1

Hi-Grouse Project

Social-Economic Report

Prepared by:

Mike North,

Forester;

TEAMS Planning Enterprise Unit

for:

Goosenest Ranger District,

Klamath National Forest

April 13, 2009

Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

i

Table of Contents

Abstract....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1

Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................... 1

Methodology for Analysis .......................................................................................................... 2

Social Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 2

Economic Costs and Benefits.................................................................................................. 2

Affected Environment................................................................................................................. 2

Existing Condition................................................................................................................... 2

Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 5

Alternative 1 – No Action ....................................................................................................... 5

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 5

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................ 9

Alternative 4.......................................................................................................................... 12

Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

1

Abstract

Three action alternatives to achieve the project objectives were analyzed. The analysis included 

an economic viability assessment for timber sales, a financial efficiency analysis, and calculations 

of jobs and personal income supported, and the return to the county of a portion of the stumpage 

receipts. 

Alternative 2, the proposed action, has an estimated implementation cost of $1,297,318 for all 

treatments. There is an economically viable timber sale component to this project, generating 

53,881 CCF of forest products. The timber sale portion of the project will pay for all sale-related 

costs, and provide some excess stumpage, which along with appropriated dollars, could be used 

for funding on the other imbedded fuels treatment projects. The timber sale will support 70.1 

person/year jobs, worth an estimated $2,653,908 of income, and provide $263,164 to Siskiyou 

County. 

Alternative 3 has an estimated implementation cost of $820,647 for all treatments. There is not 

an economically viable timber sale component to this project. Implementing the forest products 

removal under an integrated resources contract will generate 12,448 CCF of forest products. The 

forest product removal will support 13.1 person/year jobs, worth an estimated $483,394 of 

income, and provide $7,179 to Siskiyou County. 

Alternative 4 has an estimated implementation cost of $1,075,784 for all treatments. There is an 

economically viable timber sale component to this project, generating 31,892 CCF of forest 

products. The timber sale portion of the project will pay for all sale-related costs, and provide 

some excess stumpage, which, along with appropriated dollars, could be used for funding on the 

other imbedded fuels treatment projects. The timber sale will support 40.7 person/year jobs, 

worth an estimated $1,511,635 of income, and provide $131,014 to Siskiyou County.

Introduction 

This report will detail the social impacts and the economic costs and benefits of the Hi-Grouse 

Project. The project is located entirely within Siskiyou County. Siskiyou County has local 

loggers capable of harvesting the timber, and has two large mills with the capacity to utilize the 

timber from the project. The social effects are the direct and indirect impacts of the project on the 

residents of Siskiyou County. The economic costs and benefits include an estimate of the sales 

economic viability (return to the government), and estimates of the associated costs to the 

government for the planning and implementation of the project.

Regulatory Framework 

A financial efficiency analysis is required at “Gate 2” (project analysis, design and decision 

notice) (FSH 2409.18). The financial efficiency analysis of the proposed timber harvest, 

vegetation management, and transportation management activities is disclosed in this section. A 

comparison of the effects between the alternatives in regard to the following measures is also 

disclosed: harvest volume, estimated jobs supported, and estimated 25 Percent Fund payment to 

county government. 
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

2

Methodology for Analysis 

Social Impacts

The analysis will focus on the direct and indirect economic impacts of the Hi-Grouse Project on 

the citizens of Siskiyou County. The impacts will be measured in terms of the number of logging 

and sawmill jobs supported by the commodities produced by the project, and the economic value 

of these jobs as compared to the overall economy of the county. Entities outside of these counties 

may also benefit from the project. 

The data sources for this analysis include local, county, State, and Federal economic databases 

and reports. The limitations of these data sources are primarily due to the relative small size of 

Siskiyou County’s population and economy. In many cases, there is not enough data available to 

quantify the actual importance of an industry sector to the overall economy, making the affect of 

the economic impacts difficult to judge. 

Economic Costs and Benefits

This analysis consists of two separate analyses. First is calculating the economic viability of the 

proposed timber sale—or simply stated, the anticipated stumpage value of the timber. The 

economic viability model is Region 5’s Timber Sale Economic Evaluation spreadsheet which 

generates unit-specific estimated stumpage values. Data sources for this model include logging 

cost inputs from LogCost100; estimated road maintenance costs from the Forest; and estimated 

timber volumes, species distribution, and product sizes from the silvicultural information 

available. 

The second analysis is a calculation of the “present net value” of the project. This calculation 

includes all monetary costs and benefits for the project. Future costs and benefits will be 

discounted back to 2008 dollars using a 4 percent discount rate. The monetary benefits are the 

estimated stumpage value for the timber sale. The monetary costs include the costs of planning, 

preparing, and administering the project; and the costs associated with the pre-commercial 

thinning portion of the project. The model used for this analysis is the Quicksilver Economic 

Analysis program. Data sources will include costs provided by the Forest for each type of 

activity. 

