along these corridors in
regards to necessary infrastructure, equipment, timing, improvements to existing infrastructure,
trail closures, staging areas, and overall end result for extracted timber?
Implementing the tree cutting and skidding could be fairly easily accomplished with conventional
logging equipment, where slopes are less than 40%. The steeper ground will be much more difficult,
and would take special care and equipment to accomplish without doing excessive damage. I
recommend against use of ground -based equipment on slopes over 40%. I think only hand falling and
helicopter yarding would be feasible in the steeper areas. Transporting of logs off the property once
they have been cut and yarded to a central location would be the best option for controlling the spread
of MPB, but this option would be difficult at best. Presently, the road is not suitable for full-length log
trucks. It could possibly be upgraded to accommodate a stake bed or other truck that could handle
short logs. This type of 'short logging" will take more time. Other options would be to treat or process
the logs on site. This could include use of an air curtain burner, a portable sawmill, chipping/grinding,
or solar treatment with plastic. All of these options would add complexity, time, and expense to the
project.
• What would be some potential impacts to this area including trails, roads, recreation, noxious
vegetation, and wildlife?
There would be considerable short term impacts to public use, including closing the main road during
hauling operations, as well as closing sections of the park during cutting/skidding operations for
public safety. Roads and trails would be minimally affected by skidding of logs. Some rehab or re-
seeding of landing areas might be necessary. Slash would have to be dealt with by lopping/scattering,
piling/burning, hauling/chipping, etc. Wildlife would be largely unaffected by the tree
removal/hauling except for short-term displacement.
• What are the foreseeable costs associated with this particular plan of action?
There is minimal value of the trees to be removed as forest products, particularly given the difficulty
and expense in transporting them off the property. Lumber markets are at an all-time low presently, so
even prime sawlogs are not worth much at the mill. The value of the trees as sawlogs or firewood
would offset a very small part of the cost of logging. It may be difficult to find a qualified contractor
to accomplish this work in the time frame necessary. The cost of cutting and removing trees is highly
variable, and will depend on the contractor, but I would guess at least $100 per tree for this project.
Helicopter yarding could run twice that.
• What are the actual numbers of trees that will be extracted as part of this plan?
I came up with a total of 110 currently infested trees within the "operable" area. There are probably 2-
3 times that on the steeper slopes above. If hazard trees were removed along with currently infested
trees, you could probably double those numbers. My estimates are probably low, seems like the more
you look the more you find in this area.
In summary, I think any management activities undertaken to control MPB on Smuggler Mtn. will frankly
be difficult, expensive, and of limited value in the face of the full scale epidemic we are likely to
experience in the next few years. But I can certainly understand the impetus to take action. I hope this
summary is of some use in determining what action to take.
It was a pleasure touring the property and assessing your situation. We typically do not charge a fee for
the initial site visit and assessment with landowners. Any subsequent work we do for you such as tree
marking, contracting, or contract administration would need to be negotiated through a Service
Agreement with our office. Give me a call if you are interested in these services at some point.
Sincerely,
Kelly Rogers
District Forester
1 ",
Evaluation of FTF Smuggler Mountain Proposal
Insert Map of SM
Prepared for:
City of Aspen
585 Cemetery Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
Prepared by:
Jeff Webster, Registered Professional Forester #2182
7205 Granada Drive
Redding, CA 96002
May 27, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Tree Numbers and Location
3. Verbenone
a) Effectiveness
b) Feasibility
c) Impacts
d) Alternatives
e) Costs
4. Effectiveness of Tree Removals
5. Feasibility of Tree Removals
a) In
b) Improvements needed
c) Equipment
d) Safety Issues — Potential Road/Trail Closures
e) Staging areas
f) End Result
6. Impacts of Tree Removal
a) Roads
b) Trails
c) Recreation
d) Wildlife
e) Noxious Weeds
l) Regeneration
7. Costs of Tree Removal
a) Proposed Plan
b) Alternatives
8. Alternatives
a) Do Nothing
b) FTF proposal
c) Green Dead Only
d) Green Dead and Red Dead
e) Regeneration
9. Timeline
a) Biology
b) Layout
c) Contracting
d) Operations
e) Verbenone Application
10. Conclusions
2
Introduction
The objective of this report is to analyze the For the Forest proposal A Short Term
Stewardship Plan For the Smuggler Mountain Open Space and present some alternatives.
This report builds on previous reports that have been done: Historic Assessment of the
Smuggler Mountain Open Space (2008), Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management
Plan (2008), Smuggler Mountain Stand Exams (2008) and Hunter Creek/Smuggler
Mountain Vegetation Assessment.
Concerns have been raised about the impact of current and impending Mountain Pine
Beetle (MPB) mortality on Smuggler Mountain. What can be done, if anything? The goal
is to present the biology and operational issues associated with the proposed and
alternatives. This property is a treasured resource of the community of Aspen and Pitkin
County. Many do not want to see it changed or disturbed, but it is in the process of
change one way or another. Any proposals that are analyzed need to be compared against
the alternative of doing nothing.
The biggest question of all that needs to be answered by the leaders and owners of the
property is what level of management is going to be practiced? Is it going to be custodial
or pro -active? Each direction leads to a different set of decisions that have a domino
effect.
Tree Numbers and Location
An intensive reconnaissance of the majority of the heavily used area on the property was
conducted on May 20 and 21. All dead trees within the area were located using GPS
technology and mapped (see map 1). Data collected includes: 1) estimated year of attack
(05 and earlier, 06, 07 and 08) 2) type of attack (pitch out, strip and mass) and 3)
Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), see data in table 1.
Table 1 — Summary of Trees by Location
Trees in Road
Buffer Area
Trees in Area
Year of
Analyzed (38
Analyzed (78
Attack
ac.)
ac.
2005 &
earlier
154
282
2006
38
83
2007
34
83
2008
69
117
295
565
Instead of just locating the trees within the proposed 150 foot corridor each side of the
roads and trails the majority of the flatter operable area was covered to get a feel for a
larger portion of the area (78 acres were covered).
Verbenone
Verbenone is an anti -aggregate pheromone that is produced by the MPB to signal other
beetles that a particular tree has been successfully attack and to go look for another tree.
Pheromones are naturally occurring chemicals that alter the behavior of insects they do
not kill anything and as such can not be directly compared to insecticides like carbaryl.