The timeframes used for both the social and economic analysis is 7 years, beginning in 2010. It is 

anticipated that this period of time will be sufficient to complete both the timber sale and the fuels 

treatments. 

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

The Hi-Grouse Project is located entirely within Siskiyou County, a large, remote county located 

in inland northern California, adjacent to the Oregon border. The geography ranges from rugged, 

heavily forested mountains to deserts. The county has a population of 45,491 (2006 data) over an 

area of 6,287 square miles. Most of the population lives in small towns, ranches, or farms. Yreka 

is the county seat, and the largest city with a population of approximately 7,300.

The local economy in Siskiyou County has historically been based on government, forestry, light 

manufacturing, and tourism. The economic data available for Siskiyou County is limited due to 
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

3

the small size of the economy, much of the gross revenue data is not available at the county level 

to maintain confidentially for businesses. However, the jobs and income data provides a 

reasonable overview of the economy. The economy of Siskiyou County is moderately 

diversified, dependent on the service and government sectors more than the production sector (88 

percent by jobs, 84 percent by income) (Table 1).

Table 1. Siskiyou County economy by sector, 2006

Economic Sector Number of Jobs % of Jobs

2006 Wages 

($1,000) % of 2006 Wages

Production 2,459 12 108,977 16

Service 13,086 66 339,540 51

Government 4,416 22 218,523 33

Totals 4407 139,460

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis–Reports CA25 and CA06 for Siskiyou County, 

2005

The production sector is defined as the business involved with the extraction or processing of raw 

materials, and includes agriculture, forestry, mining, and manufacturing industries. In 2006, there 

were 961 manufacturing jobs, a significant reduction from the 1,704 manufacturing jobs in 1995. 

There are two large production sawmills operating in Siskiyou County. The mill in Yreka 

employs 50 to 99 employees; the mill in Weed 100 to 250 employees. This means that the 

sawmilling industry accounts for between 16 and 34 percent of the manufacturing industry 

portion of the economy, in terms of jobs. The mill jobs are even more important to the local 

economy of Yreka and Weed, as these jobs pay higher than the average wage for the county. 

The timber industry in Siskiyou County currently provides about 25 percent of the manufacturing 

jobs and 45 percent of the manufacturing wages in Siskiyou County (Table 2). Historically, this 

percentage was higher, but it declined significantly during the late 1990’s with the 

implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. The reduction in timber harvest from Federal lands 

reduced the raw material supply for the industry, resulting in the closure of the Hi-Ridge Sawmill 

in Yreka in 1999. Figure 1 shows the general relationship between timber volumes harvested 

from the Klamath National Forest, and the number of manufacturing jobs in Siskiyou County. 

The trend is relatively clear; less volume harvested means fewer manufacturing jobs. There is a 

3- to 5-year lag in the effect of volume changes because the timber contracts run for that length of 

time, and timber was available from other sources. 

Jobs in the timber industry fall into two general categories, logging and milling. The logging 

jobs, including trucking, tend to be very seasonal in nature. The logging season is late spring 

through early fall, depending on the amount of rain and snow. The milling jobs are year round 

jobs. Both types of jobs pay higher than the average income for Siskiyou County (Table 3).
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

4

Table 2. Siskiyou County jobs and wages by industry, 2006

Industry

Number of 

Jobs % of Jobs

2006 Annual 

Wages ($1000)

% of 

Wages

Forestry, fishing, related activities, and other* (D) (D) (D) (D)

Mining (D) (D) (D) (D)

Utilities (D) (D) (D) (D)

Construction 1,497 8 55,223 8

Manufacturing 961 5 42,415 6

Wholesale trade (D) (D) (D) (D)

Retail trade 2,324 12 60,135 9

Transportation and warehousing 751 4 44,404 7

Information 333 2 19,359 3

Finance and insurance 435 2 15,262 2

Real estate and rental and leasing 1,104 6 16,446 3

Professional and technical services 1,011 5 27,418 4

Management of companies and enterprises 99 0 5,651 1

Administrative and waste services 704 4 8,326 1

Educational services 161 1 1,707 0

Health care and social assistance 2,200 11 79,984 12

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 630 3 6,116 1

Accommodation and food services 1,976 10 29,872 5

Other services, except public administration 1,358 7 26,567 4

Government and government enterprises 4,416 22 218,323 33

19,960 100% 657,208 100

* Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis–Reports CA25 and CA06 for Siskiyou County, 

2006. Note: (D) indicates that these values cannot be displayed due to confidentiality of data to protect businesses in 

these industries due to the small number of business in that sector.

Table 3. Estimated annual income by job type in Siskiyou County, 2005

Job Type Estimated Annual Income

Logging $38,620 1

Manufacturing $44,136 2

Average $33,408 3

1 May 2005 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates–USDOL–

California state weighted average for fallers and logging equipment operators (no 

local or regional data available).