Verbenone will never be as effective as insecticides, but it is much friendlier to the
environment. The only effect is behavioral on the MPB and its insect predators.
Effectiveness of Verbenone
The pheromone was identified in the 1960's and has had extensive research associated
with it over the years with many different delivery mechanisms with variable results.
There are two types of product currently labeled for use; pouches and flakes. The
majority of the research and use has been done involving pouches (produced by Contech
in Canada) designed for protecting high value individual trees. Pouches have been
regularly used in campgrounds and on residential properties. Tests show about a 50%
reduction in mortality under low to moderate populations of the MPB, but under high
population pressure the only thing shown effective is insecticides.
The other type is laminated flakes (see picture 1) produced by Hereon Environmental in
Pennsylvania. These have been tested on an individual tree basis (Gillette, 2006) and
landscape basis Gillette, 2009). Results from tests applying the flakes with sticker to the
bottom 20 feet of Lodgepole pines with attractant baits attached to the tree showed an
85% success rate protecting the trees. For the broadcast applications on fifty acre plots
with low to moderate MPB populations a 50-75% reduction in attacks was demonstrated
as compared to the control plots. For all of these tests there was no removal of infested
trees. Some unpublished work done as operational treatments on a dozen campgrounds
and recreation sites in Utah and Wyoming showed an about 80% reduction in attacks by
removing infected trees as compared with using verbenone only the previous year
(personal comm. Steve Munson, Forest Health Protection, Ogden, Utah). The
prescription was 40 pouches per acre with a buffer of 33-66 feet wide around the sites.
Using verbenone is not the silver bullet that we would like, but it does show a significant
reduction in attacks as compared to control plots and used as an Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) approach has promise for slowing the progression of a MPB
outbreak.
In addition, Hereon has a new bio-degradable flake that is in the research stage and as yet
not proven to work. See more information involving the use of this product below under
feasibility.
To my knowledge there hasn't been an integrated approach used with tree removal
involving Lodgepole pine (LP) and verbenone. The project in Merritt, B.C. has been
raised as an example. The concept of tree removal and verbenone is excellent. It
promotes classic silvicultural practice with pest control chemicals. The biological
differences between Merritt and Aspen need to be recognized. The species being
protected in Merritt was Ponderosa pine (PP). Although PP is susceptible to MPB, it
tends not to be as susceptible as LP. PP once thinned has a much greater ability to release
grow new healthy crown and increased diameter, reflected in greater water and nutrient
availability to help "pitch out" MPB. MPB tends to attack smaller diameter PP v. a
preference for larger LP. PP is a much longer lived species, once released PP will grow
and be healthy (assuming good stocking control is maintained) for many decades if not a
hundred years or more. LP on the other hand is a shorter lived species and thinning them
will result in healthier trees in the short term, but the increased diameter growth
ultimately makes them more susceptible once the next drought or stress event occurs that
increases the MPB population.
We can't change the biology of the species involved, we can alter the conditions to meet
management goals. Using removal of trees to reduce density (reduce stress) while
applying verbenone to reduce MPB can slow down the attack rate. That time could be
used to develop a longer range plan that would involve some regeneration cuts to begin
regenerating a new forest. The ultimate solution for reducing the risk to future outbreaks
is increased species and age class diversity. The bigger the area this is practiced on a
landscape scale the greater the chances of success. There are no guarantees.
In this situation the majority of the LP on Smuggler Mountain are over 100 years of age
and are at an age and density where they are susceptible, it is rare for LP to live beyond
150-200 years. LP may be protected in the short term with active management (remove
infected trees in timely manner with timely verbenone application) but they can not be
protected nor expected to live indefinitely.
Feasibility of Verbenone
Application of verbenone is easy relative the process of removing infected trees, but there
are constraints that need to be considered in planning.
Pouches are registered and available in the quantities need. Pouches are normally used on
small scale but can be used on large scale. They need to be stapled to trees (ideally host
species, LP, Whitebark pine, Limber pine and PP in some areas) on a grid of 20-30 feet
depending on the amount of active ingredient you want to apply per acre (see picture 2).
In areas of limited human activity stapling at head height is acceptable. In places of high
human activity they should be stapled out of reach using a hummel hammer.
One consideration with pouches is whether you are going to leave them up or take them
down after use. They are encapsulated in plastic container and will last for a long time. If
they are to be remove the cost of removal needs to be considered. If they are applied with
the hummel hammer they are more difficult to remove.
Laminated Flakes have been registered for use since 2008. The biggest consideration of
the laminated flakes is getting them ordered in a timely manner. It is suggested that they
be ordered six weeks prior to application. Since application timing in the case is about
last week of June or first week of July this could be a critical impediment.
The other consideration that bothers some is that the flakes are made of non -
biodegradable pvc materials. Even though they virtually disappear in the vegetation and
soil in a relatively short period of time, being non -biodegradable still bothers some, even
though they have been used on the East coast as part of the Slow the Spread program for
the Gypsy Moth for years.
Biodegradable Flakes are currently in the research phase with Hereon Environmental.
They may not be purchased for operational applications. They may only be purchased by
a qualified researcher and used as part of an experimental project. This is possible, but
again ordering the flakes in a timely manner is crucial. Although different equipment is
used it still takes time to get the flakes made. A minimum of one month is suggested, but
exact timing would have to come from Jim Heath at Hereon Environmental.
Considerations on the use of biodegradable flakes are that they may not work. Testing in
the lab is showing that they are dissipating to fast (3-4 weeks). They need to last ideally
at least two months. Past experience shows that they will last longer in the field due to
cool evening temperatures as compared to constant warm temperatures in the lab.
Research guidelines limit the amount of active ingredient (AI) to 150 grams per acre.
Two possible approaches to the application are to use two applications at 75 grams Al.
One approach is to do one application the end of June and the other the end of July. This
is not recommended, since 75 grams Al has not been shown to be effective. The other
approach is to do a single 150 gram Al application in early to mid July closer to or once
beetles are actually emerging. This has the risk of having beetles attacking trees prior to
application which will cause conflicting signals to the insects and reduce the
effectiveness of the verbenone. This is the preferable risk since 150 grams Al has been
proven to be effective on disrupting MPB behavior. The risk is whether it will last long
enough. The risk to the manufacturer is the failure of this delivery mechanism in a very
public situation that will give verbenone in general a bad name when it is the delivery
mechanism that is the problem and not verbenone itself.
Research guidelines also limit the application area to 250 acres. This is not a problem
per se in that the area of potential treatment on Smuggler is about 172 acres.
Any verbenone product is only going to be effective for one season. For the IPM
approach of verbenone and tree removal with annual monitoring to have maximum
effectiveness the verbenone and tree removals need to be an annual operation until the
population of MPB in surrounding areas has subsided. This can take several years.
Impacts of Verbenone
The impact of verbenone is very minor. It only effects the MPB and predatory insects,
that is the beauty of using pheromones, they are extremely specific. One concern folks
have is, are we pushing the beetles from the county land onto other adjacent property.
Although there are no specific studies to indicate this there are no observations from the
numerous studies that have been done to indicate this is happening. The theory is that the
longer they fly around confused trying to find a host tree they are burning up valuable
energy and die or are exposed for a longer time to insect and bird predators.
Toxicologically the chemical is very safe, in fact it is a common ingredient in perfumes.
Tests on mammals and fish show no toxic effects.
Depending on the color of the flakes applied they may be visible on the ground, although
when applied on vegetation they are difficult to find. On bare dirt they are visible, but
disappear over time as the soil moves around.
The philosophical issue of non -biodegradable flakes is another issue concerning the use
of the laminated flakes.
Cost of Verbenone
Pouches
Contech (www.contech-ine.com) is the primary producer of pouches. The price for an
order of 500 or more is $7.50/pouch. Each pouch contains 7 grams of Al. The
recommendations range from 20 to 30/acre which converts to 140 to 210 grams Al per
acre. The representative made it clear that doing single point or linear applications are not
advisable. In addition, it was encouraged to practice IPM with the application, i.e. remove
the infested trees and you will get better results.
Cost of Materials for Pouches
20/acre times $7.50 equals $150/acre (140 grams of AI/ac)
30/acre times $7.50 equals $225/acre (210 grams of AI/ac)
Gabor cost for Application
The Contech representative estimates about 1-2 acres per man hour depending on slope,
access, brush, etc. If one assumes $50/man hour, then that equals an application rate of
$25-50/acre. Total cost of materials and application would range from $175-275/acre.
To treat the FTF Trail and Road buffers as proposed (72 acres) would cost between
$12,600 and $19,800. 1 would not recommend this because of the linear nature of the
proposal. I would recommend treating a block including a buffer containing the roads and
trails. Ideally the bigger the area the better, the mixed conifer/Aspen stands on Smuggler
Mountain is about 172 acres.
Flakes
Non -biodegradable flakes, Hereon Environmental (www.lierconenviron.com) is the only
producer of verbenone flakes. They are produced by laminating the Al within two layers
of pvc laminated material and cut into 1/8" flakes the Al then releases along the cut
edges. The flakes are 15% active ingredient. One kilogram of flakes has 150 grams of Al.
All of the research tests to date have been with 150 grams/acre. The label allows up to
500 grams/acre. A crude prescription for application rate is for Low infestation 150
grams/acre, Moderate 300 grams/acre, High 500 grams/acre. Once the infestation gets to
high verbenone is not recommended or expected to have much effect. There really is no
definition of what constitutes Low or Moderate infestation rate. My personal rating of the
current infestation on Smuggler Mountain is that it is in the Low to Moderate stage.
Cost of Materials for Flakes
Hereon quotes the price at $122/kg (150 grams of Al) so the costs would range by rate:
Low (150 g/ac.) equals $122/acre
Moderate (300 g/ac.) equals $244/acre
Cost for Application
Ground application rates are about 1 acre per man hour depending on rate of application,
access, slope, brush, etc. Costs would range from about $50-75/acre.
Total Costs of broadcast ground application would range from $150-275/acre.
Aerial application rates are around $30/acre depending on the size of the project, distance
from landing location and distance from home location for operator. An operator out of
Craig, CO just did an MCH application on Storm King Ranch in conjunction with the
BLM on 400 acres. I don't know what the cost was. Normally aerial operators won't
mess with projects less than 100 acres, because of the move in and out costs are to high.
Total aerial costs of application would range from $130-230/acre.
Aerial application of the FTF proposal would be difficult due to the linear and broken
nature of the units. It makes a lot more sense biologically and operationally to treat as a
block.
See Table 2 for summary of material and application costs by material and application
method. The costs estimate for the bio-degradeable flakes is just an estimate Hereon will
not quote a price on a research product. To use the biodegradable flakes you will need to
add in the costs of research proposal.
Estimated Research Costs not Includine Materials (Estimate Onl
Research Plan: $2,000
Travel, Lodging, Food, Supervision for Application & Evaluation: $15,000
Data Analysis $5,000
$22,000
Table 2 — Summa of Material and Ar plication Costs
Pouches
Non-
Bio
Flakes
Rate
grams
AI/ac
Material
Ground
App.
Total
Material
Ground
App.
Aerial
Total
Ground
Total
Aerial
150
$150
$25
$175
1 $122
$50
$30
$172
$152
200
$225
$50
$275
$133
$60
$40
$193
$173
300
$321
$751
$396
$243
$75
$50
$318
$293
Feasibility of Tree Removal
Removing trees from Smuggler Mountain is very doable from an operational point of
view. The question is what tools are available to do the job? What social constraints are
going to be applied to the project? With a full tool bag including markets, operators and a
willing public the job can be done. For Colorado in general and Aspen in particular,
logging is not politically correct. The feasibility of doing tree removals will require a
significant educational effort to explain and justify operations to remove product. In this
10
the goals being: removal of infested trees to slow the spread of MPB, remove hazard
trees, reduce fuel loading and fire risk.
Under normal circumstances this is a difficult undertaking. With the current housing
market it is difficult remove anything and have a market for it is next to impossible. The
bottom line in a good market you might cover your costs for removal. With the current
market and likely mitigations required it is going to be a costly.
There are numerous options that could be considered for the removal of the trees
recommended, due to time constraints on this report and time constraints on tree removal
prior to MPB flight in early July, limited options will be considered.