2 Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

U.S. Department of Commerce; all manufacturing jobs including sawmilling 

(sawmilling level data not available).

3 Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

U.S. Department of Commerce.
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1985

1988

19911994199720002003

Year

MMBF

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Manufactoing Jobs

Volume Harvested

Volume Sold

Jobs

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis–Reports CA25 and CA06 for 

Siskiyou County, 1995–2005, USDA Forest Service Region 5 r5_fm_prgm_trends.xls 

Figure 1. Klamath National Forest volume harvested and sold versus Siskiyou

County manufacturing jobs, 1985–2005

The current state of the timber industry in Siskiyou County can be described as stable. The 

infrastructure (milling, trucking, and logging businesses) is sized proportionately to the supply of 

timber available from all sources, including Federal lands, and is highly dependent on the Federal 

timber to continue operating at the current levels. The Federal lands currently contributing 23 

percent of the timber supplied to the industry. Large programmatic changes in timber volumes 

from the Federal lands will have a direct affect on the size of the industry. The existing industry 

is very important to Federal land managers. Without an existing infrastructure, implementing 

land management activities such as hazardous fuels reduction under the National Fire Plan, and 

the Healthy Forest Restoration Act will be much more difficult and expensive. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct Effects. Under this alternative, there would be no timber harvest and no fuels treatments.

Indirect Effects. Under this alternative, there would be no fuels treatment, so none of the 

overstocked stands would be thinned, leaving them vulnerable to damage from insects and 

disease. No timber would be produced, so there would be no timber-related jobs and no 25 

Percent stumpage sharing with Siskiyou County. 

Cumulative Effects. There are no foreseeable cumulative effects for this alternative. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Alternative 2 proposes to treat approximately 5,109 acres within the project area. Treatments 

include commercial thinning of overstocked stands, restoration and reestablishment of ponderosa 

pine and mixed conifer stands, fuels reduction by underburning, and non-commercial thinning of 

plantations and roadside defense zones (Table 4). Some of these treatments overlap on specific 

units.
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

6

Table 4. Alternative 2 proposed activities

Treatment Activity

Commercial Timber 

Sale Activities

NonCommercial 

Treatments

Commercial Thinning (acres) 2,470 0

Underburning (acres) 1,742 42

Machine Pile (acres) 791 0

Mowing (acres) 379 0

Other Fuels Treatments (includes machine piling, hand pile and 

burn, lop and scatter, bundling) (acres)

0 1,442

Reopen Existing Non-system Roads (miles) 3.0 0

New Temporary Roads (miles) 0.75 0

Direct and Indirect Effects.

Commodity Production: The commercial thinning and restoration portions of the proposed action 

will produce timber commodities (Table 5). In addition to sawlogs, this project could also 

produce fuel for biomass. The proposed harvest removal systems are exclusively ground based. 

The ground-based system includes mechanically felling the trees using a feller buncher, and 

piling them to be skidded using a rubber-tired or tracked skidder to the landing. This method is 

generally restricted to slopes less than 35 percent. The feller buncher will generally have a 

single-pass trail every 60 feet, while the skid trails will be spaced out to approximately 200 feet 

apart. Landings for ground-based systems are approximately 0.33 to 0.5 acre in size, depending 

on the amount of slash to be piled at the landing for disposal. The analysis assumed that the tops 

would be left attached, skidded to the landing for processing and disposal. If there is no biomass 

market at the time of harvest, the tops and slash would be piled and either sold at a later date, or 

burned at the landing.

Table 5. Alternative 2—Acres, volumes, and harvest costs by logging system

Harvest System Acres 

Sawlog 

Volume MBF

Sawlog 

Volume CCF 1

Sawlog 

Stump to Mill 

Costs per 

CCF 2

Biomass 

Volume 

CCF 3

Biomass 

Landing to 

Plant Costs 

per CCF

Ground Based

4

4,172 23,285 43,577 $113.56 10,304 $46.03 1 MBF = Thousand board feet

2 CCF = Hundred cubic feet

3 Stump to Mill Cost: (Source) HG_Alt2_R5_sale_eval_v3.xls. Costs include all cost centers including harvest, load, 

trucking, temporary road construction and reconstruction, slash disposal, and erosion control. Sawlog costs include 

yarding of biomass to the landing. 

4

The timber harvested under this alternative consists of small and medium sawtimber (Table 6). 

The fuel being harvested consists of the limbs and tops of the merchantable trees, and submerchantable trees between 5 to 9 inches diameter. To meet fuel loading objectives, the cost of 

yarding the tops and sub-merchantable trees is included in the cost of removing the sawtimber. 

The additional biomass costs include chipping, and transportation to the biomass plant. 