Infrastructure and Transportation
Roads
The biggest issue constraining the implementation of any project on Smugglers Mountain
is the Smuggler Mountain road for two reasons; significant recreational use and very
poor condition of the road. These both lead to significant concerns of safety for both the
recreation users and the operators trying to haul down the road, whether it is logging
trucks, flat beds or pick-ups for firewood. With the road being single lane and very steep,
any increase in traffic will cause safety issues.
It seems quite apparent that there is significant resistance to improving the Smuggler
Mountain road for fear it will increase vehicle use that will impact the hikers and bike
riders. On the other hand the road needs improvement to reduce ongoing erosion
problems.
As the road exists now, there are only a couple operators in the state that can get a
logging truck down the road with only minor maintenance (remove loose rock from road
and minor repair to one cut slope). That would allow for the 3-4 loads of logs that would
be generated by removing the "green dead" trees that are currently infected with MPB. If
one wanted to do more proactive silviculture requiring numerous trips up and down the
road, one would have to do some significant improvements to the road.
Trails
Many of the trails on Smuggler Mountain are old skid trails that have been blocked off.
For the moderate ground less than 35% slope there are adequate skid trails available
assuming one could use them. To use them would require some temporary closures. The
more productive (larger the equipment) the shorter the closures, the smaller the operator
and equipment the longer the closures. The more restrictive the skidding operations due
to ground disturbance the longer things will take. The longer the skids due to limitations
on trail usage the longer things will take. The more restrictions the more expensive it will
be.
To operate the moderate slopes on the property there are adequate roads and trails. For
the most part there are probably more than needed. The question is which ones if any will
be allowed for use, short term and more importantly long term? To answer this question,
the leadership needs to decide what level of management the property will have. Once
that is decided, staff needs to work with professional foresters to decide on what roads
and trails to maintain and which ones to close.
For the steeper slopes, the main options are cable logging and helicopter logging. Since
there is only limit to no operators with cable capabilities, this leaves the main option as
helicopter logging, which is available in the area. This is the most expensive but also
allows for the least amount of disturbance and can accomplish the objective in the
shortest amount of time, thus limiting the amount of time disrupting the recreational use.
Some times helicopter logging increases the recreational use, since many like to watch.
Impacts of Tree Removal
Disturbance is a big issue that has two conflicting effects. Visual seems to be the first
one. The perception seems to be that no one wants to see any disturbance. Silvicultural
and Biological treatments require some disturbance to encourage the regeneration of
most conifer and hardwood species. The leadership needs to decide on what level of
management is going to be allowed to determine what level of disturbance is acceptable
and where.
The other issue with disturbance is the risk of introducing noxious and exotic weeds or
which there are several identified on Smuggler Mountain. These have been introduced by
man and will have to be curbed by man. The current use of herbicides by the County and
City staff is the most effective methods available. Other mitigations can be used as an
integrated approach; washing of equipment prior the entering property, covering
disturbed areas with native seed and mulch, timing of operations to reduce introduction of
seed at the wrong time. These mitigations are great, but the single biggest problem is
probably the dogs on the property getting seed in their fur and transporting it around the
property.
The FTF proposal indicates disturbance will be "less than 5% bare soil left in removal
area" and "any disturbed soil to be reseeded with an approved weed -free native plant
mix." This sounds good but, I find these numbers difficult from a common sense and
operational point of view. A common rule of thumb on managed properties is that the
roads constitute 10% of the land base. That being the case, with the roads and trails
created on the property prior to County/City purchase there is probably more than 10%
on the moderate slopes. Just using the existing used roads, trails and tailing piles will
leave much more than the 5% indicated. The County/City know they have a significant
restoration effort on their hands for the mining impacts, but one needs to put some serious
thought into what level of disturbance is acceptable. To meet the 5%, over half of the
existing roads and trails would need to be eliminated and re -vegetated.
12
Equipment Needed
The equipment needed will depend on what level of management allowed on the
property. Beyond the standard logging equipment of skidders, tractors, loaders and
logging trucks, there is a lot of new equipment available for use including Cut to Length
(CTL) systems, feller bunchers, hot saws, Tempco's (falling machines that operate on
slopes up to 50%). Most of this equipment is designed for high production and large jobs.
They also usually result in a fair amount of disturbance, which is good for bare soil
needed for regeneration, but bad for desire recreational experience.
Other low impact methods do exist, like ATV's with special arches that can lift logs off
the ground to limit the amount of disturbance. These are possible but slow and limited to
essentially flat ground.
Some have suggested that a portable sawmill be set up on Smuggler to process the
material generated. This sounds good but this is a slow inefficient process that would take
a long time and lead to many more trips up and down the Smuggler Mountain road than
preferred. This would also generate considerable noise for extended periods of time
Slash Disposal
This is a big issue that is often ignored. Whether a project looks good or bad at the end
usually depends on the level of slash disposal applied. There are many methods that can
be used including: lop and scatter, chipping (left on site or removed), burning (hand piles,
landing piles, air curtain incinerators, etc. I am sure there are others but these are the ones
I will deal with.
Lop and Scatter
This involves just cutting the limbs and remaining tops from trees along with any damage
trees or brush into small pieces and leaving them on the ground. This is usually the
cheapest and easiest to accomplish depending on the minimum height set to which the
lopped material must be under. Common limits are below 18-30 inches from ground
level. The good part is it works great for erosion control and leaves some of the cones
(especially LP) on site to facilitate regeneration. The bad part is it leaves a lot of fine
fuels on the ground adding to the fire danger and doesn't look good.
Chinning
On site; this means chipping any slash and leaving it on site. The good part is that it
leaves organic material on site to act as a mulch for moisture retention and erosion
control and visually is fairly acceptable, after a year or so one can hardly find the chips.
The bad part is additional fuel on the ground as with lop and scatter, but it is in a form
that doesn't facilitate the spread of fire nearly as much.
The biggest think with chipping especially leaving the chips on site is; do not do it in the
spring! Chipping attracts more beetles during the spring during the peak of their flight
season (May -September). Chipping is best done in the fall after the beetle flight (after
mid -September). Once the chips have weathered a winter there is not nearly as much
attraction.