Biomass Landing to Plant Cost: (Source) HG_Alt2_Biomass_R5_sale_eval_v3.xlss. Costs includes chipping, loading, 

and trucking to the biomass facility in Klamath Falls, Oregon. 
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

7

Table 6. Timber characteristics and delivered product values

Product Species

Volume

CCF

$/CCF

Pond Log Value

Sawlog

1

Ponderosa Pine 4,356 $91

Sawlog Lodgepole Pine 7,217 $104

Sawlog White Fir/Red Fir 32,004 $156

Total/Weighted Average 43,577 $141

Biomass All 10,304 $55 1 Source: HG_Alt2_Biomass_R5_sale_eval_v3.xls. Pond log value is the price paid at the mill for delivered logs.

2

Comparing the average Pond Log Value to the average Stump to Mill cost, it is obvious both the 

sawlog and biomass components are economically viable at this time (Table 7).

Source: Region 5 TEA Spreadsheet. Pond log value is the price paid at the biomass facility for delivered fuel.

Table 7. Volume and values by products

Forest Product

Volume 

CCF

Base Rate Value 

$/CCF

Indicated 

Stumpage 

Value $/CCF 1

Indicated Total 

Stumpage 

Value 2

Sawlog 43,577 $7.00 $21.65 $943,442

Biomass 10,304 $0.25 $6.67 $68,730

Totals/Weighted Averages 53,881 $5.71 $18.78 $1,012,172

1 Base rate value is the minimum the Forest Service can charge for timber.

2

Under current market conditions, both forest products are economically viable (Table 8). The 

financial efficiency will be calculated based on all products. The indirect effects (jobs, income, 

and payments to counties) will be calculated using only the sawlog component due to lack of 

information regarding jobs and incomes in the biomass industry.

Indicated stumpage value is the estimate of what a timber purchaser would pay for the timber under current market 

conditions.

Financial Efficiency: The financial efficiency of this project is measured by the present net value 

of the project (PNV). The PNV is calculated by subtracting the present value of future costs from 

the present value of future benefits (Table 9). 
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

8

Table 8. Alternative 2 benefit and cost detail

Category Frequency Year(s) Quantity Value

Rate

(%) Base

Benefit

Stumpage Value – Sawlog Timber Sale One time 2 43,577 CCF $21.65 4 2009

Stumpage Value – Biomass Timber Sale One time 2 10,304 CCF $6.67 4 2009

Cost

Machine Pile Harvest Units Fuels 

Treatment

One Time 4 791 acres $250.00 4 2009

Mow Harvest Units Fuels 

Treatment

One Time 4 379 acres $100.00 4 2009

Underburn Harvest Units Fuels 

Treatment

One time 4 2,456 acres $150.00 4 2009

Non-harvest Unit Fuels 

Treatment

Fuels 

Treatment

Annual 3 1,484 acres $240.00 4 2009

Sale Administration Costs Timber Sale One time 2 43,577 CCF $8.67 4 2009

Sale Preparation Costs Timber Sale One time 1 43,577.CCF $17.33 4 2009

Table 1. Alternative 2—present net value summary

Present Net Value – Stumpage Present Net Value – Costs Present Net Value

$1,052,656 -$2,349,974 -$1,297,318

Source: Quicksliver Economic Analysis Program; 2009

The present value is the 2008 value of costs and benefits earned or spent in future years, 

discounted back to 2008 dollars. The present net value of this alternative is -$1,297,318. In 

simpler terms, the Forest Service will need to budget this amount of funding (in 2008 dollars) to 

accomplish all the objectives of this project. 

Indirect Effects. This alternative has indirect effects on the local economy. These effects include 

the number of jobs supported, income derived from the jobs, and payments of 25 percent of the 

stumpage value to Siskiyou County (Table10). 

Harvesting and manufacturing timber will support jobs within the local economy. For this 

analysis, only direct jobs (logging and milling) were considered. Jobs are described as a 

person/year employment, and are based on the ratio of logging and milling employment to total 

volume harvested in 2007 within the State of California. The jobs and income are calculated 

using only the non-helicopter volume, as it is unlikely that the helicopter volume will be 

economically viable. 

Counties receive payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) to replace tax revenue lost due to the public 

nature of lands administered by Federal agencies as authorized under the 1976 Payments in Lieu 

of Taxes Act. The amount is based on the amount of acreage administered by certain Federal 

agencies, population, a schedule of payments, the Consumer Price Index, other Federal payments 

made in the prior year, and the level of funding allocated by Congress. These payments would not 

be affected by changes in revenue as a result of implementation of the proposed action or 

alternatives. 

Under current market conditions, both forest products are economically viable. The financial 

efficiency will be calculated based on all products. The indirect effects (jobs, income, and 

payments to counties) will be calculated using only the sawlog component due to lack of 
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

9

information regarding jobs and incomes in the biomass industry. In 2008, the emergency 

economic package extended payments through 2011.

Table 10. Alternative 2—Jobs, income, and payment to county

MBF Harvested Jobs Supported1 Income Supported

Estimated Stumpage 

Value

Estimated 25% 

Payment to County

23,285 71.1 $2,653,908 $1,052,656 $263,164 1 Direct Logging and Milling Jobs: Source: 2007 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007 California Board of Equalization

Cumulative Effects. Timber volume harvested from this project contributes to the Klamath 

National Forest’s Potential Sale Quantity. The Klamath National Forest Land Management Plan 

as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan forecasted an ASQ of 51 MMBF for the preferred 

alternative. The Potential Sale Quantity only considers volume produced from matrix lands. The 

average volume sold between 1995 and 2006 was 25.4 MMBF per year, or 49 percent of the 

Potential Sale Quantity. This alternative will contribute 23.3 MMBF to the annual target, or 46 

percent of the Potential Sale Quantity.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes to treat approximately 3,654 acres within the project area (Table 11). 

Treatments include commercial thinning of overstocked stands, fuels reduction by underburning, 

and non-commercial thinning of plantations and roadside defense zones. Some of these 

treatments overlap on specific units.

Table 11. Alternative 3 proposed activities

Treatment Activity

Commercial Timber 

Sale Activities

NonCommercial 

Treatments

Commercial Thinning (acres) 2,008 0

Underburning (acres) 566 478

Mowing (acres) 217 0

Other Fuels Treatments (includes machine piling, hand pile and 

burn, lop and scatter, bundling) (acres) 0 1,386

Reopen Existing Non-system Roads (miles) 1.5 0

New Temporary Roads (miles) 0.71 0

Direct and Indirect Effects. 

Commodity Production: The commercial thinning and restoration portions of the proposed action 

will result in the production of timber commodities (Table 12). In addition to sawlogs, this 

project could also produce fuel for the biomass industry. The proposed harvest removal systems 

are exclusively ground based. The ground-based system includes mechanically felling the trees 

using a feller buncher, piling them to be skidded using a rubber-tired or tracked skidder to the 

landing, and is generally restricted to slopes less than 35 percent. The feller buncher will 

generally have a single-pass trail every 60 feet, while the skid trails will be spaced out to 

approximately 200 feet apart. Landings for ground-based systems are approximately 0.33 to 0.5 

acre in size, depending on the amount of slash to be piled at the landing for disposal. The 
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

10

analysis assumed that the tops would be left attached, skidded to the landing for processing and 

disposal. If no biomass market exists at the time of harvest, the tops and slash would be piled and 

either sold at a later date, or burned at the landing.

Table 12. Alternative 3—Acres, volumes, and harvest costs by logging system

Harvest System Acres 

Sawlog 

Volume MBF

Sawlog 

Volume CCF 1

Sawlog 

Stump to Mill 

Costs per 

CCF 2

Biomass 

Volume 

CCF 3

Biomass 

Landing to 

Plant Costs 

per CCF

Ground Based

4

2,008 4,241 8,364 $132.15 4,084 $45.71 1 MBF = Thousand board feet

2 CCF = Hundred cubic feet

3 Stump to Mill Cost: (Source) HG_Alt3_R5_sale_eval_v3.xls. Costs include all cost centers including harvest, load, 

trucking, temporary road construction and reconstruction, slash disposal, and erosion control. Sawlog costs include 

yarding of biomass to the landing. 

4

The timber harvested under this alternative consists of small sawtimber (Table 13). The fuel 

being harvested consists of the limbs and tops of the merchantable trees, and sub-merchantable 

trees between 5 to 9 inches diameter. To meet fuel loading objectives, the cost of yarding the tops 

and sub-merchantable trees is included in the cost of removing the sawtimber. The additional 

biomass costs include chipping, and transportation to the biomass plant. 

Biomass Landing to Plant Cost: (Source) HG_Alt3_Biomass_R5_sale_eval_v3.xlss. Costs includes chipping, loading, 

and trucking to the biomass facility in Klamath Falls, Oregon. 

Table 13. Timber characteristics and delivered product values

Product Species

Volume

CCF

$/CCF

Pond Log Value

Sawlog

1

Ponderosa Pine 812 $91.00

Sawlog Lodgepole Pine 4,440 $104.00

Sawlog White Fir/Red Fir 3,112 $156.00

Total/Weighted Average 8,364 $123.00

Biomass All 4,084 $55.00 1 Source: HG_Alt3_Biomass_R5_sale_eval_v3.xls. Pond log value is the price paid at the mill for delivered logs.

2

Table 14. Volume and values by products

Source: Region 5 TEA Spreadsheet. Pond log value is the price paid at the biomass facility for delivered fuel.