13
Off site; this is the most expensive of the two but is the cleanest and removes any risk of
causing an attraction for the beetles. Pros include: leaves the site very clean. Cons
include: expensive, removes potential seed, no mulch and erosion control potential, fills
up valuable landfill, wastes a valuable resource that should be going into green energy
producing biomass fuel for power generation or other biofuels.
Burning
This is a fairly common practice in many operational situations, there are several
approaches each having their own pros and cons. The biggest problems are effect on air
quality and liability of escape, especially in Aspen area with high residential and property
values.
Hand piles; these are commonly created after operations are done to dispose of slash.
Usually they are created no larger that 4'x4'x4' and covered with waxed paper or plastic
to facilitate burning during wet periods in the fall or early winter. Burning during storm
events helps reduce the risk of fire escape, facilitates dispersal of smoke to reduce
impacts on air quality and helps reduce scorch on residual trees. Pros include: moderate
expense depending on slash load, cleans site up well. Cons include: air quality, liability,
potential small patches of soil sterilization that needs re -vegetating and increases risk of
noxious weeds. These spots could prove a positive in terms of planting spots. The burn
area creates good vegetation control in the short term to provide needed moisture for
seedling establishment and nutrients (fire releases nitrogen into the soil).
Landing piles; these are commonly created during operations from removal of limbs on
trees that could not be cut after falling (under tree). Or they can be tops remaining on
landing from a mechanical operation where logs are skidded tree length into the landing
and logs are manufactured at the landing. This leaves less slash in the woods but more at
the landing. Where markets exist "top" piles on the landing are chipped and sent to
biomass facilities for power generation. On this project if things were to be helicopter
logged one could chose to fly out the tops with the logs and chip or bum the material at
one or two large landings (old mine tailings?).
Air curtain; these are large burning machines that material is burned in to get cleaner
burned material and reduce smoke emissions. They are expensive and I question whether
one could be gotten up the Smuggler Mountain road without improving it significantly.
Cost of Tree Removal
All costs provided here are estimates for decision making purposes, with the short time
frame for gathering information and the lack of specifics on exactly what is going to be
done only estimates can be provided. Once a detailed job description is generated actual
prices can be gotten from contractors.
The analysis presented here is for:
14
1) Skidder Log Green Dead Only With in Road/Trail Buffer Analyzed (GPS'd) = 38
acres of the 72 acres proposed. The 38 acres covers most of the Lodgepole
dominated area but not all due to lack of time. 69 Trees
2) Skidder Log Green Dead Only With in Area Analyzed = 78 Acres, 117 Trees
3) Skidder Log All Dead With in Road/Trail Buffer Analyzed = 38 Acres 295 Trees
4) Skidder Log All Dead With in Area Analyzed = 78 acres, 565 Trees
5) Helicopter Log Green Dead Only With in Road/Trail Buffer Analyzed = 38 acres,
69 Trees
6) Helicopter Log Green Dead Only With in Area Analyzed = 78 Acres, 117 Trees
7) Helicopter Log All Dead With in Road/Trail Buffer Analyzed = 38 Acres 295
Trees
8) Helicopter Log All Dead With in Area Analyzed = 78 acres, 565 Trees
In addition these costs are from a logger who has his own markets that he factors into his
costs. Ideally with more time a forester working with the landowner would investigate the
markets and sell the product and then hire logger to do the work. The difference between
product sold and logging costs is the profit or loss. There is not enough time to do this
under the current circumstances.
There is not enough time to make provide information on limitless options, I will provide
information for what I consider viable options within the time frame for removal (trees
removed no later than July 1).
I will separate this in to a few options but generally along two lines of thought; 1)
removing "Green Dead" only (to me these are the highest priority to accomplish
objective), 2) Green and Dead. Beyond that things will be broken down by operability
(steepness of slope)
Scenario 1 — Traditional logging with Skidder for trees within 150 of Roads —
Removal of Green Dead Only (est. 69 trees)
This assumes that the roads and trails will be available for use. Since most trees can be
fallen to the road there should be limited disturbance other than along the road. There will
be some disturbance. Keep in mind these same areas were logged four years ago prior to
County/City purchase.
Prices are rounded to the nearest dollar at tree basis. Normally logging costs are by
weight or by the thousand board feet, but due to the small specialized nature of this job a
per tree basis works best.
Road Improvement: For all options the minimum needed is to remove loose rocks from
Smuggler Mountain road. Normally there would be additional costs with road grading
and watering for dust abatement, but with this small a job it will not be considered. If
desired it would have to be added into any job desription.
Estimate 2 man days at $50/hour, total equals $800.
15
Falling Costs: with Lop & Scatter - 50/tree $3,450
Cut only (Assumes chip or burn slash on landing)- $35/tree $2,415
Skidding Costs: This assumes that half of trees are on flatter sloped (<30% slope) and
half of trees are on slopes (>30%) that will require pulling of cable and dragging trees to
road (this will cause more soil disturbance).
<30%: Estimate 1.5 days with skidder at $90/hr to remove 35 trees: 31/tree $1,085
>30%: Estimate 3 days with skidder at $90/hr to remove 34 trees: $64/tree $2,176
Total $3,261
Loading: Due to the scattered nature of the "Green Dead" trees, it is difficult to get a load
at any one landing. It doesn't justify moving in a loader to load out the estimated 2 loads
of logs. 69 trees at 1 to 2 logs per tree will generate about 100 logs. There will be about
50-75 logs per load. The best way to do it is with a self loading truck with loader
mounted on a truck. With the loader mounted on the truck it can't carry the normal
payload and thus the rate is higher, I will use $150/hr.
Green Dead Only: with scattered nature of logs, estimate 2.5 hours/load 375/1d
2loads $750
Haul Costs
The main markets for logs that are outside of zone of MPB infestation are Silt and
Montrose. ($150/hr)
Silt Round Trip equals 6 hrs, 6 times $150 equals (2 trips) $900/loa $1,800
Montrose (RT) equals 8-9 hrs, 9 times $150 equals (2 trips) $1,350/loa $2,700
Slash Disposal
Lop and Scatter is included in the falling costs
Chip and Remove (can't leave on site this time of the year) costs $800/load for a 20 foot
dumpster hauled to the dump. One can get about 12 trees of slash (tops & limbs) in a 20
foot dumpster. 69 trees/12 equals 6 dumpsters 800/loa $4,800
Burning this is variable depending on hand piles, landing piles or probably a
combination. I am going to estimate 2 hand piles/tree with 2 piles create per man hour.