Forest Product

Volume 

CCF

Base Rate Value 

$/CCF

Indicated 

Stumpage 

Value $/CCF 1

Indicated Total 

Stumpage 

Value 2

Sawlog 8,364 $3.36 -$16.67 -$139,428

Biomass 4,084 $0.25 $7.00 $28,590

Totals/Weighted Averages 12,448 $2.34 -$8.90 -$110,838

1 Base rate value is the minimum the Forest Service can charge for timber.

2

Comparing the average Pond Log Value to the average Stump to Mill cost, it is obvious that while 

the biomass component is economically viable in the current market, the sawlog component is 

not. There is not enough biomass value to make up for the sawlog deficit (Table 14).

Indicated stumpage value is the estimate of what a timber purchaser would pay for the timber under current market 

conditions.
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

11

Under current market conditions, only the biomass component is economically viable (Table 15). 

The sawlog component may become economically viable if the lumber market returns to levels 

seen in 2003. The financial efficiency will be calculated based on all products, with the 

assumption that if this alternative is selected, the forest would have to use an integrated resource 

contract to achieve the project objectives. Under this scenario, the Forest Service would have to 

pay a contractor approximately $110,838 to harvest and remove the timber and biomass. The 

indirect effects (jobs, income, and payments to counties) will be calculated using only the sawlog 

component due to lack of information regarding jobs and incomes in the biomass industry.

Financial Efficiency: The financial efficiency of this project is measured by the present net value 

of the project (PNV). The PNV is calculated by subtracting the present value of future costs from 

the present value of future benefits. The present value is the 2008 value of costs and benefits 

earned or spent in future years, discounted back to 2008 dollars (Table 16).

Table 15. Alternative 3—Benefit and cost detail

Category Frequency Year(s) Quantity Value

Rate

(%) Base

Benefit

Stumpage Value – Sawlog Timber Sale One Time 2 8,364 CCF $3.36 4 2009

Stumpage Value – Biomass Timber Sale One Time 2 4,084 CCF $7.00 4 2009

Cost

Deficit Value Timber Sale One Time 2 8,364 $16.67 4 2009

Mow Harvest Units Fuels 

Treatment

One Time 4 217 acres $100.00 4 2009

Underburn Harvest Units Fuels 

Treatment

One Time 4 566 acres $150.00 4 2009

Non-harvest Unit Fuels 

Treatment

Fuels 

Treatment

Annual 3 1,386 acres $218.00 4 2009

Sale Administration Costs Timber Sale One Time 2 8,364 CCF $8.67 4 2009

Sale Preparation Costs Timber Sale One Time 1 8,364 CCF $17.33 4 2009

Table 16. Alternative 3—present net value summary

Present Net Value – Stumpage Present Net Value – Costs Present Net Value

$58,696 -$879,343 -$820,647

Source: Quicksliver Economic Analysis Program; 2009

The present net value of this alternative is -$820,647. In simpler terms, the Forest Service will 

need to budget this amount of funding (in 2009 dollars) to accomplish all the objectives of this 

project. 

Indirect Effects. This alternative has indirect effects on the local economy. These effects include 

the number of jobs supported, income derived from the jobs, and payments of 25 percent of the 

stumpage value to Siskiyou County (Table 17). 

Harvesting and manufacturing timber will support jobs within the local economy. For this 

analysis, only direct jobs (logging and milling) were considered. Jobs are described as a 

person/year employment, and are based on the ratio of logging and milling employment to total 

volume harvested in 2007 within the State of California. The jobs and income are calculated 

using only the non-helicopter volume, as it is unlikely that the helicopter volume will be 

economically viable. 
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

12

Counties receive payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) to replace tax revenue lost due to the public

nature of lands administered by Federal agencies as authorized under the 1976 Payments in Lieu 

of Taxes Act. The amount is based on the amount of acreage administered by certain Federal 

agencies, population, a schedule of payments, the Consumer Price Index, other Federal payments 

made in the prior year, and the level of funding allocated by Congress. These payments would not 

be affected by changes in revenue as a result of implementation of the proposed action or 

alternatives. 

In addition to PILT payments, counties receive a portion of the revenue generated on National 

Forest System lands. Historically, counties have received 25 Percent Fund payments. These 

payments returned 25 percent of all revenues generated from forest activities, with the exception 

of certain mineral programs, and were paid based on the number of National Forest System lands 

within each county. These funds are used for the upkeep and maintenance of public schools and 

roads. However, in 2000 Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act (SRSCS). This act was designed to stabilize annual payments to States and 

counties for the next 6 years beginning in 2001. The new formula for computing annual payments 

is based on averaging a State’s three highest payments between 1986 and 1999 to arrive at a 

compensation allotment or “full payment amount”. SRSCS authorization ended on September 30, 

2006. Public Law (PL) 110-28, the Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 contained a 

provision that provided for payments under the SRSCS Act of 2000 for 2007 and payments 

continued through September 30, 2007. In 2008, the emergency economic package extended 

payments through 2011.