Using $50/man hour that is times 69 trees: $50/tree $3,450
Total costs for "Green Dead" within Buffer
There are lots of options, but in the time available I will add things up using the most
expensive option in each case for consistency.
Total Costs: $15,761 or $228/tree
Scenario 2 — Traditional logging with Skidder for trees within 78 acre area analyzed
— Removal of Green Dead (est. 117 trees)
Road Improvement: Same as for scenario 1.
Estimate 2 man days at $50/hour, total equals $800.
16
Falling Costs: Same costs per tree as for scenario 1.
Lop & Scatter - 50/tree $5,850
Cut only (Assumes chip or burn slash on landing) - 35/tree $4,095
Skidding Costs: This assumes that half of trees are on flatter sloped (<30% slope) and
half of trees are on slopes (>30%) that will require pulling of cable and dragging trees to
road (this will cause more soil disturbance). Costs will be the same per tree as scenario 1.
<30%: Same cost per tree as scenario 1 for 57 trees = 31/tree $1,767
>30%: Same cost per tree as scenario 1 for 60 trees = 64/tree $3,840
Total $5,607
Loading: These are still very scattered trees, so 2.5 hours per load. For 117 trees and a
total of 176 logs this is roughly 3 loads at $150/hr= 375/load $1,125
Hauling:
The same costs per load and locations still apply just one more load.
Silt Round Trip equals 6 hrs, 6 times $150 equals (3 trips) 900/loa $2,700
Montrose (RT) equals 8-9 hrs, 9 times $150 equals (3 trips) $1,350/load $4,050
Slash Disposal
Same relative rates apply as scenario 1.
Lop and Scatter is included in the falling costs
Chip and Remove, 12 trees/load at $800/load, for 117 trees = 10 loads
800/loa $8,000
Burning, same as scenario 1, for 117 trees. 50/tree $5,850
Total for Scenario 2 - Green Dead in Analysis Area $25,432
Scenario 3 — Traditional logging with Skidder for trees within 38 acre proposed
road buffer area analyzed — Removal of All Dead lest. 295 trees)
Road Improvement: Same as for scenario 1.
Estimate 2 man days at $50/hour, total equals $800.
Falling Costs: Same costs per tree as for scenario 1.
Lop & Scatter - 50/tree $14,750
Cut only - 35/tree $10,325
Skidding Costs: This assumes that half of trees are on flatter sloped (<30% slope) and
half of trees are on slopes (>30%) that will require pulling of cable and dragging trees to
road (this will cause more soil disturbance). Costs will be the same per tree as scenario 1.
<30%: 8 trees/hr (12 logs) for 150 trees = 19 hrs @ $90/hr = $12/tree $1,710
>30%: 4 trees/hr (6 logs) for 145 trees = 36 hrs @ $90/hr = $22/tree $3,240
Total $4,950
Loading: Trees are less scattered but still only 8 trees/ac. 2.0 hour per load. For 295 trees
and a total of 443 logs this is roughly 6 loads at $150/load= 300/loa $1,800
17
Hauling:
The same costs per load and locations still apply just one more load.
Silt Round Trip equals 6 hrs, 6 times $150/hr equals (6 trips) $900/load $5,400
Montrose (RT) equals 8-9 hrs, 9 times $150/hr equals (6 trips) $1,350/load $8,100
Slash Disposal
Same relative rates apply as scenario 1.
Lop and Scatter is included in the falling costs
Chip and Remove, 12 trees/load at $800/load, for 295 trees = 25 loads
Burning, same as scenario 1, for 295 trees.
800/loa $20,000
50/tree $14,750
Total for Scenario 3 - All Dead in Road Buffer Area $50,400
Scenario 4 — Traditional logging with Skidder for trees within 78 acre area analyzed
— Removal of All Dead (est. 565 trees)
Road Improvement: Same as for scenario 1.
Estimate 2 man days at $50/hour, total equals $800.
Falling Costs: Same costs per tree as for scenario 1.
Lop & Scatter - $50/tree $28,250
Cut only - 35/tree $19,775
Skidding Costs: This assumes that half of trees are on flatter sloped (<30% slope) and
half of trees are on slopes (>30%) that will require pulling of cable and dragging trees to
road (this will cause more soil disturbance). Costs will be the same per tree as scenario 3.
<30%: Same cost per tree as scenario 3 for 280 trees = 12/tree $3,360
>30%: Same cost per tree as scenario 3 for 285 trees = $22/tree $6,270
Total $9,630
Loading: These are still very scattered trees, so 2.0 hours per load. For 565 trees and a
total of 848 logs this is roughly 12 loads at $150/hi= $300/load $3,600
Hauling:
The same costs per load and locations still apply just one more load.
Silt Round Trip equals 6 hrs, 6 times $150 equals (12 trips)= 900/ld $10,800
Montrose (RT) equals 8-9 hrs, 9 times $150 equals (12 trips)= $1,350/ld $16,200
Slash Disposal
Same relative rates apply as scenario 1.
Lop and Scatter is included in the falling costs
Chip and Remove, 12 trees/load at $800/load, for 565 trees = 47 loads
$800/load $37,600
Burning, same as scenario 1, for 565 trees. 50/tree $28,250
Total for Scenario 4 - All Dead in Analysis Area $96,080
m
Scenario 5 — Helicopter logging for trees within 150 of Roads — Removal of Green
Dead Only (est. 69 trees)
This assumes that the roads and trails will be available for use. Since most trees can be
fallen to the road there should be limited disturbance other than along the road. There will
be some disturbance. Keep in mind these same areas were logged four years ago prior to
County/City purchase.
Prices are rounded to the nearest dollar at tree basis. Normally logging costs are by
weight or by the thousand board feet, but due to the small specialized nature of this job a
per tree basis works best.
Road Improvement: For all options the minimum needed is to remove loose rocks from
Smuggler Mountain road. Normally there would be additional costs with road grading
and watering for dust abatement, but with this small a job it will not be considered. If
desired it would have to be added into any job desription.
Estimate 2 man days at $50/hour, total equals $800.