Table 17. Alternative 3—Jobs, income, and payment to county

MBF Harvested Jobs Supported1 Income Supported

Estimated Stumpage 

Value

Estimated 25% 

Payment to County

4,241 13.0 $483,394 $29,115 $7,279 1

Cumulative Effects. Timber volume harvested from this project contributes to the Klamath 

National Forest’s Potential Sale Quantity. The Klamath National Forest Land Management Plan 

as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan forecasted an ASQ of 51 MMBF for the preferred 

alternative. The Potential Sale Quantity only considers volume produced from matrix lands. The 

average volume sold between 1995 and 2006 was 25.4 MMBF per year, or 49 percent of the 

Potential Sale Quantity. This alternative will contribute 4.2 MMBF to the annual target, or 8 

percent of the Potential Sale Quantity.

Direct Logging and Milling Jobs: Source: 2007 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007 California Board of Equalization

Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 proposes to treat approximately 3,955 acres within the project area. Treatments 

include commercial thinning of overstocked stands, fuels reduction by underburning, and noncommercial thinning of plantations and roadside defense zones (Table 18). Some of these 

treatments overlap on specific units.
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

13

Table 18. Alternative 4—Proposed activities

Treatment Activity

Commercial Timber 

Sale Activities

NonCommercial 

Treatments

Commercial Thinning (acres) 2,995 0

Underburning (acres) 1,453 478

Mowing (acres) 217 0

Other Fuels Treatments (includes machine piling, hand pile and 

burn, lop and scatter, bundling) (acres)

0 1,784

Reopen Existing Non-system Roads (miles) 1.8 0

New Temporary Roads (miles) 1.3 0

Direct and Indirect Effects. 

Commodity Production: The commercial thinning and restoration portions of the proposed action 

will result in the production of timber commodities (Table 19). In addition to sawlogs, this 

project could also produce fuel for the biomass industry. The proposed harvest removal systems 

are exclusively ground based. The ground-based system includes mechanically felling the trees 

using a feller buncher, piling them to be skidded using a rubber-tired or tracked skidder to the 

landing. This method is generally restricted to slopes less than 35 percent. The feller buncher will 

generally have a single-pass trail every 60 feet, while the skid trails will be spaced out to 

approximately 200 feet apart. Landings for ground-based systems are approximately 0.33 to 0.5 

acre in size, depending on the amount of slash to be piled at the landing for disposal. The 

analysis assumed that the tops would be left attached, and skidded to the landing for processing 

and disposal. If there is no biomass market at the time of harvest, the tops and slash would be 

piled and either sold at a later date, or burned at the landing.

Table 19. Alternative 4—Acres, volumes, and harvest costs by logging system

Harvest System Acres 

Sawlog 

Volume MBF

Sawlog 

Volume CCF 1

Sawlog 

Stump to Mill 

Costs per 

CCF 2

Biomass 

Volume 

CCF 3

Biomass 

Landing to 

Plant Costs 

per CCF

Ground Based

4

2,995 13,263 25,262 $105.29 6,603 $45.50 1 MBF = Thousand board feet

2 CCF = Hundred cubic feet

3 Stump to Mill Cost: (Source) HG_Alt4_R5_sale_eval_v3.xls. Costs include all cost centers including harvest, load, 

trucking, temporary road construction and reconstruction, slash disposal, and erosion control. Sawlog costs include 

yarding of biomass to the landing. 

4

The timber harvested under this alternative consists of small sawtimber (Table 20). The fuel 

being harvested consists of the limbs and tops of the merchantable trees, and sub-merchantable 

trees between 5 to 9 inches diameter. To meet fuel loading objectives, the cost of yarding the tops 

and sub-merchantable trees is included in the cost of removing the sawtimber. The additional 

biomass costs include chipping, and transportation to the biomass plant. 

Biomass Landing to Plant Cost: (Source) HG_Alt4_Biomass_R5_sale_eval_v3.xlss. Costs includes chipping, loading, 

and trucking to the biomass facility in Klamath Falls, Oregon. 
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

14

Table 20. Timber characteristics and delivered product values

Product Species

Volume

CCF

$/CCF

Pond Log Value

Sawlog

1

Ponderosa Pine 3,659 $91

Sawlog Lodgepole Pine 6,247 $104

Sawlog White Fir/Red Fir 15356 $156

Total/Weighted Average 25,262 $134

Biomass All 6,630 $55 1 Source: HG_Alt4_Biomass_R5_sale_eval_v3.xls. Pond log value is the price paid at the mill for delivered logs.

2

Comparing the average Pond Log Value to the average Stump to Mill cost, it is obvious that both 

the biomass and sawlog components are economically viable in the current market (Table 21). 

Source: Region 5 TEA Spreadsheet. Pond log value is the price paid at the biomass facility for delivered fuel.

Table 21. Volume and values by products

Forest Product

Volume 

CCF

Base Rate Value 

$/CCF

Indicated 

Stumpage 

Value $/CCF 1

Indicated Total 

Stumpage 

Value 2

Sawlog 25,262 $4.47 $18.85 $476,189

Biomass 6,630 $0.25 $7.22 $47,866

Totals/Weighted Averages 31,892 $3.59 $16.43 $524,055

1 Base rate value is the minimum the Forest Service can charge for timber.

2

Under current market conditions, both forest products are economically viable (Table 22). The 

financial efficiency will be calculated based on all products. The indirect effects (jobs, income, 

and payments to counties) will be calculated using only the sawlog component due to lack of 

information regarding jobs and incomes in the biomass industry.

Indicated stumpage value is the estimate of what a timber purchaser would pay for the timber under current market 

conditions.

Financial Efficiency: The financial efficiency of this project is measured by the present net value 

of the project (PNV). The PNV is calculated by subtracting the present value of future costs from 

the present value of future benefits. The present value is the 2008 value of costs and benefits 

earned or spent in future years, discounted back to 2008 dollars (Table 23).

The present net value of this alternative is -$1,075,784. In simpler terms, the Forest Service will 

need to budget this amount of funding (in 2009 dollars) to accomplish all the objectives of this 

project. 
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

15

Table 22. Alternative 4—Benefit and cost detail

Category Frequency Year(s) Quantity Value

Rate

(%) Base

Benefit

Stumpage Value – Sawlog Timber Sale One Time 2 25,262 CCF $18.85 4 2009

Stumpage Value – Biomass Timber Sale One Time 2 6,630 CCF $7.22 4 2009

Cost

Machine Pile Fuels 

Treatment

One Time 4 419 acres $250.00 4 2009

Mow Harvest Units Fuels 

Treatment

One Time 4 309 acres $100.00 4 2009

Underburn Harvest Units Fuels 

Treatment

One Time 4 1,453 acres $150.00 4 2009

Non-harvest Unit Fuels 

Treatment

Fuels 

Treatment

Annual 3 1,784 acres $225.00 4 2009

Sale Administration Costs Timber Sale One Time 2 25,262 CCF $8.67 4 2009

Sale Preparation Costs Timber Sale One Time 1 25,262 CCF $17.33 4 2009

Table 23. Alternative 4—present net value summary

Present Net Value – Stumpage Present Net Value – Costs Present Net Value

$545,019 -$1,620,804 -$1,075,784

Source: Quicksliver Economic Analysis Program; 2009

Indirect Effects. This alternative has indirect effects on the local economy. These effects include 

the number of jobs supported, income derived from the jobs, and payments of 25 percent of the 

stumpage value to Siskiyou County (Table 24). 

Harvesting and manufacturing timber will support jobs within the local economy. For this 

analysis, only direct jobs (logging and milling) were considered. Jobs are described as a 

person/year employment, and are based on the ratio of logging and milling employment to total 

volume harvested in 2007 within the State of California. The jobs and income are calculated 

using only the non-helicopter volume, as it is unlikely that the helicopter volume will be 

economically viable. 

Counties receive payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) to replace tax revenue lost due to the public 

nature of lands administered by Federal agencies as authorized under the 1976 Payments in Lieu 

of Taxes Act. The amount is based on the amount of acreage administered by certain Federal 

agencies, population, a schedule of payments, the Consumer Price Index, other Federal payments 

made in the prior year, and the level of funding allocated by Congress. These payments would not 

be affected by changes in revenue as a result of implementation of the proposed action or 

alternatives. 

Under current market conditions, both forest products are economically viable. The financial 

efficiency will be calculated based on all products. The indirect effects (jobs, income, and 

payments to counties) will be calculated using only the sawlog component due to lack of 

information regarding jobs and incomes in the biomass industry.
Social-Economic Report Hi-Grouse Project EIS

16

Table 24. Alternative 4—Jobs, income, and payment to county

MBF Harvested Jobs Supported1 Income Supported

Estimated Stumpage 

Value

Estimated 25% 

Payment to County

13,263 40.7 $1,511,635 $524,055 $131,014 1

Cumulative Effects. Timber volume harvested from this project contributes to the Klamath 

National Forest’s Potential Sale Quantity. The Klamath National Forest Land Management Plan 

as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan forecasted an ASQ of 51 MMBF for the preferred 

alternative. The Potential Sale Quantity only considers volume produced from matrix lands. The 

average volume sold between 1995 and 2006 was 25.4 MMBF per year, or 49 percent of the 

Potential Sale Quantity. This alternative will contribute 13.3 MMBF to the annual target, or 26 

percent of the Potential Sale Quantity.

Direct Logging and Milling Jobs: Source: 2007 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007 California Board of Equalization