Falling Costs: with Lop & Scatter - $50/tree $3,450
Cut only (Assumes chip or burn slash on landing)- 35/tree $2,415
Skidding Costs: Skidding (flying) time makes no difference whether it is flat or steep. I
will provide two different scenarios; 1) Huey 205 @ $3200/hr, for 20 trees/hr of flying,
2) KMAX @ $4500/hr, for 30 trees/hr. Maximum flying time per day is 6 hours.
Helicopter logging requires two landing, I am assuming use of landings at mine tailings
on top of Smugglers. Any on USFS would take lengthy environmental analysis and there
are no private landowners we know willing to participate.
Huey 205: $3200/hr @ 20 trees/hr for 69 trees equals 3.5 hours flying time:
162/tree $11,200
KMAX: $4500/hr @ 30 trees/hr for 69 trees equals 2.3 hours of flying time:
150/tree $10,350
Daily Pier Diem for Crew and Support Vehicles: $900/day $900
One time move in cost for job, $2500: $2,500
Total (worst case) $14,600
Loading: Since all logs will go to a single landing, loading time will be faster. It doesn't
justify moving in a loader to load out the estimated 2 loads of logs. 69 trees at 1 to 2 logs
per tree will generate about 100 logs. There will be about 50-75 logs per load. The best
way to do it is with a self loading truck with loader mounted on a truck. With the loader
mounted on the truck it can't carry the normal payload and thus the rate is higher, I will
use $150/hr.
Green Dead Only: logs on single landing, estimate .75 hours/hr $113/ld
2loads $226
19
Haul Costs
The main markets for logs that are outside of zone of MPB infestation are Silt and
Montrose. ($150/hr)
Silt Round Trip equals 6 hrs, 6 times $150 equals (2 trips) $900/loa $1,800
Montrose (RT) equals 8-9 hrs, 9 times $150 equals (2 trips) $1,350/load $2,700
Slash Disposal
Lop and Scatter is included in the falling costs
Chip and Remove (can't leave on site this time of the year) costs $800/load for a 20 foot
dumpster hauled to the dump. One can get about 12 trees of slash (tops & limbs) in a 20
foot dumpster. 69 trees/12 equals 6 dumpsters $800/load $4,800
Burning this is variable depending on hand piles, landing piles or probably a
combination. I am going to estimate 2 hand piles/tree with 2 piles create per man hour.
Using $50/man hour that is times 69 trees: $50/tree $3,450
Total costs for "Green Dead" within Buffer
There are lots of options, but in the time available I will add things up using the most
expensive option in each case for consistency.
Total Costs: $26,576
Scenario 6 — Helicopter logging for trees within 78 acre area analyzed — Removal of
Green Dead (est, 117 trees)
Road Imkrovement: Same as for scenario 1.
Estimate 2 man days at $50/hour, total equals $800.
Falling Costs: Same costs per tree as for scenario 1.
Lop & Scatter - 50/tree $5,850
Cut only (Assumes chip or burn slash on landing) - 35/tree $4,095
Skidding Costs:
Huey 205: $3200/hr @ 20 trees/hr for 117 trees equals 5.85 hours flying time:
160/tree $18,750
KMAX: $4500/hr @ 30 trees/hr for 69 trees equals 3.9 hours of flying time:
$150/tree $16,770
Daily Pier Diem for Crew and Support Vehicles: $900/day $900
One time move in cost for job, $2500: $2,500
Total (worst case) $22,150
Loading: Since all logs will go to a single landing, .75 hours per load. For 117 trees and a
total of 176 logs this is roughly 3 loads at $150/hr— $113/load 339
Hauling:
The same costs per load and locations still apply just one more load.
Silt Round Trip equals 6 hrs, 6 times $150 equals (3 trips) $900/load $2,700
Montrose (RT) equals 8-9 hrs, 9 times $150 equals (3 trips) $1,350/load $4,050
20
Slash Disposal
Same relative rates apply as scenario 1.
Lop and Scatter is included in the falling costs
Chip and Remove, 12 trees/load at $800/load, for 117 trees = 10 loads
Burning, same as scenario 1, for 117 trees.
800/load
50/tree
8 000
$5,850
Total for Scenario 6 - Green Dead in Analysis Area $41,189
Scenario 7 — Helicopter logging for trees within 38 acre proposed road buffer area
analyzed — Removal of All Dead (est. 295 trees)
Road Improvement: Same as for scenario 1.
Estimate 2 man days at $50/hour, total equals $800.
Falling Costs: Same costs per tree as for scenario 1.
Lop & Scatter - 50/tree $14,750
Cut only - 35/tree $10,325
Skidding Costs:
Huey 205: $3200/hr @ 20 trees/hr for 295 trees equals 14.75 hours flying time:
160/tree $47,200
KMAX: $4500/hr @ 30 trees/hr for 295 trees equals 9.8 hours of flying time:
150/tree $44,100
Daily Pier Diem for Crew and Support Vehicles: (3 days) $900/day $2,700
One time move in cost for job, $2500: $2,500
Total (worst case) $52,400
Loading: Since all logs will go to a single landing, .75 hours per load. For 295 trees and a
total of 443 logs this is roughly 6 loads at $150/hr— $113/load 678
Hauling:
The same costs per load and locations still apply just one more load.
Silt Round Trip equals 6 hrs, 6 times $150/hr equals (6 trips) 900/load $5,400
Montrose (RT) equals 8-9 hrs, 9 times $150/hr equals (6 trips) $1,350/loa $8,100
Slash Disposal
Same relative rates apply as scenario 1.
Lop and Scatter is included in the falling costs
Chip and Remove, 12 trees/load at $800/load, for 295 trees = 25 loads
$800/load $20,000
Burning, same as scenario 1, for 295 trees. 50/tree $14,750
Total for Scenario 7 - All Dead in Road Buffer Area $96,728
21
Scenario 8 — Helicopter logging with Skidder for trees within 78 acre area analyzed
— Removal of All Dead (est. 565 trees)
Road Improvement: Same as for scenario 1.
Estimate 2 man days at $50/hour, total equals $800.
Falling Costs: Same costs per tree as for scenario 1.
Lop & Scatter - 50/tree $28,250
Cut only - 35/tree $19,775
Skidding Costs:
Huey 205: $3200/hr @ 20 trees/hr for 565 trees equals 28.25 hours flying time:
160/tree $90,400
KMAX: $4500/hr @ 30 trees/hr for 565 trees equals 18.83 hours of flying time:
$150/tree $84,750
Daily Pier Diem for Crew and Support Vehicles: (5 days) $900/day $4,500
One time move in cost for job, $2500: $2,500
Total (worst case) $97,400
Loading: Since all logs will go to a single landing, .75 hours per load. For 565 trees and a
total of 848 logs this is roughly 12 loads at $150/hr— $113/load $1,356
Hauling:
The same costs per load and locations still apply just one more load.
Silt Round Trip equals 6 hrs, 6 times $150 equals (12 trips) = 900/ld $10,800
Montrose (RT) equals 8-9 hrs, 9 times $150 equals (12 trips) _ $1,350/1 $16,200
Slash Disposal
Same relative rates apply as scenario 1.
Lop and Scatter is included in the falling costs
Chip and Remove, 12 trees/load at $800/load, for 565 trees = 47 loads
Burning, same as scenario 1, for 565 trees.
$800/load $37,600
50/tree $28,250
Total for Scenario 8 - All Dead in Analysis Are $181,606
In table 3 is a summary of some potential logging costs options. I think these costs are
somewhat high, but I would rather be high than come in over budget. I think in reality
there will not be quite as many tree, especially for the "All Dead" categories since there
are quite a few trees that are older than 2005 that were included in the 2005 category due
to the set up of the database on short notice. Many of those trees are small and/or of poor
condition that will not make a log or fall apart after being fallen and will have to be
cleaned up on site if reducing fuel hazard and safety hazard is the objective.
22
Additional factors to consider is there are more trees we did not cover the entire operable
area nor the steep slopes due to lack of time. From a safety factor there are additional
dead trees (sub -alpine, spruce and Aspen) that pose a hazard that need to be considered.
These are relative estimates only to facilitate decision making, actual prices need to come
from bids once the exact scope and scale of project is determined
Tahle 3 - Summary of logging Costs
Skidding
Skidding
Skidding
Skidding
Helicopter
Helicopter
Helicopter
Helicopter
Green
Green
All Dead
All Dead
Green
Green
All Dead
All Dead
Only in
Only in
in
in
Only in
Only in
in
in
Analyzed
Analyzed
Analyzed
Analyzed
Analyzed
Analyzed
Analyzed
Analyzed
Buffer
Area
Buffer
Area
Buffer
Area
Buffer
Area
Road Costs
$800
$800
$800
$800
$800
$800
$800
$800
Falling
Costs
$3,450
$5,850
$14,750
$28,250
$3,450
$5,850
$14,750
$28,250
Skidding
Costs
$3,261
$5,607
$4,950
$9,630
$14,600
$22,150
$52,400
$97,400
Loading
Costs
$750
$1,125
$1,800
$3,600
$226
$339
$678
$1,356
Hauling
Costs
$2,700
$4,050
$8,100
$16,200
$2,700
$4,050
$8,100
$16,200
Slash
Disposal
$4,800
$8,000
$20,000
$37,600
$4,800
$8,000
$20,000
$37,600
$15,761
$25,432
$50,400
$96,080
$26,576
$41,189
$96,728
$181,606
Number of
Trees
69
117
295
565
1 69
117
295
565
Cost per
Tree
$228
1 $217
1 $171
$170
$385
$352
$328
$321
Acres
38
1 78
1 38
78
38
78
38
78
Cost per
Acres
$415
$326
$1,326
$1,232
$699
E528
$2,5451
E21328
2
2
8
7
2
2
8
1 7
Alternative
No time to address reasonable alternatives, but one needs to keep in mind that
disturbance may be an issue, but if nothing is done, fire will be the disturbance some day
and with no mitigation trees along the roads and trails corridors will need to be removed,
essentially creating an accidental regeneration cut. Pro -active planning will provide better
results.
Timeline
Biology
If anything is going to be done it does need to be done before this beetle flight prior to
July 1, and for sure before the beetle flight next year. A better time to do operations
would be late fall and early winter.
23
Operations during the spring when the trees are growing is always inherently risky. The
bark slips off a lot easier and always results in more tree damage. With more tree damage
more attractant for the beetles.
Layout
This is going to be a time consuming process and will take at least a full time position for
at least a month in addition to technician support for marking timber, flagging roads to be
used, flagging streams for protection, etc. In addition to putting together prospectus,
contracts, etc. Property line location is critical for logging and verbenone application.
After layout there will be the administration of the job that will take at least 2 weeks,
depending on the size of the project.
Contracting
If this was private property a contract could be done with a contractor of choice and
operations could start relatively quickly. Knowing agency contracting procedures unless
and emergency is designated I wonder how this can be done in time to meet biological
timelines.
A good contract is critical to getting a good job.
Operations
Getting a good operator will be critical to future operation, if low bid is accepted without
due diligence and a poor job is done, then there may not be another chance.
Verbenone Application
In order to get the verbenone application done in a timely and safe manner the falling,
skidding and potential flying operations need to be complete.
Conclusion
Time does not provide for adequate summary here, but a few key points are:
1) Concept, the idea of tree removal and verbenone is the right idea, the bigger the
area treated the better it will work. Flakes have been proven to be better than
pouches and will provide better protection on a landscape basis. Using an IPM
approach will provide the best results.
2) Treating just the road and trail buffers will not be as effective as treating a larger
area encompassing the roads and trails.
3) Road and trail use for operations is critical to getting a reasonable price and
provides the opportunity to at least fix badly need erosion controls.
4) Getting the "Green Dead" removed on as large an area as possible should be the
priority, removing the hazard trees can wait another year for a better planned
operation.
24
a�:...� •
. ,,.
^ y ro f �� U`,7S HUMe. Cfbk C4f4ry y .. �.. 3 � •. .
B f ' ',
73"t. tY �
•f • •J�• Aa iP `�'E'T`nc
r ..�y`..
A
I. T
.: y 9`C, `poP `,.
FE :. r •••
%i .y,^
t��sm <IY�c �" oP ..
�9 :�� J ..
6 s • `\\\
•
��� �� ..
i
••
• •s
•.
i�.%...;
r
i p
t °'� Y
�� ...,. - �.r..
p ��:
• •�
• •